Re: on the need for documentation addresses of all types

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 28 February 2017 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A42E129682 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:38:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jH7n_aBjEcZc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 823C0129665 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9B5D2056F; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:00:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0FD6381A; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:38:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: on the need for documentation addresses of all types
In-Reply-To: <cac05911-b313-ba2b-5bac-f493096d8aca@gmail.com>
References: <10130.1488205434@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <cac05911-b313-ba2b-5bac-f493096d8aca@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:38:29 -0500
Message-ID: <23852.1488307109@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/oH184m9lMlKPkbtto3Aa1H5SAIc>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:38:31 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
    >> I find that I am often giving example addresses in fe80:: (Link Local), and
    >> fd00::/8 (ULA) addresses when those prefixes are appropriate for the
    >> protocol.   I worry that someone will think the numbers I've chosen are
    >> special in some way.

    > I've thought about that from time to time, but what's the harm in these
    > cases? Does it matter if someone sees fe80::28cc:dc4a:9703:6871%12
    > or fd63:45eb:de13:0:28cc:dc4a:9703:6871 in an example and copies them?

It's more of the:
     "Oh, I have to configure **fe80::28cc:dc4a:9703:6871** on my interface
      to make the service run"

(which is wrong!)
which I worry about.  If someone puts into service, and is then surprised
that they can not run two of them on the same LAN, the message back to the
developers is that they didn't understand what a documentation address is.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>;, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-