Thomas, > Thomas Narten wrote: > [192.0.2.0/24] > This is far less than is needed (strictly speaking) to > document usages that require shorter prefixes. But I'm > not aware of this being a problem in practice.
Because there is a solidly established practice of using RFC1918 addresses for documentation purposes, especially the 10. net. > I think what we want here is a workable balance between > no addresses for documentation at all and allocating too > much space in order to document all possibilities. I agree. A compromise between wasting too much space and a futile attempt to preserve what does not need to. >> Then a /32 is not enough, IMHO. A /32 is the size currently >> allocated to LIRs; imagine a sample BGP config that involves >> three LIRs, you would need at least three /32s. A /30 would >> be what I consider the bare minimum in this case. > But can't the same then be said for a 192.0.2.0/24 not > being long enough in IPv4? Yes, but the situation is not the same: there is no shortage of IPv6 addresses. It's not a reason to waste them, but while assessing this balance we are talking about, ask yourself this question: With the current allocation size for LIRs (/32) there could be 500 million (2^29) LIRs. Is it worthwhile allocating 4 out of these 500 million for documentation purposes? I think so. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------