Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-01

[Momoka Yamamoto <[e-mail]>]

I have a clarifying question purely out of curiosity and to be able to
learn how the IETF operates.
What is the formal way of choosing the actual prefix?
Will the AD (Warren) talk to IANA (and the RIRs if necessary) and make a
decision?
Would this be done after the IETF Last Call?

The answer to this question will not affect my support for this draft,
which I have stated at the beginning of this WGLC.

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:36 PM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There’s always the option to add further documentation space later; the
> /20 is just fixing the problem most people have now in being limited to the
> 2001:db8::/32 range, and wanting to use large examples and with two more
> clearly distinct example provider prefixes.
>
> I would support using something more clearly not a (current) production
> prefix for this.  In the past, 3ffe::/16 and 5f00::/8 (I didn’t know this,
> one, but it’s in the IANA registry) were used for the 6bone, something more
> obvious like that, perhaps outside 2000::/3, would be better. Though using
> d0c0::/12 might be gratuitous and put a big hole in future allocations one
> day if we run through four more /3’s sooner than expected.
>
> Tim
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>