Re: [v6ops] Idea about updating RFC3849

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Jens

I think that there might be a slight procedural issue.  The original RFC
was produced by the IPv6 Working Group which is responsible for protocol
changes.  This is the v6ops Working Group which is not allowed to make
protocol changes (but is concerned with making the protocol usable).

It may not be clearcut, but I would see this as a protocol change and so
one that should be discussed and progressed in the IPv6 WG rather than
here.  The WG Chairs will doubtless arbitrate on this.

Otherwise, yes but don't stop at /29; I would go for a /8 and allow
myself to be negotiated back to something in between.
.
Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:02 AM
Subject: [v6ops] Idea about updating RFC3849
>
> Hi Mailinglist-Members,
>
> I am pretty new on this list, so I first wave a "Hello" into the
> round... and immediately continue to ask the question, which led me to
> subscribing to this list. Apologies if I chose the wrong list, please
> advise me, where to put my question in this case.
>
> I work as consultant and already accompanied several IPv6 roll-outs
> from the first idea "we want V6" until production. While
> enterprise-setups are mostly /32 or less IPs, I see more and more
> rollouts which need much bigger space.
>
> At least in RIPE-Region, each LIR can receive a /29 without any
> justification. And here is where my problem starts. While writing
> documentation and addressing-plans before requesting the actual prefix
> at the appropriate RIR, I'm used to use 2001:db8::/32 as defined in
> RFC3849. But what to do for bigger nets (lower bitmasks)?
>
> Before starting to push the ball on the field by writing a proposal,
> I'd be happy to hear if there is support in the community for updating
> this rfc and officially define a bigger prefix for documentation.
>
> As said, if I chose the wrong mailinglist or simply started bringing
> my idea into the community in a wrong way, any advise and comment is
> appreciated. I have no experience with the processes at ietf yet.
>
> Best regards and thanks
> - --
> Jens Ott
>
> Opteamax GmbH
>
> Simrockstr. 4b
> 53619 Rheinbreitbach
>
> Tel.:  [phone]
> Fax:   [phone]
> Email: [e-mail]
>
> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
> Geschäftsführer: Jens Ott
> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989