[36520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Apr 10 00:42:44 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200104100451.EAA29913@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: ehall@ehsco.com (Eric A. Hall)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 04:51:32 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: eric@roxanne.org (Eric Gauthier), nanog@nanog.org (NANOG)
In-Reply-To: <3AD274FD.269363EC@ehsco.com> from "Eric A. Hall" at Apr 09, 2001 07:50:37 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > I seem to recall that 192.0.2.0/24 was reserved for just this type
> > of use.
>
> Useless for fully-connected example purposes since you won't get any
> packets back.
>
> --
> Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
> Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
>
192.0.2.0/24 was earmarked by Jon Postel for use in documentation.
Not all (in fact few) protocols are routing oriented so you don't
have to show "fully-connected" state. Of course, with VLSM in play,
its pretty easy to carve up a /24 into lots of subnets.
It was never to show up in a routing table as a prefix that would be
forwarded. This was back in the day when oen didn't need and RFC to
wipe ones nose. The DSUA draft is prolly the closest document that will
exist on this particular prefix.
--bill
