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

Rob Foehl <rwf@loonybin.net> Sat, 16 December 2023 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rwf@loonybin.net>
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 5CB86C14F616 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:49:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=loonybin.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CU1jVwzXSeh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mars.loonybin.net (mars.loonybin.net [IPv6:2600:3c03:e000:655::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15EBAC14F5F3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:49:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=loonybin.net; h= mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:references:in-reply-to:date:date:from:from:subject :subject:message-id; s=3907404c; t=1702712982; bh=QVlpxjron/99Lk 855A4As3es7plDuBmWKlhumGRSMa0=; b=V0Sg+pjyYCo7/j552Se2ZbgAo79v6D o2j2lPS/uRcTkLZfYPtelLH6jUfK75rriohEF/NoTVAy7KZwb4CKS5qnXhnHZb5i dTKFLzQcUTX2Cj3aedweldgGrbAyFr/dBReOp+7V+4D33tU7wh21RJNmo6vzusRc UNhlQ1TV+MhQ14ezwsXOKp5f+CajphDfQGz1WS9y9HgH5SwiSIfWkDz+StL/f36X nH5PPVjU9iAdmqt9ZPWXvqI6eSKHVIEyc0Yu6an2bhMU7kbAfTvDTO2/rFKMd3A6 4XN6WVkzMs6pMqfMXmXHy2/fpQIBKp1Kd1AyPZ+d2L5EBdVw1squUrUA==
Received: by mars.loonybin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12F8A23900; Sat, 16 Dec 2023 02:49:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4ad5d8241e86761f8b8184a29c099305f91dcc84.camel@loonybin.net>
From: Rob Foehl <rwf@loonybin.net>
To: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 02:49:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CACMsEX87sVLz=8Ma-h=ZJ6gfjbhrE=Op1cYHbubCzAeNtZZYrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xS5MkzqqyYi18D_sSSUfJR7Bii-W0_pUpSS-Xsh2xHFQ@mail.gmail.com> <26F74765-6E18-4301-B7D4-3A5458BA8F6E@delong.com> <CD8EA4FD-5273-4D24-926D-DBE87D74A354@employees.org> <CACMsEX87sVLz=8Ma-h=ZJ6gfjbhrE=Op1cYHbubCzAeNtZZYrw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vRpkztfQ0xpg-4XaGdiDp5FZ-XQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] WGLC for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-01
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 07:49:48 -0000

On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 16:45 -0600, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> > Do we really want to more special address space / RFC1918-like space in IPv6?
> > If nothing else it has real operational cost. Everyone must update their edge filters.
> > 
> > While I’m skeptical that more documentation space is needed.
> > 

> One critical detail is that we need to ensure whatever it is that we end up with makes it into bogon filters and other BCPs for routing security. 
> 
> WGLC ends today, so any further support or non-support should be voiced ASAP. 

I wasn't going to wade into this, but with the original /20 somehow
ballooning into multiple /16s or a /12...

As a practical matter: meh.  It's a minor nuisance to have to update
prefix lists in all of the requisite places.

As a matter of principle: completely opposed.  While it may be a minor
nuisance, the number of changes required globally does add up, and I
don't recall seeing any attempts at a cost-benefit justifying that
effort.

Moreover, the plausible uses seem to fall into a few cases for which
practicable solutions exist:

- Documentation of a real network: use the real prefix(es).

- Documentation for a specialized audience, e.g. RIR justification: any
arbitrary placeholder will suffice.  They'll be fine.  There's even a
TBD::/20 right there in the draft...

- Documentation for educational purposes: again, any placeholder will
suffice, as many as deemed necessary.  ispA::/28, ispB::/24, ...

The recurring theme being *documentation*, which is of course the sole
stated purpose.  The space actually being configurable in any capacity
or usable for any other purpose is at odds with at least 3849 section 3
and the (somewhat self-contradictory) revised section 3 in the draft. 
Any such addresses would not, by definition, be documentation; any
proposals for same, cf. mentions of lab space, ought to stand on their
own merit.

More documentation space isn't necessary -- not from GUA space, anyway.

-Rob