[address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes

Peter Koch wrote:
> The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918
> address space.  It is intentionally left open here whether similar
> considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well.

Why would you not want to use RFC1918's IPs in documentation? Everybody
inclined enough to read documentation will probably know those addresses
at a glance ... instead, you want to throw a new set of IPs on the
market that nobody knows, nobody cares for, most likely nobody will use
and that have no real benefit as far as documentation goes ... (at least
none I'd see). Heck, I've never known that 192.0.2/24 is reserved for
test purposes ... or that there are "test domains" ... but maybe I'm
just ignorant ... ;)

(not that saving that /24 would mitigate the dawning IPv4 shortage ...)

-garry