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

Speaking as a chair, I don't have a problem with it being discussed in v6ops, but I think the issue belongs in 6man by charter.

Speaking as a document author (think of RFCs 6052, 6144, 6145, 6146, and 6147, which I helped edit or write), I'm not sure I have ever had a case in which a /32 was not enough. I might, for example, need to use layers of prefixes like
    2001:db8::/32
    2001:db8:100::/40
    2001:db8:202::/48
    2001:db8:300:300::/56
    2001:db8:400:440::/60
    2001:db8:400:444::/64
but I seem to have plenty of layers at my disposal. I'd be interested to understand the cases in which you find yourself cramped?

On Aug 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras <moreiras@nic.br> wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> I would like to ask you to please review and comment the following draft:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
> 
> It intends to ask IANA to reserve another IPv6 prefix for documentation.
> Something larger than the 2001:db8::/32, reserved by APNIC 10 years ago.
> 
> The prefix 2001:db8::/32 showed to be very useful. It is widely used.
> But we are still facing the same problem that RFC 3849 tried to address:
> in some kind of documents, tutorials and didactic laboratories, we have
> been using other prefixes, because a /32 isn't enough to represent the
> scenario.
> 
> We consider that a /20 would be enough.
> 
> If possible, we would like to ask IANA to reserve something easy to
> remember, and self explaining, such as:
> 
> 2D0C::/20
> 
> but *this suggestion is not stated in the document*. This prefix is from
> the global unicast space, and 2d00::/8 is currently marked as reserved
> by IANA [1], so it would be possible. Anyway, we think it would be
> better to discuss the question in the mailing-list.
> 
> Reviewing the archives from when draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix
> (that became RFC 3849) was being discussed, both questions (the
> necessity of a larger prefix, or multiple prefixes, and the possibility
> to reserve something easier to remember and self explaining) were
> raised. I am not sure why none of them led to something concrete.
> Probably because the draft just intended to document an allocation
> already made by APNIC, and maybe it was not so clear then how useful it
> would be.
> 
> If you agree in principle with the proposal, other point to discuss is
> if this subject is compatible with v6ops. Maybe it should be addressed
> in 6man, or other place.
> 
> Thanks.
> Moreiras.
> 
> [1]
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops