Hello Sylvain, Colleagues,
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 <http://128.9.0.0/16> and 128.9.128.5/32 <http://128.9.128.5/32> as examples rather than a prefix reserved for documentation or something like 192.168.0.0/16 <http://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. I will replace the examples with prefixes reserved for documentation from RFC 5737. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC