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

"Alejandro Acosta" <> Mon, 19 August 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC99811E82C2 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.134
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_LOLITA1=1.865, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OM8RFnbBLgbx for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA0F21F9AFE for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w62so1379674wes.29 for <>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:subject:to:reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SxESgtfo/BGdAJVGowcSA3h/pPXboXZngBJ5Zu8rH/U=; b=CTs+AOdOpcVcjqOlWj6q3GE6NQFynJqDEf5sbvI8vb+R/UJ9WFslXIK1IHzgvrSzxd YnfvdQgEJlrjNp5iS8GE1RrRhDHnq+XcFJKdDVnYcRi7C9Q/6s67Q1/xnNOl1bl2BdBd muvdes/4qlaECjzWZoVCQnp8jScn5P+3gpByqueWZ9yk9qxcCXsUrfA9REnBHGcdm5tU upg/3qyfmBSvSg7qvmMkJL1w8p8oaxf36NmiJ13aTEp1YeJGGuYEUnSJhEcauz3HxaFD VqBkWiD19vi3yDFAIgUUudJsHzIzTzUsb4Mejj1MD2dd9wZeUfJdOwk+623wfJKPZR9l TKvg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xn16mr9325418wib.62.1376938381783; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a8sm18821847wie.6.1969. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:52:51 +0000
From: "Alejandro Acosta" <>
To: "<>" <> , "" <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:53:03 -0000

  That is a good option.
  Another posibility is to tale another RIR similar space and to use something like 2800:db8::/nn


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Fred Baker (fred)
Enviados:  08/19/2013 1:08:24 PM
Asunto:  Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00

On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:34 AM, Gert Doering <> wrote:

> 2001:db8 came from APNIC, that's why :-) - their delegated file lists
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:db0::|32|20031112|allocated
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:dc0::|32|20030124|assigned
> so an extention to /29 would technically be possible, to a /28 won't.

Hmm. Tell me about 2001:da0:: and 2001:d80::? Per

> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:7fa:b::|48|20050922
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:7fa:c::|48|20050922
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:7fa:d::|48|20050922
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:7fa:e::|48|20050922
> apnic|ID|ipv6|2001:7fa:f::|48|20050929
> apnic|CN|ipv6|2001:7fa:10::|48|20060531
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:7fa:11::|48|20061031
> apnic|AU|ipv6|2001:dc0::|32|20030124
> apnic|TW|ipv6|2001:dc1::|32|20030331
> apnic|JP|ipv6|2001:dc2::|32|20030529
> apnic|JP|ipv6|2001:dc3::|32|20030619

To my small mind, that suggests 2001:d80::/26 (64 prefixes), 2001:da0::/27 (32), 2001:db0::/28 (16), or 2001:db8::/29 (8). Shorter than /26 includes 2001:dc0:: and 2001:de0::, which have been allocated. The neighborhood, however, includes 2001:db8::, which we already use. I, for one, would like to see one documentation range, at least for the global unicast address space, which is to say a prefix shorter than and including 2001:db8::/32. notes that 2001:DB8::/29 is reserved and by definition available.

I note that we are not discussing the recommendation per se; we are narrowing in on the length of the prefix. Unless someone disagrees, I think we have pretty much agreed that something shorter than /32 makes sense.

Here's my suggestion. The 6man chairs tell me that RFC 3489 was their work group product, so it's replacement should be. I'd suggest respinning the draft as draft-moreiras-6man-rfc3849bis (and tell that it replaces this one). You want to do two separate things:

a) argue for a shorter prefix in 2000::/3, and make a separate-but-analogous argument for a prefix in fc00::/8.
In those, focus on need, not want. "We designed a lab that has 2^128 different addresses in it, we obviously need the entire IPv6 address space" doesn't follow. Say what you *need* and why you *need* it. While the request was for a /20, I have not heard a cogent argument for a /26 or shorter, I heard that there was a training lab somewhere that required a /27 (32 /32s) but have not heard that the intent of the lab could not have been done with 16 /32s, and observe that a nibble boundary would suggest a /28 (16 /32s).

b) in the IANA considerations section, note:
b.1) the availability of 2001:d80::/26, 2001:da0::/27, 2001:db0::/28, or 2001:db8::/29
b.2) the suggestion of fc00:db8:?::/44, which I think we more or less agreed to in the thread
b.3) the fact that this would also affect
v6ops mailing list