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