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 :-/