Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-01

I agree, d0c0::/12 seems gratuitous to me as well. On the other hand, if we
went with d0c0::/20, who would ever want an allocation from the rest of
d0c0::/12? Not me!

I think I’d prefer 0d0c::/16, which can also be written d0c::/16, while
still somewhat gratuitous, it’s better than a whole /12. And, again if we
only went with d0c::/20, who would ever want an allocation from the rest of
d0c::/16? Therefore, reserving the whole /16 for documentation eliminates
that dilemma.

Thanks

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:06 Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM, Momoka Yamamoto <momoka.my6@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have a clarifying question purely out of curiosity and to be able to
>> learn how the IETF operates.
>> What is the formal way of choosing the actual prefix?
>> Will the AD (Warren) talk to IANA (and the RIRs if necessary) and make a
>> decision?
>> Would this be done after the IETF Last Call?
>>
>
> After IETF LC (during IESG Eval) the IANA will review the "IANA
> Considerations" section, and will let us know if they understand / are able
> to execute whatever is in that section. After the document is all approved,
> the IANA selects the actual codepoint (prefix in this case).
>
> I'm not actually sure what their process is for assignment from the IPv6
> Global Unicast Address registry, but I expect that they will take the fact
> that this is for documentation into account. I personally think
> that d0c0::/12 would be funny/entertaining/cool — but it does also feel
> like it would be gratuitous…
>
> W
>
>
>> The answer to this question will not affect my support for this draft,
>> which I have stated at the beginning of this WGLC.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:36 PM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=
>> 40jisc.ac.uk@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There’s always the option to add further documentation space later; the
>>> /20 is just fixing the problem most people have now in being limited to the
>>> 2001:db8::/32 range, and wanting to use large examples and with two more
>>> clearly distinct example provider prefixes.
>>>
>>> I would support using something more clearly not a (current) production
>>> prefix for this.  In the past, 3ffe::/16 and 5f00::/8 (I didn’t know this,
>>> one, but it’s in the IANA registry) were used for the 6bone, something more
>>> obvious like that, perhaps outside 2000::/3, would be better. Though using
>>> d0c0::/12 might be gratuitous and put a big hole in future allocations one
>>> day if we run through four more /3’s sooner than expected.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>