Subject: RE: Draft on a V6 documentation prefix

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:23:58 -0700

Bob,

> Bob Hinden wrote:
> I think a single /32 should be fine for most purposes. Hopefully
> people setting up BGP peering can deal with something like:
> "We will setup a BGP peering between ISPA who is allocated
> XXXX:XXXX::/32 and ISPB who is allocated YYYY:YYYY::/32."

They certainly can, but the goal of the documentation prefix is to avoid
hijacking of real prefixes when doing _lab_ work (after all, hijacking a
prefix for documentation-only purposes without ever configuring these
addresses is not wrong). The trouble with using things such as
XXXX:XXXX::/32 and YYYY:YYYY::/32 is that they can't be configured on a
router and won't prevent the hijacking of a real prefix when labing the
case, which is what the documentation prefix tries to prevent from
happening.

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: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 08:22:32 +0100

> case, which is what the documentation prefix tries to prevent from

So if we do create this prefix, what's the difference between this and an
allocated prefix for private use in networks?   You're suggesting it's not
a documentation prefix, but a prefix for use in (disconnected) networks.
Throw in v6 NAT and... ;)

Tim