Posted for Andrei Robachevsky, ISOC.
Colleagues,
A small group of network operators has been working on defining a
minimal, but feasible package of recommended measures that, if deployed
on a wide scale, could result in visible improvements to the security
and resilience of the global routing system.
Many operators are ahead of the curve and already implement much more
than the proposed recommendations. But we believe that gathering support
for these relatively small steps could pave the road to more significant
actions on a global scale.
We called this set of recommendations a Routing Resilience Manifesto –
you can find a draft document here: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/.
This initial version of the Manifesto was drafted by a small group, but
we need a wider community review, your feedback, and, ultimately, your
support to make this initiative fly. It was already presented at several
venues, like RIPE and NANOG, and now we open it for a more detailed
review. Please note that this is very much a work in progress.
Please review the document and provide your feedback and text
suggestions online or via routingmanifesto(a)isoc.org by 31 August 2014.
Regards,
Andrei Robachevsky
Internet Society
Hi,
From another view maybe it is better to "teach" people to better understand ipv6 subneting and prevent possible classfull style misconceptions.
Best.
/Alex
"Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan(a)go6.si> wrote:
>On 22/08/14 02:56, 马严 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.
>
>Yes, I agree, but this is different just to some limited extent. People,
>not very familiar with IPv6 and on their learning curve might mistakenly
>understand this as prefixes in one network. To be really sure they
>distinguish between the networks (being just different local networks or
>different AS-es) I think completely different IPv6 prefixes should be
>used, visually different from the first "character" on...
>
>I thought this is what Japanese colleagues are suggesting...
>
>(Including Seiichi-san to cc:)
>
>Cheers, Jan
>
>> 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(a)go6.si>
>> *Recipient:*bcop <bcop(a)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(a)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(a)elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop-gc
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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(a)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(a)elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop-gc
