Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04.txt

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

>>> 
>>> 1. it has been easy to remember
>> 
>> so is fc00::/48
>>  
> 
> sigh. RFC4193:
> 
> "3.2.  Global ID
> The allocation of Global IDs is pseudo-random [RANDOM].  They MUST NOT be assigned sequentially or with well-known numbers."
> 
> Given your name is on the top of RFC6303, I'd have thought you'd agree it is important to follow what is in them.
> 

RFC4193 does not apply to fc00::/48. It only applies to fd00::8. fc00::/8 currently has no RFCs specifying it other than the part of 4193 that says it is intended for globally unique registered ULA. However, the companion RFC that provided for that failed to gain consensus, so fc00::/8 is actually in limbo. As far as I'm concerned, this would be a perfectly fine use of fc00::/48 as the first registered ULA.

Further, when considering RFCs in a particular use case, I think it is important to apply the context of WHY the RFC says what it says. In this case, there is no downside to (mis)using ULA in this way on a local basis because you can choose a non-conflicting ULA prefix pretty easily. Afterall, all that is required is that it not conflict with ULA in use by any of the machines that your test subject will be sending packets to.

Blind adherence to the RFCs without context is almost as silly as blind ignorance of them.

Owen