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

"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 12 August 2013 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 AE6C221F9F84 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 LeNIcwqnwDHM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x235.google.com (mail-wg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D8911E813D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c11so5038346wgh.32 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=eeXRNwoPEW/2r69XJSh7wM1AKZeobJ8RvlASPiFVMUY=; b=zM13j6rM+xE2WGw3LugJS2K2m4SolQBVUwn+odtro9zuP8AYLIS1UxAp7OG9hcinkq /wLdHlGNyGo0kv1xIPilXsR3UejDJEDsxnTODLCWRvmMbllB1kg+aVvf8aKRo6stZpvz HW1HbebZrqWW3Sh3nmLVjuc5YREdp92t/HaDwWOMxTkla2HEc7RFSCq8lRo1w6+6q90y QjS36eTyYWPHerdL68ik4EGGFEHclvrhrSLe3CGOUo+BXb1e2kMOpmOYor++e6K+kBqH hpm14/1pNbaAT1xEF3HI5TJjG9osukyXbOsyyF9stVkLrMPDrq4I3zVpIJ5lgrJ6dypg 6cTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.97 with SMTP id fz1mr5151740wic.34.1376267778737; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.15.68 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.15.68 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5207E319.6070601@nic.br>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 17:36:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQz0A30O7iPovHFcdg_-nErJq936CzZ6C4M3vno1i+MbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Antonio M. Moreiras" <moreiras@nic.br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38dc0114d3a04e3b55039
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: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:44:01 -0000

On Aug 11, 2013 12:24 PM, "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.
>

As a network operator i already must block the documentation prefix today.

I see no good reason why i must update all my acls for this new prefix

If your docs require more than /32, use ULA. If you must make another
official documentation prefix do not take it from 2000/3

If you take it from 2000/3 you are creating work for network operators

CB

> 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