Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-horley-v6ops-lab-00.txt

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 21:58 Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

> If the 2001:db8::/32 prefix is not big enough to usefully teach the
> techniques of address space planning and route aggregation, how big
> does it need to be?


I don’t think it is unreasonable for there to be a larger documentation
prefix, or even multiple documentation prefixes. There should be enough
documentation IPv6 address space to provide a number of /32 ISP allocations
for an example. Even with ASCII art, examples with 3 to 5 ISPs are
relatively common.

Allocating something like a total of a /24, or even /20 for documentation
purposes isn’t going create any kind issues for IPv6, and would allow for
much more realistic examples in documentation and for training labs.

How many aggregation boundaries does there need to
> be in a fictitious network and its address space to effectively teach
> address space planning and route aggregation?
>
> The bits available for aggregation in in either 2001:db8::/32 or a ULA
> /48 can easily support 4 levels or more of 4 bit aggregation
> boundaries at nibble boundaries. When wouldn't that be enough to teach
> the technique?


I’m sorry you are suggesting for examples to be complicated and difficult
to understand.

To the contrary, examples should be simple, suggestive of what will be seen
in real operational networks, and easily understood even by IPv6 novices.

The real Internet has many ISPs, allowing for multiple /32 ISPs in an
example that is supposed to represent multiple ISPs seems necessary to meet
the above criteria, at least in my opinion.

Thanks.

> --
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================