Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-00.txt

From: Philip Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:26:42 +1000

Hi Michel,

We are simply documenting existing APNIC policy in this draft.

Having a large block to help document multihoming examples makes sense, but 
I don't see anything wrong with the example you say is a problem. Yes, 
operationally it might be a bit odd, but for documentation? Would there be 
confusion in the minds of people who are reading the documentation? I've 
used various parts of 220/8 address space for my IPv4 multihoming examples 
(because there is no such prefix in IPv4), and no one has ever complained 
about me taking a /20 (the RIR minimum allocation) and splitting into lots 
of pieces to demonstrate multihoming. But that's my experience...

Anyway, if folks think that a larger address block should be proposed for 
documentation, let us know what the number should be and why it should be 
so, and I will be more than happy to propose it to the next APNIC Open 
Policy Meeting as an amendment to the existing policy.

philip
--

At 20:29 27/02/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > Internet-Drafts directories.
> > Title     : IPv6 Documentation Address
> > Author(s) : G. Huston, A. Lord, P. Smith
> > Filename  : draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-00.txt
>
>This text is a good beginning, but as I mentioned earlier a single /32
>is not enough to document multihoming scenarios.
>
>A site receives connectivity from 3 LIRs; the site is assigned three
>/48s.
>It would be confusing to make these three /48 part of the same /32 as
>lots of people would assume that a LIR gets a /32 as it is current
>policy.
>
>Example:
>Prefix assigned by LIR 1: 2001:0DB8:1234::/48
>Prefix assigned by LIR 2: 2001:0DB8:5678::/48
>Prefix assigned by LIR 3: 2001:0DB8:ABCD::/48
>Something does not register here, as people might assume that LIRs 1,2
>and 3 are tier-2 or -3 LIRs that all get transit from a bigger tier-1
>LIR that has been allocated 2001:0DB8::/32 (which defeats half of the
>reasons to multihome).
>
>The purpose of the documentation prefix is double:
>1. Avoid using addresses that could be assigned to a site.
>2. Avoid using things such as:
>Prefix assigned by LIR 1: 2001:x:y::/48
>Prefix assigned by LIR 2: 2001:a:b::/48
>Prefix assigned by LIR 3: 2001:c:d::/48
>
>Editorial: including the email addresses of the authors in the text
>would not hurt anyone.
>
>Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:50:44 +0100

> Having a large block to help document multihoming examples makes 
> sense, but I don't see anything wrong with the example you say is a 
> problem. Yes, operationally it might be a bit odd, but for 
> documentation? Would there be confusion in the minds of people who are 
> reading the documentation? I've used various parts of 220/8 address 
> space for my IPv4 multihoming examples (because there is no such 
> prefix in IPv4), and no one has ever complained about me taking a /20 
> (the RIR minimum allocation) and splitting into lots of pieces to 
> demonstrate multihoming. But that's my experience...
>
> Anyway, if folks think that a larger address block should be proposed 
> for documentation, let us know what the number should be and why it 
> should be so, and I will be more than happy to propose it to the next 
> APNIC Open Policy Meeting as an amendment to the existing policy.
>

I agree with Philip, I fail to see the need for prefixes from each LIR 
for documenting. We have managed without this in IPv4 so far and I 
think we can in IPv6. Next step would then be to require a prefix from 
each RIR....

- kurtis -