Hi Randy,
It seems that we need one or both or the following:
- a better title for the new column
- a better definition to be associated with that column
Any suggestions?
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:45 AM
> To: IETF Disgust
> Subject: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt
>
> 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