* william elan net:
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the folks at bit.nl think). 169.254.0.0/16 should be NO (otherwise it wouldn't be link-local).
I think you just explained it yourself why this is "SPECIAL", i.e. routing of it depends on local policies and setup. Anything where it is not clear from RFCs if it should be routable or not and where it depends on local decisions & policy is what I called SPECIAL.
Uhm, no. 6to4 anycast only works without hickups when the prefix is NOT treated in any special way. 8-) That's part of its charm. If operators start to install special filters, they break this functionality for no real gain.
I haven't looked at RFC 3330, but another RFC reserves 192.0.2.0/24 for examples in documentation. In practice, this prefix is used for distributing fake null routes over BGP, so it's a rather strong NO.
If you know which RFC it is, I'll update the reference table.
Uhm, looks like I was mistaken. Each time the topic comes up, I confuse this with RFC 2606 (domain names). No such RFC exists for IPv4 addresses.