i remain confused. i am not being pedantic just to be a pita. i really worry that this document will be used to justtify strange brokenness. from my 2012.11.29 message: > are the following definitions > > o Routable - A boolean value indicating whether a IP datagram whose > destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose > address block is routable (i.e., may traverse more than a single > IP interface) > > o Global - A boolean value indicating whether a IP datagram whose > destination address is drawn from the allocated special-purpose > address block is routable beyond a specified administrative > domain. > > intended to be baked in hardware, or are they SHOULDs to operators? i > look at RFC 1918 space and 127.0.0.0/8 and am not so sure how hard these > boundaries are meant to be. i worry because i think we regret how we > specified (threw away is more like it) E space. > > does the prefix describes a specific prefix length or a covering range? > > e.g. 192.0.0.0/24 is neither routable nor global, while a subnet, > 192.0.0.0/29, is routable. i.e. might i route and forward > 192.0.0.128/25? another annoying example. 0.0.0.0/8 is said to be not routable, yet we commonly announce it in bgp (or igp) and propagate it. a protocol implmentor reading this document would be justified in preventing the injection of 0.0.0.0/8 into a routing protocol. [ let's not get into that it is commonly in the fib. ] randy