Having a large block to help document multihoming examples makes sense, but I don't see anything wrong with the example you say is a problem. Yes, operationally it might be a bit odd, but for documentation? Would there be confusion in the minds of people who are reading the documentation? I've used various parts of 220/8 address space for my IPv4 multihoming examples (because there is no such prefix in IPv4), and no one has ever complained about me taking a /20 (the RIR minimum allocation) and splitting into lots of pieces to demonstrate multihoming. But that's my experience...
Anyway, if folks think that a larger address block should be proposed for documentation, let us know what the number should be and why it should be so, and I will be more than happy to propose it to the next APNIC Open Policy Meeting as an amendment to the existing policy.
I agree with Philip, I fail to see the need for prefixes from each LIR for documenting. We have managed without this in IPv4 so far and I think we can in IPv6. Next step would then be to require a prefix from each RIR....
- kurtis -
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
