[bcop] Fwd: [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alex Saroyan
alexsaroyan at gmail.com
Fri Aug 22 17:56:07 CEST 2014
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 at 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 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 >> >> >> > >
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ BCOP Archives ]