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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 11:02:49PM +0000, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Please use a documentation prefix, say 192.0.2.0/24, instead of
> >>> the RFC1918 address currently used in the example.
> > 
> >> Are you sure this would be an improvement? The example would become
> >> less realistic because 1) 192.0.2.0/24 is a /24 and subnetting a
> >> /24 is unusual, and 2) it's seems like a reasonable thing to do to
> >> route private space to a different NAT.
> > 
> > I agree with you.

Absolutely.

> >> Is there a larger documentation prefix than 192.0.2.0/24?
> > 
> > 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.

This is music to my ears.

In draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen we are running into the issue that
there isn't something larger than a /24 that isn't also private space.

Kind regards,

Job