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

"Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras@nic.br> Sat, 17 August 2013 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <moreiras@nic.br>
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 1146E11E8176 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 yBodghhpIAFr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.cgi.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240CE11E8158 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from moreiras.in.nic.br (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:5::96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43A9020801B9; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:32:27 -0300 (BRT)
Message-ID: <520EC49B.3000904@nic.br>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:32:27 -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: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B99BA6E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B99BA6E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 00:32:29 -0000

On 16/08/13 18:12, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Dumb question.
> 
> I wonder if there is a less expensive way to go about this. By expensive, I mean "choke. you want a /20?". It has been argued that we need something that is shorter than a /32, and that we need something for ULAs. Whatever we do, it needs to be consistent with class examples that need to get typed into operational equipment. There's a lot more that has been said, but that's what I draw out of it.
> 
> What if we shortened 2001:db8::/32 to 2001:db8::/29? I note that the prefix doesn't show up in ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-latest, and the IANA counterpart mentions it only in a footnote.
> 
> We could also delegate fc00:db8::/29, or something longer (/44 perhaps, allowing for the description of several ULA prefixes in documentation but not chewing up as much address space), by the same logic.
> 
> I see the argument, but not for the size requested.

It's a very good question. For our BGP trainings at NIC.br, as they are
today, we need at least a /27 (we have 23 simulated ASs in our lab, each
one using a /32).

Since APNIC could shorten the 2001:db8:: only to a /29, which is not
enough for our classes, we saw as a better alternative asking for a new
prefix. We thought that maybe we shouldn't be so conservative, asking
exactly for what we need at the moment. The /20 is the shortest prefix
allocated to an ISP in our region, and it seemed to be a good choice.

Moreiras.