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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Mon, 12 August 2013 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 784E121F9EA3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JT8wz+GNW19C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FA921F9E8B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delong-dhcp227.delong.com (delong-dhcp27 [192.159.10.227]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r7CIVDb9014741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:31:14 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com r7CIVDb9014741
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1376332275; bh=jyCehuZiIAWMD4l6BVWEQWXjKKQ=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=fwLpuJ8iGUgEf3oTnnuTANSODdOXmoHj+6VBR2hGA8PNzFYELZkhhN/cFPRi2fkBy nvQPL8xrgAORmw8MDhyP84xtf70WJvgK3YGEgm8cJpDd3fC7KinQxaDkPNI3lDudeo 97fRusVohQL8+7hW3VHqB10VlQTMvd1vlKBbKDEo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97DA03@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:31:18 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD2652F4-C349-41D3-AF1F-0330958C0170@delong.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97DA03@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:36:45 -0000

If you are trying to demonstrate or teach peerings across multiple ASNs and show examples of how multiple ISPs might carve up their /32s (or larger) differently, it's very hard to do all of that within a single /32.

Antonio and I do very similar types of training from the sounds of it and we have encountered the same issues.

A larger doc prefix would be useful. I don't see it as critical, but I don't see any significant reason not to do so. I understand the objection raised by Cameron, but, really, anything the IETF does likely creates some amount of work for operators. Thus is the nature of operating a network built on an evolving technology. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.

Owen

On Aug 12, 2013, at 10:17 , "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> Speaking as a chair, I don't have a problem with it being discussed in v6ops, but I think the issue belongs in 6man by charter.
> 
> Speaking as a document author (think of RFCs 6052, 6144, 6145, 6146, and 6147, which I helped edit or write), I'm not sure I have ever had a case in which a /32 was not enough. I might, for example, need to use layers of prefixes like
>    2001:db8::/32
>    2001:db8:100::/40
>    2001:db8:202::/48
>    2001:db8:300:300::/56
>    2001:db8:400:440::/60
>    2001:db8:400:444::/64
> but I seem to have plenty of layers at my disposal. I'd be interested to understand the cases in which you find yourself cramped?
> 
> On Aug 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras <moreiras@nic.br> wrote:
> 
>> Hi.
>> 
>> I would like to ask you to please review and comment the following draft:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
>> 
>> 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
>> scenario.
>> 
>> 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:
>> 
>> 2D0C::/20
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> Moreiras.
>> 
>> [1]
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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