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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

I have no problem with d0c::/16, but I think there is still a case to be made to have some disparate prefixes. 

Owen

On Dec 12, 2023, at 00:45, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail]> wrote:

 Hi,

On 11 Dec 2023, at 18:15, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:

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.

If that’s possible, that would seem equally good; it’s clear what it is, not in the existing 2000::/3 range or under the f space.  I think d0c::/16 would be a nice compromise from what’s been discussed.

Tim

Thanks 

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:06 Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM, Momoka Yamamoto <[e-mail]> 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=[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops