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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Sun, 11 August 2013 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 CB7B421E808E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
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 MakozMnrSnDq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDD2621F9D33 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A79C9428; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:38:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1376264318; bh=OHENm4yFugvDUGITG8BnC2SGn+zGTPcSSmo1v1B4ypY=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=vCiytD2dErdW1waaBmH1XEZez+x745EZT5rdTnt5i+xpYzo2nLt3lGdl/MVE/p+8Y LxvcMqxjNSWbJHdfFgw5GnkNjpWSZq4elJLVKu8fK4FQH0FyYfqpw5qqAoCbOYYQRg YZ/alUFZOxBS6WvUzIzkponO3hMHgvRqQ5EprtNI=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:38:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D27416042F; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id OyJjsqqDLNl4; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878B416042E; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E9BE16042D; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE71C383CF0C; Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:38:19 +1000 (EST)
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <B66D2D0C-DE6D-49CC-A87A-7C65B5360DB4@delong.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:29:02 -0700." <B66D2D0C-DE6D-49CC-A87A-7C65B5360DB4@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:38:19 +1000
Message-Id: <20130811233819.AE71C383CF0C@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
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 23:44:51 -0000

In message <B66D2D0C-DE6D-49CC-A87A-7C65B5360DB4@delong.com>om>, 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" <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-unica
> st-address-assignments.xhtml
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > v6ops@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org