Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-00.txt
Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> Tue, 07 November 2023 12:21 UTC
Return-Path: <nygren@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66589C1519A2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 04:21:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n9a0eRQ7941B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 04:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E76BC14CE51 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Nov 2023 04:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4083f613275so41240035e9.2 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Nov 2023 04:21:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699359716; x=1699964516; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=jPC3c8wI6AEKKe7ioy0qG2fs5xovmdBvn4sGQsgrHWw=; b=hgYyjYtdJuL4xvzxS1JwUlO+VMpngU+Xrhh9eoDLPK06jnvFoPMm9+k1OAelNSPQOr JF1DnNL+qB36iwcv6c9RAsKSLfBMbMe5lzhhcn/dNJX/G/UJQl0FxICy5Av+eRVCxHvS mZU3T/yN00n0YwKqE0s4hVI4VNSRM/R9qJyWe5VmtD45pbfCbt20mLGUzrFz8m4Z/Xq1 T+9WA2GLS+zVwY04FvHJ7hGw3StGl0bjD0VPuty3TRp9lEdkNCJGS49sVStitZQ4jcVi 1cIK7xKF4hnaGe1C1fbL3m8zITI5efwN5o1RGWTsW27JTEK/s8AyWReQnIGObWm9FyCH p7cA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxutubt5ZlA6v0tOxwjU0oXGSWG3YvM9U7lDMF7P5Kk7o6e0bCh qVD2oNJhoPN9kcE4QkQwYnYsUDO1K1+7iHlhWayvctGHpRg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGA/JtH0KPoErD4dkKVoEriSD6qOJZuhuNe1h0qXGqskTclC5E5Vj7rC1jU5SsW9ahJWHB68OP61MoLKLEZLnc=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f811:0:b0:32d:ad44:cec1 with SMTP id s17-20020adff811000000b0032dad44cec1mr26528132wrp.3.1699359716059; Tue, 07 Nov 2023 04:21:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <169805098816.26116.8446506358091275400@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <169805098816.26116.8446506358091275400@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 13:21:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKC-DJjVp68PjrjqEYKdMT0q9yAf4N=vBFy1cPG63CLTVr6TYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038b02f06098f04d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6Y1uPFc43TqXzzt8DHAUIT4hfOw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:21:59 -0000
Should we ask for multiple prefixes while we're doing this? Both a small prefix (eg, another /32) in addition to the /20, trying to make sure that there is enough visual difference between them? It would be good if neither was in 2001::/16. Having a few that are clearly distinct helps with readability of documents talking about distinct entities. Similar to the multiple IPv4 documentation prefixes that are visually different, it would be more readable. (Some other people made this same comment at the mic while I was writing this.) Regardless, we should also have a clear statement in the draft that documentation prefixes MUST NOT be used for actual traffic , MUST NOT be advertised, and SHOULD NOT be routed? (There was a comment in some other thread about ULA with someone talking about using 2001:db8::/32 in production rather than ULA because it had higher preference in source address selection.) Thanks for pulling this together! I keep wishing there was more than one IPv6 doc prefix. Erik On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:49 AM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-00.txt is now available. It > is > a work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF. > > Title: Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space > Authors: Geoff Huston > Nick Buraglio > Name: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-00.txt > Pages: 4 > Dates: 2023-10-20 > > Abstract: > > The document describes the reservation of an additional IPv6 address > prefix for use in documentation. The reservation of a /20 prefix > allows documented examples to reflect a broader range of realistic > current deployment scenarios. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update/ > > There is also an HTML version available at: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-00.html > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >
- [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-upda… internet-drafts
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Erik Nygren
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Geoff Huston
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… waldemar
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-… Nick Buraglio