At 10:32 PM +0100 3/28/09, <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I have one suggestion for draft-iana-rfc3330bis (not wearing any >hats): > >I think it would be useful to have more addresses for use in >documentation and examples, in addition to the current 192.0.2.0/24. >Although it's naturally possible to split 192.0.2.0/24 to smaller >pieces (e.g., two /25s or four /26s) when writing examples, those >pieces look very much alike, and that hurts the readability and >clarity of the examples. > >I've encountered this myself when e.g. writing the examples for RFC >4718, and I have seen the same situation in other documents, too. > >It would be nice if we had, say, two additional blocks that are >easily visually distinguishable (that is, start with something >else than "192"). Quite right. We have heard that some less-clued developers got confused about whether or not two addresses in examples *had* to be in the same /24. We all understand that, but some of them don't, particularly the ones whose professors in their networking class still lecture on CIDR. It will not really hasten the demise of IPv4 for IANA to reserve one non-private /24 for a second example space from the next allocation that it makes to an RIR. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf