-- mercredi, octobre 23, 2002 10:43:58 -0400 Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/a �crit:
> I'd like to formally request the following from the WG on this > document: > > - I'd like to see it become a WG document (to become a BCP RFC) > > - I'd like for folks here to review it and post any issues they have > with it > > - I'd like to call special attention to the following text that it > includes: > >> In addition, experience with IPv4 has shown that it is useful to >> reserve an address block for documentation purposes that will never >> be assigned for actual use in a network [DOC]. Such addresses can >> safely be used in documentation, without the worry that someone will >> accidentally (and incorrectly) configure them on a real network and >> cause traffic intended for the legitimate owner of those addresses to >> be impacted. >> >> This document reserves the IPv6 address block XXXX::/32 for >> documentation purposes. > > There has been some private discussion about the need for addresses > for documentation, but it's probably worth discussing how much address > space is needed for this purpose, and what the prefix should be (e.g., > allocate out of 001/3?). the /32 length is a strawman. > - great to see that the proposal I made on address space for documentation is surviving! - I would propose that at least the space reserved is in well known boundaries: /16, /24, /32. - 3fff::/16 is for me the best: it is large, but simple and would cover most cases needed. - if not agreeable (too large), then /24. which would have room for aggregates in bgp routing. Marc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
