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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15-Dec-23 11:08, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Distilling all of this down, I’m thinking perhaps we could burn less space and still achieve the desired result with just:
> 
> Keep 2001:db8::/32
> Add 1:ab00::/24
> Add d:0c00::/24

I object to polluting 0000::/8 for the sake of eye candy addresses. Who knows what future generations might want to do with this space? IMHO we should make the assignment(s) in 2000::/3.

(Also, it wouldn't amaze me if using 0000::/8 revealed unexpected bugs due to false assumptions by programmers.)

    Brian

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2023, at 08:40, Ed Horley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> maybe in the same vein, adding:
>> 01ab::/16 shortened to 1ab::/16 for lab?
>> it gives us another prefix but looks unique and different enough from 2001:db8::/32 and the d0c::/16 also
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:50 AM Ed Horley <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     I agree, d0c::/16 and a few more prefixes would be super helpful for the work we are doing regularly.
>>
>>     On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 8:38 AM Owen DeLong <owen=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         I have no problem with d0c::/16, but I think there is still a case to be made to have some disparate prefixes.
>>
>>         Owen
>>
>>
>>>         On Dec 12, 2023, at 00:45, Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>          Hi,
>>>
>>>>         On 11 Dec 2023, at 18:15, David Farmer <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         I agree, d0c0::/12 seems gratuitous to me as well. On the other hand, if we went with d0c0::/20, who would ever want an allocation from the rest of d0c0::/12? Not me!
>>>>
>>>>         I think I’d prefer 0d0c::/16, which can also be written d0c::/16, while still somewhat gratuitous, it’s better than a whole /12. And, again if we only went with d0c::/20, who would ever want an allocation from the rest of d0c::/16? Therefore, reserving the whole /16 for documentation eliminates that dilemma.
>>>
>>>         If that’s possible, that would seem equally good; it’s clear what it is, not in the existing 2000::/3 range or under the f space.  I think d0c::/16 would be a nice compromise from what’s been discussed.
>>>
>>>         Tim
>>>
>>>>         Thanks
>>>>
>>>>         On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:06 Warren Kumari <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM, Momoka Yamamoto <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 I have a clarifying question purely out of curiosity and to be able to learn how the IETF operates.
>>>>                 What is the formal way of choosing the actual prefix?
>>>>                 Will the AD (Warren) talk to IANA (and the RIRs if necessary) and make a decision?
>>>>                 Would this be done after the IETF Last Call?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             After IETF LC (during IESG Eval) the IANA will review the "IANA Considerations" section, and will let us know if they understand / are able to execute whatever is in that section. After the document is all approved, the IANA selects the actual codepoint (prefix in this case).
>>>>
>>>>             I'm not actually sure what their process is for assignment from the IPv6 Global Unicast Address registry, but I expect that they will take the fact that this is for documentation into account. I personally think that d0c0::/12 would be funny/entertaining/cool — but it does also feel like it would be gratuitous…
>>>>
>>>>             W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 The answer to this question will not affect my support for this draft, which I have stated at the beginning of this WGLC.
>>>>
>>>>                 On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:36 PM Tim Chown <Tim.Chown=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>                     There’s always the option to add further documentation space later; the /20 is just fixing the problem most people have now in being limited to the 2001:db8::/32 range, and wanting to use large examples and with two more clearly distinct example provider prefixes.
>>>>
>>>>                     I would support using something more clearly not a (current) production prefix for this.  In the past, 3ffe::/16 and 5f00::/8 (I didn’t know this, one, but it’s in the IANA registry) were used for the 6bone, something more obvious like that, perhaps outside 2000::/3, would be better. Though using d0c0::/12 might be gratuitous and put a big hole in future allocations one day if we run through four more /3’s sooner than expected.
>>>>
>>>>                     Tim
>>>>
>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>                     v6ops mailing list
>>>>                     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>                     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>>>
>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>                 v6ops mailing list
>>>>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         v6ops mailing list
>>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         v6ops mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Ed Horley
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>| [phone]
>>     Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
>>     https://hexabuild.io <https://hexabuild.io/>
>>     And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/ <https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Ed Horley
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>| [phone]
>> Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
>> https://hexabuild.io <https://hexabuild.io/>
>> And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/ <https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops