[bcop] [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix

Hi

Since I've been cc'ed here, and since you've asked, my personal opinion is that a /32 in IPv6 is perfectly capable of describing network scenarios that encompass some 4 billion network prefixes, assuming a 64 bit interface identifier space. If you are considering writing documentation that requires in excess of 4 billion distinct network prefixes than I would seriously suggest that you have problems far far greater than trying to map your intended example into a /32 prefix. :-) 

I personally see no rational basis for further documentation prefixes, and certainly no rational basis for reviving 3ffe.

Geoff




On 22 Aug 2014, at 10:56 am, 马严 <mayan at bupt.edu.cn> wrote:

> Hi, Jan and all,
> 
> As RFC3849 specified, the prefix reserved for documentation is a /32 block, 
>      2001:DB8::/32
> while people can use the following:
>      net A = 2001:db8:1::/48
>      net B = 2001:db8:2::/48
>      net C = 2001:db8:3::/48 
> we can also use 
>      net A = 2001:db8:1::/48
>      net B = 2001:db8:8000::/48
>      net C = 2001:db8:a000::/48 
> for being easy recognized as separated networks.
> The only shortcoming that I can think of is, because 2001:db8::/32 is one big block, when being used to describe
> inter-domain network topology, /32 address block may easily be considered as all networks belong to one organization.
> Any comment?
> 
> I also cc:ed this email to the co-author of RFC3849, G.Huston, Chief Scientist from APNIC, for further discussion.
> 
> Best regards,
> --MA Yan
> 
> ----- reply email -----
> Sender:Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan at go6.si>
> Recipient:bcop <bcop at ripe.net>
> Time:08/21/2014 22:11:55
> Subject:[bcop] Fwd: [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix
> 
> 
> Dear RIPE BCOP community,
> 
> I got a question from Seiichi Kawamura, JANOG BCOP co-chair and I think 
> this suggestion/question would be best if discussed here on this mailing 
> list (and maybe also on IPv6 WG ml).
> 
> Please read below.
> 
> Cheers, Jan
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 10:04:56 +0900
> From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh.ad.jp>
> 
> Fellow BCOPers
> 
> Hi there.
> Some folks in Japan, especially tech
> bloggers and tech documentation producers
> are saying that we need more ipv6 documentation
> prefix than just 2001:db8::/32
> 
> When describing a classic 3 prefix
> network topology they would use
> 
> net A = 2001:db8:1::/48
> net B = 2001:db8:2::/48
> net C = 2001:db8:3::/48
> 
> where as with v4,
> 
> net A = 192.0.2.0/24
> net B = 198.51.100.0/24
> net C = 203.0.113.0/24
> 
> The 3 IPv6 prefixes are too similar and it's
> intuitively hard to tell if the 3 prefixes are
> talking about a network, or is it 3 separate networks.
> I guess this is bad especially for educational
> tutorial documentation.
> 
> So I'm thinking that if there are 2 more prefixes
> defined as documentation, I would say that's enough.
> We can maybe even revive 3ffe:: and make that documentation purpose.
> 
> However, I'm intersted in hearing opinions from other regions.
> Do you think there are any such needs in your region?
> 
> -Seiichi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bcop-gc mailing list
> Bcop-gc at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop-gc
> 
> 
>