On 21 feb 2008, at 11:07, Joseph Jackson wrote:

How come RFC 1918 addresses aren't real enough?

Because they look like RFC 1918 addresses. On 21 feb 2008, at 11:30, Andy Davidson wrote:

...

For instance, I do a training course where people need to configure routers, and I use addresses out of 96.0.0.0/8 for that, because it has to be clear that we're talking about real addresses and not RFC 1918 stuff.

Do you think you could consider some of the rfc3330 ranges like TEST- NET - 192.0.2.0/24 - or if you need more than one network, 191.255.0.0/16 ?

Nothing is impossible, but shoehorning stuff into a small range doesn't make for a realistic training setup.

...

Would it be useful for IANA to publish the order in which they're going to allocate /8s? That way, it's easier for people to plan getting out of the way of real deployment in time.

Well it's a pretty safe bet that most of today's unused /8s will be allocated within the next couple of years !

That's true. (Well, it's more like three years: there are currently 41 /8s available and last year, 14 were allocated to the RIRs.) I guess that means that people who want to use "off-label" address space should probably use the legacy /8s that are assigned but don't show up in the routing table.