Subject: (ngtrans) draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-00.txt

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:16:15 -0400

Hi,
- here is a new version of draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt which has 
been renamed by the advice of the ngtrans chairs.
- changed the title
- removed all information regarding test networks and put reference to site 
local
- put 3ffe:ffff::/32 as the reserved space for documentation, as discussed 
with the ngtrans co-chairs.

Marc.

>To: IETF-Announce: ;
>From: [email-masked]
>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-00.txt
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 07:02:38 -0400
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>
>         Title           : IPv6 Address Space Reserved for Documentation
>         Author(s)       : M. Blanchet
>         Filename        : draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-00.txt
>         Pages           :
>         Date            : 25-Jun-01
>
>To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 prefix
>is reserved for use in examples in RFCs, books, documentation, and
>the like. Since site local addresses have special meaning in IPv6,
>these cannot be used in many example situations and are confusing.
>Instead, an IPv6 prefix 3ffe:ffff::/32 is reserved in the range of
>the test address space.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-00.txt

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:03:24 -0700

Marc,

Abstract

To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 prefix is 
reserved for use in examples in RFCs, books, documentation, and the like. 
Since site local addresses have special meaning in IPv6, these cannot be 
used in many example situations and are confusing. Instead, an IPv6 prefix 
3ffe:ffff::/32 is reserved in the range of the test address space.

=> I think you're missing the point here. The question is not only that 
site local addresses
      have a special meaning, it is that they are /48 (as any site and 
there is a need
      to document some addressing plans or routing examples for something
      larger than /48, this is the reason why we suggest a /32 prefix.

     Same comment further down the text.

1. Rationale

IPv6 introduces many types of addresses in its addressing architecture[1], 
like scoped addresses
(link-local,     site-local) and global addresses. It also introduces 
mechanisms for renumbering[2][5].

=> I do not understand the need to mention renumbering or any IPv6 feature 
in this document.
      The point is we need to set aside some address space for examples in 
documents,
      that's enough!

      Also, I think you should include a discussion on the length of the 
reserved prefix.
      /48 is obviously not enough to describe a backbone, but we should be 
conservative
      and not waste a huge amount of address space for that sole purpose.

4. IANA Considerations

IANA reserves 3ffe:ffff::/32 address space out of the test address space so 
that no one will ever receive this allocation, even if the 3ffe::/16 test 
address space is reallocated.

=> I'll have to check what to put exactly in this section.

	- Alain.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:50:39 -0400

At/À 13:03 2001-06-26 -0700, Alain Durand you wrote/vous écriviez:
>=> I think you're missing the point here.

no. my point was that site-local should not be used for examples: they are 
confusing. And my point is still right.

If we compare with IPv4, people often use private address space (10, 
192.168,...) for examples, which is fine, since private addresses have no 
special meanings in Ipv4. But in IPv6, site local do have special meanings, 
which will make examples confusing: i.e. people don't know if you are 
talking about site-local specifically or you are using site-local to 
illustrate something else. => confusion.

>  The question is not only that site local addresses

there is additional reason to not use site-local, and you are right!

The text you quote is in the abstract: if you don't mind, I'll put your 
additional reason in the text of the draft, not in the abstract, in order 
to keep the abstract short.

>=> I do not understand the need to mention renumbering or any IPv6 feature 

intent was a short discussion on the fact that IPv6 has many new uses of 
addresses than IPv4 and for that reason, we need to give examples for all 
kind of situations (like when you renumber). This was for "justification" 
of allocating an address space for documentation.

>      The point is we need to set aside some address space for examples in 

well, this means that you are already convinced! great ;-)))

I'll put some additional text to be more clear about the rationale.

>      and not waste a huge amount of address space for that sole purpose.

ok. will do. (but you know my first choice... ;-))))

>4. IANA Considerations
>
>IANA reserves 3ffe:ffff::/32 address space out of the test address space 
>so that no one will ever receive this allocation, even if the 3ffe::/16 
>test address space is reallocated.
>

You mean that you will talk to IANA about this?  if yes, then keep me in 
the loop so I will include appropriate text.  Do I wait for your input on 
that section to send another rev?

>         - Alain.

thanks for all suggestions.

Marc.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:04:01 -0400

At/À 09:12 2001-06-27 -0700, Alain Durand you wrote/vous écriviez:
>At 11:50 AM 6/27/2001 -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>
>>no. my point was that site-local should not be used for examples: they 
>>are confusing. And my point is still right.
>>
>>special meanings in Ipv4. But in IPv6, site local do have special 
>>meanings, which will make examples confusing: i.e. people don't know if 
>>you are talking about site-local specifically or you are using site-local 
>>to illustrate something else. => confusion.
>
>What "special meaning" are you referring to that net 10 does not have?

for example, if I want to illustrate default source address selection in 
IPv6 (Richard's draft), then site-local has a special meaning, where net10 
in ipv4 context doesn't.

But, why are we debating on this, since we agree about the intent? I 
suggest that we discussed these detailed wordings offline unless someone 
else has something else to say.

Marc.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:12:18 -0700

- Alain.