IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19331A1B4C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 G-vr6nX4ChO5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 372151A1EFD for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t6OJLBIp016960 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:21:11 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DDD23205805 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:24:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC74E205619 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:24:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.57]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t6OJLAuX032193 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:21:11 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <6b60e612c4f0.55b20091@naist.jp> <6c008406e2af.55b200cf@naist.jp> <6c00eec89ab8.55b2010d@naist.jp> <6bf095d99dae.55b2014a@naist.jp> <6b50ff96a9ad.55b20188@naist.jp> <6c50a92cde54.55b201c6@naist.jp> <6c50be138e83.55b20205@naist.jp> <6bf08db1e13f.55b20243@naist.jp> <6bf0f7dbdadf.55b20280@naist.jp> <6bf0898ffbd5.55b21ea8@naist.jp>
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55B29026.1070906@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:21:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6bf0898ffbd5.55b21ea8@naist.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/37GFhP6x6OVwtR-d2ST2MO0htZk>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:21:15 -0000


Le 24/07/2015 11:16, GEORGESCU LIVIU MARIUS a écrit :
> Hello v6ops,
>
> Related  to the question that came up in Stuart Cheshire's presentation
> about the prefix used for benchmarking, RFC5180(with errata) "IPv6
> Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices" (which might
> not apply here) states: "The IANA has assigned 2001:0002::/48 for IPv6
> benchmarking, which is a 48-bit prefix from the RFC 4773 pool."
> I hope this helps.

To me, this is an additional reason to think that it is good to use ULAs 
(not 2001:s or Teredos) behind any form of NATxy.

But I heard there may be good reasons to avoid ULA in NAT64.  Not sure 
which.

Alex

>
> Best regards,
> Marius
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email