Re: [bess] wglc review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benson,

Thanks for your comment.

I just noticed the following text in RFC5737:

   This document describes three IPv4 address blocks that are provided
   for use in documentation.  The use of designated address ranges for
   documentation and examples reduces the likelihood of conflicts and
   confusion arising from the use of addresses assigned for some other
   purpose.

   [RFC1166] reserves the first of the three address blocks,
   192.0.2.0/24.  The other two address blocks have recently been
   allocated for this purpose, primarily to ease the writing of examples
   involving addresses from multiple networks.

   Other documentation ranges have been defined in the IETF, including
   the IPv6 documentation prefix [RFC3849] and example domain names
   [RFC2606].  Documentation also makes use of the ranges reserved in
   [RFC1918].

Does it mean it's appropriate to use the ranges reserved in [RFC1918] in documentation as well, especially when demonstrating the VPN addresses?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:00 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu
> Cc: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [bess] wglc review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet
> 
> Just a minor point:
> 
> Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >> 5. The nits tool give warnings of "26 instances of lines with
> >> >       non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses".
> >
> > Will fix it by using IPv4 addresses belonging to 10.0.0.0/8
> 
> It may be more appropriate to use something like 192.0.2.0/24 per
> RFC5737 rather than RFC1918 space.
> 
> -Benson