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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Sun, 11 August 2013 22:38 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 6418911E8101 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 h+tzJyQPc92U for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3469F11E8141 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ca2a:14ff:fe3e:d024]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r7BMSwlO017379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:28:58 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com r7BMSwlO017379
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1376260142; bh=d14AKEPNUAUtlHbm+rKsWBizE68=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=DcxNf58tPxCYyCGxfThbTBwK2GiuYFuWUJSnWy/MT6jLOmnI+CWgdG23crC5LI70x pUgwYPSOm+WQ2JqRv7JzGkXXB+O5Lm2hgrouGX3QM68VHJCEvqjFpMeiIktLTh76lE PRk8yeXincZ/GLQcp2SUt22OWls8zPQxK9ybrg6o=
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: <5207E319.6070601@nic.br>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:29:02 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B66D2D0C-DE6D-49CC-A87A-7C65B5360DB4@delong.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br>
To: "Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras@nic.br>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Alejandro Acosta <aacosta@rocketmail.com>, 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: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:38:18 -0000

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