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

I support the idea. It might be worth also asking for a ULA Doc slice at the same time.
I think a /48 is probably sufficient for most ULA examples.

But I think it would be good to be able to write up ULA examples and training that use
actual ULA prefixes intended for documentation.

Owen

On Aug 11, 2013, at 12:16 , "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