> I am marking this report as "Held for Document Update" [1], which
> means that the author might consider its merits for a future update.
> If the use of the "666" octet was intentional, then a short note
> explaining might be appropriate to avoid further confusion.
problem is it's not a short note.
In the current internet routing ecology, a /24 is the longest prefix
which has a good chance at global propagation. The prefix allocated
by RFC 5737, with much verbosity, are three non-contiguous /24s.
The result is that documents which want to discuss routable prefixes
which involve subnetting can not use space from RFC 5737. This is a
general problem which someone (else) should fix.
In RFC 7115, the subject of this erratum, routeable and subnettable
examples were needed. So the well-known private network 10/8, see
RFC 1918, was used in the examples. To indicate that it was not
really intended to be used, an impossible octet, 666, was chosen.
this was explained a number of times as this rfc went through the
original sausage factory.
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
