Re: [v6ops] IANA assigned prefix for IPv6 benchmarking

If respecting the recommendations of RFC5180 is desired I think the following note in RFC5180 is relevant:

" Note: Similar to RFC 2544(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2544) avoiding the use of RFC 1918(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918) address space

 for benchmarking tests, this document does not recommend the use of RFC 4193(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193) [4(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5180#ref-4)] (Unique Local Addresses) in order to minimize the 

 possibility of conflicts with operational traffic."

which in my understanding does not recommend the use of ULA s.

Best regards,
Marius 

On 07/24/15, Alexandru Petrescu  <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 24/07/2015 11:16, GEORGESCU LIVIU MARIUS a écrit :
> >Hello v6ops,
> >
> >Related to the question that came up in Stuart Cheshire's presentation
> >about the prefix used for benchmarking, RFC5180(with errata) "IPv6
> >Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices" (which might
> >not apply here) states: "The IANA has assigned 2001:0002::/48 for IPv6
> >benchmarking, which is a 48-bit prefix from the RFC 4773 pool."
> >I hope this helps.
> 
> To me, this is an additional reason to think that it is good to use ULAs (not 2001:s or Teredos) behind any form of NATxy.
> 
> But I heard there may be good reasons to avoid ULA in NAT64. Not sure which.
> 
> Alex
> 
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Marius
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> 