Re: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)

Suresh Krishnan <> Mon, 04 November 2019 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957B112002E for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:57:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AgPpwDrxmKAH for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F3812001E for <>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:57:13 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=I256n7RE3RM8Xk2J8GtbXXAeviQeNBkp+8Apq6bWbB9CAqdXxQvxZNmveHxnNQoxlN9LbLM9ksDF4lk0miaBfci1HynmqaJDjHUp3hV5CDEQexqMDcAEjO86KxkUNYd+SVoxwk3eYn90VoNIJkYmpEZBePruKefjpwDElFZPDloQeQ+F3VTO2lafcyNh9InwPER7fasrHxLg2GT6AVwe7EyjOIAvRi363oDz5/X6Na+jXEDMsJNpq9N8v3+wJO42s58GHKiuIPohb4Oigbj+CILk+kM7NIZenLemCfezsmEJx4ez5JjYxZ/6N9lxPAFf/LUUWAqJPXTZROuiMyBVVw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/IIarxwe0iJ4eVeAdmFwfA0vOum1KLdFI4PaFDCu+z0=; b=QyB8NVIpmAS4iCzcLbE8xwDPYf4Sf3cM/3P3Hv1SiBaTP+4548Vtzdb99XQPXRx+MX0/T0tlXSqrmmYNeYuzMtvSxWv6XWXsvXnofyMLvr3xxrTujiaysldh7JfSnPxLmUDMf0d4DxlxyKEFqkQo9LL6k1pvDDAu9chlJYOV/xCHmreTM30UjJS4ZBjOqvB/aU39Bm4YUSLkQuVRpLQPAiu7GJdasrF2JQfY1bbrd1v1PJDYiz3FT96DhOge2fDarPmJjUggP07kiAAEzXLSJOwTQ09DGk860nPnPcLBO2NnPDkOd1s6K7vrgBuSb+86HjRHbWiesOIO9wSBf/4HGg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/IIarxwe0iJ4eVeAdmFwfA0vOum1KLdFI4PaFDCu+z0=; b=khNrpO/ZLe0jHQX/7g7og67NfSwmDqBSnN+b+3heD1jl4JcdZbe3CBMhdUVAqVwZ5HVI/kMJ5hfxD/GLbjL4etqsibEzcV2F52pdKJmumDVx3tqmpMTozFSse2ir/q2pUaPvk2fmdNpVrK4G3UZiwixk6b6JqralZBpRTmRLFNg=
Received: from YT1PR01MB3642.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ( by YT1PR01MB3419.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2408.24; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 02:56:48 +0000
Received: from YT1PR01MB3642.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::df4:b056:1a3d:94fb]) by YT1PR01MB3642.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::df4:b056:1a3d:94fb%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2408.024; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 02:56:48 +0000
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
To: Michael Richardson <>
CC: Lorenzo Colitti <>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)
Thread-Topic: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)
Thread-Index: AQHVkdGmbpEIAXTBR06W8NLDQ1uxdKd5scWAgAChloA=
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 02:56:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <27802.1572732078@localhost> <> <24180.1572801507@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <24180.1572801507@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5f518764-b9a5-4515-8fc0-08d760d2a28c
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: YT1PR01MB3419:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <YT1PR01MB3419DC6FFB33FFDBD523522BB47F0@YT1PR01MB3419.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0211965D06
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39840400004)(189003)(199004)(66476007)(316002)(8676002)(14454004)(76176011)(66556008)(64756008)(66446008)(5660300002)(76116006)(91956017)(102836004)(99286004)(2906002)(25786009)(4326008)(508600001)(80792005)(36756003)(6506007)(53546011)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(26005)(71200400001)(71190400001)(446003)(3846002)(66946007)(6512007)(11346002)(54906003)(6486002)(2616005)(6116002)(256004)(6246003)(476003)(229853002)(6436002)(33656002)(486006)(561944003)(66066001)(186003)(305945005)(7736002)(86362001)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:YT1PR01MB3419; H:YT1PR01MB3642.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: DVjNwTo70it2vm2RZxBibVVqOBab36JHwnyT1AwW5PlXqxiGch39Tv7LyngzEenBWrGDgfVsGRvQk6Nmjeu75JQthMILLUwzJo8OzRCvC9mqz3ZJxuWd470juMuzsK+D9DxF00XYvWsDxqnHV/jqnji/HrVPrREifbpyRHf7ol6Fgx+Mo9o2GDmN/CP6y7GQZ+7tFfxHk0q30b0kpD8ajyORt380KGPIqm5A+HIU8zIEnMDdyUzZJl3pfDul+4BoCESZ8rsi62Ihe6Hmfxd9DZrd3pAlT3K2gLKDyDvpA0XUmIW2WSHClgZrCsBfWIjDhdv2bLbeyY1yKD0+2DycXYPxYxnutmI9+o0OHH1YIj26t9Wi6MD/LPEyyHec7jOa0MnhnckeAKD47MCgBHRfeo/G+apQQVGT6+6MjymsPEz6c+0RRs6E+cOXiTz291qI
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5f518764-b9a5-4515-8fc0-08d760d2a28c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Nov 2019 02:56:48.2294 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 47d58e26-f796-48e8-ac40-1c365c204513
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: B2MDVzZ4lrRXug2EzOTahGpphlrTFwZYioeTw0RUy1CdadUE/uhYC+w+qDcyd74BB9tRrXaFl76OpQmsILk9TA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YT1PR01MB3419
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 02:57:16 -0000

Hi Michael,

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Michael Richardson <> wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan <> wrote:
>>> I agree with you.
>>>> Is there a larger documentation prefix than
>>> I wish that there was.
>> Me too. I also think a larger prefix could be useful. Similarly a block
>> that would differentiate it as an example of private space to be used.
>>> Maybe we could carve out of class E space as a /20 of documentation space.
>> Sounds like a plan. If you write something up, I would be willing to AD
>> sponsor something like this. The biggest issue with repurposing E space
>> was that it would hit a lot of bogon filters. In this case that is a
>> desirable feature.
> Okay, I will write something if there is further support.
> Should it update or replace RFC5737?

Either would work for me (with a slight preference for replacing). Write up the draft and ask for a slot in intarea if possible to gauge community interest in this. I can take it from there.

>>> I'd also like to have three or four additional IPv6 documentation prefixes,
>>> plus some documentation space from ULA-R and ULA-C.
>> What is ULA-R? Did you mean ULA-L? If so, it would be a pain to reserve
>> something now since we also need to update RFC4193 to make sure that
>> the Random “Global ID”s will not collide with the reserved prefixes. If
>> ULA-C does take off, this would be a good idea to do something like
>> this.
> I guess L=1 is why you call it ULA-L. I have known it as ULA-Random.
> We are both talking about RFC4193 though.  So such a document would need to
> update RFC4193.
>>> I'd like the IPv6 documentation prefixes to have a pretty high Hamming
>>> Distance from each other to maximize the visual distinction.
>> We have a /32 for this. Plenty of ways to be visually distinct
>> including some of the common ones I have used :-)
>> 2001:db8:abba::/48
>> 2001:db8:beef::/48
>> 2001:db8:cafe::/48
>> 2001:db8:dead::/48
>> 2001:db8:face::/48
>> 2001:db8:c001::/48
> I'm not sure that I agree.
> I don't see why we need to be so stingy about Documentation Prefixes in IPv6.
> Using part of 3ffe::/16 would appeal to me.

In case I was not clear above, I was just stating that I didn't *personally* see a need for an additional prefix block. If there is a community backed proposal to do so, I would consider myself in the rough and move aside :-).