<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"> <html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css"> p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; } </style></head><body style=" font-family:'Tahoma'; font-size:8.25pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;"> Hi, I can understand both opinions, but prefer to keep one /32 as there should be enough bits for a clear organization assignment in documentations like - 2001:db8:axx::/40 - 2001:db8:bxx::/40 - 2001:db8:cxx::/40 ... that way there are one /40 for organization a, b and c if someone wouldn't like to call them 1, 2 or 3. It is also possible split above prefixes like - 2001:db8:a1xx::/40 - 2001:db8:a2xx::/40 - 2001:db8:b4xx::/40 - 2001:db8:b5xx::/40 ... For organization A region one and two + organization B region four and five where every region of an organization can still delegate 2^8 /48 to customers. Karsten Am Samstag, 23. August 2014, 06:11:07 schrieb Geoff Huston: > 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, ?? <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</body></html>