[bcop] Fwd: [Bcop-gc] documentation ipv6 prefix

OK. I joined the list so you don't have to cc me anymore.
I noticed on a MyNOG presentation last week that someone
was using 2001:db8:: to describe one network and 3fff::
to describe another. Not sure if he meant to use 3ffe::
but it certainly took me by surprise.

> I thought this is what Japanese colleagues are suggesting...

To be exact, I am hearing these voices from the non-operator non-scientist
people. The people who give basic tutorials, the tech bloggers, etc...

-Seiichi

(2014/08/22 23:27), Jan Zorz @ 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
>>
>>
>>
> 
>