Please find my comments below, inline...
Hello Sylvain, Colleagues,
Hi Edward,
Thanks for your email, brother :-)
On 9 Jul 2022, at 22:52, Sylvain Baya via db-wg <
db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
...
Is your issue simply with using 128.9.0.0/16 and 128.9.128.5/32 as
examples rather than a prefix reserved for documentation or something
like 192.168.0.0/16?
No! as i have tried to say, it's about using an active
prefix, as an example of unreachable network's
prefix.
...i understand that it's out there well before it
became reachable; but imho there is no reason
to keep using it for such usecase :-/
Thank you for pointing this out.
The paragraph following the "holes:" attribute definition is intended to describe the format of an address prefix, and the prefixes listed are not examples of holes.
That's why Cynthya (i apologize!), rightly, asked me to clarify :'-(
...thanks! i think, i got it now ; having read (!) it finally :-)
I will replace the examples with prefixes reserved for documentation from RFC 5737.
Thanks!
btw, now, have you considered the issue raised by Cynthia?
...i can see the progress here [1].
__
[1]: Use documentation prefix
192.0.2.0/24 from RFC 5737 instead of live network prefix from non-RIPE region. (
#1044)
Shalom,
--sb.
Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC