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

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Sun, 03 November 2019 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
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 8F7E112009E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:34:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LG_aJfnOA1Hu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32a.google.com (mail-ot1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29739120090 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 14:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id b16so12829896otk.9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:34:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0Hh2rQsXlrcSaOWjZSyHh+576q0zhwNwBafcjsRnLiE=; b=ZewixuyvPfXNUMsufRccf3Z1HQHpgsPk1Wlqn0geqSxQFVUHOu+J45zQYmlfDui5KV KgtLK6inESoRVXJjlRqUXWkHcKBVZrTcD9FplXkIHbeLPYHjPIJheeg5MlquOmiQbLbe lfmAWkos1EsyR8+kvH6O9a5WqcplOB5RjcYY7Fdy00Zo9tMqA832sSkx5VYehFsFspJq vpTaOcWRpSnKT5gDjy8vpSOQfU2+HGOYU+CyMXHAu6zK50GWuXeAAWTxXsU0LQk5GEEh wdNOaqeUn5dQR/NsYwtE9jTo2TdZUofupmfPbExZ0i0MV6Uhq1RCMG8NGSikEiH4HlhS 1ODg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0Hh2rQsXlrcSaOWjZSyHh+576q0zhwNwBafcjsRnLiE=; b=cXtriX2mg9i/uJmVOCfrKeEMbBHNqL3CIIKM0ofqsvoGWPWZtDVqzcGsFJ4IpNBWRw nGMOVErbrbztFQNJzfDV7hCvbTHG9WqtZrbCrK4l7G3Cpo/Fk44+UlQKUyuXhF0KExfw QP+fZNNoqtISjSn8igx/4zZqa9Awq7LojfKtVpUSbvp1HgpNHHioSuboH7xODyt2FgHJ 6ohZ/yoZwApTXBLjSjGIa7m+eUz749teFqG2p4pJGBa7gQSnIInSoVSSNKaKStCDbbmr vYlvTBay2jkN2x4twBZYfaypyEzkkCaN68mxKljUNIrbxLiJbMHxM2m54H0NeOyDcqsU z8KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWLiK0LXGT/2jp0Ide6Sjk0plcKu/I5c38FV4f5NrIUxXislZx0 D1GvRO1ht8KLlZg1NOz8q+UhFoABNTVFUjofRQM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwW36l76VmMH17xXXOVvjqwmmSxzUosCRPINLPPX9tdCLIsncnB/kcZxpX7nbDuuTdckQEVY+p1qWn2jOHm7MU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:611c:: with SMTP id i28mr14028352otj.348.1572820460557; Sun, 03 Nov 2019 14:34:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com> <CAKD1Yr1vOqTvEsv0oCm+bu7CkFwiyFv8_G1XM+4JAKYLoA21aA@mail.gmail.com> <27802.1572732078@localhost> <F95A29A5-CEAF-4A23-A678-C5465B248E42@kaloom.com> <24180.1572801507@localhost> <7fd283ed-2328-6a9e-eb86-c5c155ebfd84@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fd283ed-2328-6a9e-eb86-c5c155ebfd84@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:34:09 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2wd+uycvhe8+NNkOG_HFvaRMUonzb2_Q0xxNE2OfigSGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Additional Documentation Prefixes (was Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d8d983059678cce2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qNjsx7jOfZbKR3qLQoWgqVIvp1g>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 22:34:23 -0000

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, 06:33 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On 04-Nov-19 06:18, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>; wrote:
> ...
> >     >> 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 think this is a bad and pointless idea. Pointless because it is 100% OK
> to use any RFC4193 prefix as an example, since by definition it will never
> be used on the Internet, and the chance of collision on a given ULA site
> is 1 in 2**40 (and who cares anyway?). Bad because it means that millions
> of existing boxes that can generate ULA prefixes would be non-conformant
> and, seriously, is any vendor going to update date their firmware for this?
>

I redacted my ULA in examples in a presentation I did recently. That made
it impossible to type in and for somebody to duplicate.

If the goal is ensure people can't try to use these example addresses on
real networks, then perhaps using invalid addresses in the document with a
note that they're examples and invalid on purpose is a better idea.

For example, using non-hexidecimal letters, with a note about them being
substitutes for 'a' through 'f'.

E.g.

2001:db8:xxxx:yyyy::zzz1








> Regards,
>    Brian
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>