Re: draft-bonica-special-purpose-04.txt

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:45 -0500 Randy Bush
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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:
>...
>> 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. ]

And a slightly-related one.  At least one prominent ISP is not
giving IPv4 addresses out to its small business customers as
a.b.c.d/N with the boundary router address at the top or bottom
of that range.  Instead, it is giving out a "range" of a.b.c.d -
a.b.c.e (e > d >> 1) and then telling the customer to use
a.b.c.1 as the boundary router address.    Is that prohibited?
Can one route from a.b.c.y to a.b.c.x  (1 << x < d < y < e) and
do any our definitions make that harder or easier?

Like Geoff, I have an opinion about how the registry(/ies)
should be organized but believe that is a matter of taste as
long as the information is correct and clear.   

But anything that defines one of these terms or restates the
definitions must be absolutely precise and clear lest we cause
ourselves real problems down the line.

    john