IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 02 November 2019 22:01 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 85A43120074 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 MmWeb-oYRNKD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 00E48120013 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 15:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21FC13897A; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 17:58:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1139612; Sat, 2 Nov 2019 18:01:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: AD Evaluation : draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64-06
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1vOqTvEsv0oCm+bu7CkFwiyFv8_G1XM+4JAKYLoA21aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F1B31C38-7CDB-4057-A573-D6AF76B264D3@kaloom.com> <CAKD1Yr1vOqTvEsv0oCm+bu7CkFwiyFv8_G1XM+4JAKYLoA21aA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 18:01:18 -0400
Message-ID: <27802.1572732078@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wOJUfbmeTAEFo7_mJvHZhQC5Ok0>
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 22:01:22 -0000

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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.

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

I wish that there was.
Maybe we could carve out of class E space as a /20 of documentation space.
I'd also like to have three or four additional IPv6 documentation prefixes,
plus some documentation space from ULA-R and ULA-C.

I'd like the IPv6 documentation prefixes to have a pretty high Hamming
Distance from each other to maximize the visual distinction.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email