Hello Peter, Why not use private address space in documentation? It is used many times for things it is not really designed for, but it works great. For example the 10.254.254.0/24 is a range I did see a long time back in documentation, it is something that could be used in documentation I guess. Default private address space that is used on devices are in the 192.168.x.x range and 10.0.x.x and 10.10.x.x and 10.8.x.x range for as far as I know. Wasting IPv4 IPs isn't good for the future I guess. Also I am missing some other private address space that I did never see in use. Best regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Peter Koch Sent: woensdag 15 april 2009 18:58 To: RIPE address policy WG Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes Dear WG, this is a rough draft policy proposal. I'd appreciate some feedback before I decide whether to invoke the formal process. Summary: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes. Background: In example configurations, RFCs, training material and other documentation it is necessary from time to time to include IP addresses, domain names or even phone numbers as examples. These resources should meet all syntactical requirements (e.g., be "real" IP addresses), but should not interfere with assignments or registrations by innocent third parties. See RFC 4085 (BCP 105) for what could happen in the worst case. For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been dedicated for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see RFC 3330). RFC 3849 ("IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") documents APNIC's assignment of 2001:DB8::/32 for the sole use in example texts. Motivation: During recent discussion within the IETF, but also on other occasions in the past, it appeared that a single /24 is often not enough to support instructive examples. This may include more complex network designs, or the use of addresses for DNS name servers, where good practice (see RFC 2182, BCP 16) suggests topological diversity. Sometimes, address space from RFC 1918 (BCP 5) is used in addition to or as a replacement for 192.0.2/24, but this is also a source of confusion due to the special nature of the "private address space". It also conflicts with the goal to avoid any collision with addresses used in real life, even if the burden would be spread across many users of RFC 1918 address space. Request: The RIPE NCC is asked to assign and dedicate a /24 that is reasonable visually distinct from 192.0.2/24 for documentation only purposes. The network is not to be used and the prefix is never expected to be announced in any BGP session (cf. 3849). The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918 address space. It is intentionally left open here whether similar considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well. The pros should be obvious to anyone who ever had to write documentation or example configurations, but there are also some cons: o another /24 is a waste of space o just a /24 won't be enough o this creates yet another bogon o any invest in IPv4 is a waste of resources, anyway o nobody knew 192.0.2/24 in the first place, so why add to the confusion? o this doesn't need a policy proposal, but could be dealt with through a specially "sponsored" PI assignment A special action seems cleaner to me than some random PI assignment, but this is why I'd like to ask the WG for feedback. Also, if anyone is aware of other address space similar to 192.0.2/24, I'd appreciate a pointer. Best regards, Peter