[v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00

"Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras@nic.br> Sun, 11 August 2013 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <moreiras@nic.br>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6141411E80F8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IaFIx4xGIq5D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.cgi.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F50921F93C4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB8112080194; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:16:41 -0300 (BRT)
Message-ID: <5207E319.6070601@nic.br>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:16:41 -0300
From: "Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras@nic.br>
Organization: NIC.br
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br>
In-Reply-To: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>
Subject: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:23:56 -0000


I would like to ask you to please review and comment the following draft:


It intends to ask IANA to reserve another IPv6 prefix for documentation.
Something larger than the 2001:db8::/32, reserved by APNIC 10 years ago.

The prefix 2001:db8::/32 showed to be very useful. It is widely used.
But we are still facing the same problem that RFC 3849 tried to address:
in some kind of documents, tutorials and didactic laboratories, we have
been using other prefixes, because a /32 isn't enough to represent the

We consider that a /20 would be enough.

If possible, we would like to ask IANA to reserve something easy to
remember, and self explaining, such as:


but *this suggestion is not stated in the document*. This prefix is from
the global unicast space, and 2d00::/8 is currently marked as reserved
by IANA [1], so it would be possible. Anyway, we think it would be
better to discuss the question in the mailing-list.

Reviewing the archives from when draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix
(that became RFC 3849) was being discussed, both questions (the
necessity of a larger prefix, or multiple prefixes, and the possibility
to reserve something easier to remember and self explaining) were
raised. I am not sure why none of them led to something concrete.
Probably because the draft just intended to document an allocation
already made by APNIC, and maybe it was not so clear then how useful it
would be.

If you agree in principle with the proposal, other point to discuss is
if this subject is compatible with v6ops. Maybe it should be addressed
in 6man, or other place.