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

I think all of Fred's recommendations below are spot on. I support the changes and I like the idea of 2001:db0::/28.

In such a case, should we stick with fc00:db8::/44 or should we consider fc00:db0::/28 for parity? I'm OK either way, just looking to minimize potential confusion and wondering if the tradeoff in space is worth while or not. What do others think?

Owen

On Aug 19, 2013, at 10:38 , "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 5:34 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> 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 ftp://ftp.apnic.net/public/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-ipv6-assigned-latest
> 
>> 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.
> 
> http://www.apnic.net/publications/research-and-insights/ip-address-trends/apnic-resource-range#IPv6Allocation 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org 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 http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml#iana-ipv6-special-registry-1
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops