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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Owen DeLong write
s:
> 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.

Why?

The purpose of reserving a prefix for documentation is to ensure
that documentation prefixes doesn't clash with ones assigned by a
registries.  For locally assigned ULA don't need a reserved prefix
because there is no registry assignments to clash with.  For centrally
assigned ULA there is no registry yet so no practical examples can
exist.  When such a registry is assigned we can document a prefix in the
meantime just generate a new prefix when you write your documentation.

	dd if=/dev/random bs=5 count=1 | od -tx1 |
	awk '/000000/ { print "fd" $2 ":" $3 $4 ":" $5 $6 ; exit}

Or flip a coin 40 times.  Heads 1, tails 0.

Mark

> Owen
>
> On Aug 11, 2013, at 12:16 , "Antonio M. Moreiras" <[e-mail]> 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-unica
> st-address-assignments.xhtml
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]