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@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@go6.si> Recipient:bcop <bcop@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@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