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

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Tue, 13 August 2013 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9374811E81A7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BipOxGiR7AG1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6789211E81BA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.10
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,872,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="117287925"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.10]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 13 Aug 2013 15:57:44 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.78]) by PRVPEXHUB01.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.10]) with mapi; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:58:42 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:58:41 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
Thread-Index: Ac6YU1tPieRTQglBSzqqyIM6PYUM1AABtTTw
Message-ID: <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230439ABF936@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com>
References: <5207D42F.2030302@nic.br> <5207E319.6070601@nic.br> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B97DA03@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CA+z-_EWFAGFqyo3E3LzrEhpMRV6axdLJTC50BNwXMNGuJtZuTA@mail.gmail.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230439ABEFA4@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <A84D9405-B3D2-4D55-BAEE-FE25ACE45EB6@delong.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230439ABF00C@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <7E5164F5-CB38-49D1-94F5-5125FCD2416E@delong.com> <52095DAF.2050505@nic.br> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230439ABF61A@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <4910BB30-FF77-4E69-8B60-E35E5847DB2F@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4910BB30-FF77-4E69-8B60-E35E5847DB2F@delong.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:58:49 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:29 PM
> To: George, Wes
> Cc: Antonio M. Moreiras; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis-00
>
>
>
> The original proposal for a larger doc prefix is all about being able to
> write books and training scenarios that use a doc prefix and talk about
> carving up larger chunks of address space.
[WEG] The thing I don't understand about that is how carving x subnet blocks out of a /32 is different from carving x blocks out of a /48 or x blocks out of a /20 or whatever you start with as it concerns documentation. Other than the prefix lengths being somewhat longer, the examples of how to subnet, how to configure routing, etc still hold, don't they? AFAICT, as long as you don't end up subnetting below /64, there's really no issue. Yes, real routing policy likely won't pass a bunch of /64s, but for a lab such as what you detailed, and the subtending documentation that should work just fine, no? Especially given that the goal is to teach someone how to do something, instead of simply giving them something to copy with no understanding of what it's doing.

For ab initio training,
> trying to teach students that these ULA examples are not really
> applicable to ULA, but should be used with GUA is very confusing and it
> really does break their brains. Allocating a larger doc prefix would
> help with this scenario a lot.
[WEG] A point I'll concede, and one that should make it into the draft. :-)

>
> Secondarily, I mentioned that while we were considering an additional
> doc prefix, it might make sense to also look at allocating a third doc
> prefix for creating ULA examples. I think this should come from the
> fc00::/8 space which is currently unusable  anyway, and which would
> allow examples describing the use of (and reasons not to use) ULA with a
> prefix that would be easily identified if the examples were erroneously
> copied into the real world.
>
> >> I would prefer to choose an arbitrary prefix, inside or outside
> >> 2000::/3, but that "looks like" a GUA, than use ULAs in the classes.
> > [WEG] Might I suggest repurposing all or part of 0200::/7? (RFC4048).
> Even if we don't officially allocate it as additional documentation
> space, that seems a safe squat point for things like training, likely to
> already be filtered by SPs as bogon space, etc.
>
> Works for me.
>
> I would suggest 0200:2000::/20 to fit with the other requestors' desire
> for a /20. For my needs, even 0200:2200::/24 would be adequate.
>

[WEG] at the risk of debating bikeshed colors, I would suggest perhaps using :db8:: for both the proposed GUA and ULA doc prefixes so that it serves as a visual cue.

Thanks
Wes George

Anything below this line has been added by my company's mail server, I have no control over it.
-----------------

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.