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@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@elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop-gc