pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for test & example use per draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt, closes 20Jun01

[Marc Blanchet]

- the initial proposal was 3ffe:ff00::/24 so that one can illustrate 
multiple prefixes (/28) in different situations like examples of exchange 
points with multiple pTLA prefixes being exchanged.
- I would prefer a /24 or so, but I'm fine with any reserved space. any 
reserved space is better than none.

Marc.

PS. BTW, I'm currently updating the draft to remove all references to 
test-private networks and will add a note that the defined prefix must not 
be used for testing, instead site-local must be used.

At/À 18:43 2001-06-06 -0700, Bob Fink you wrote/vous écriviez:
>6bone folk,
>
>You can see from the email exchange below, and the draft at:
>
><http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt>
>
>"Abstract To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 
>prefix is reserved for use in private testing or as examples in other 
>RFCs, 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 is reserved in the range of the test 
>address space."
>
>
>that Marc Blanchet has proposed a 6bone pTLA prefix be assigned for 
>private testing or examples in RFCs.
>
>I propose assigning the 6bone pTLA 3FFE:FFF0::/28 for this purpose. It is 
>at the very top of the 28-bit 6bone prefix range, and is only a tiny part 
>(1/2048th) of that prefix space.
>
>IMO, the likelihood of the 6bone testing address space of 3FFE::/16 going 
>away in the foreseeable future is no more likely than the complete 
>deprecation and disappearance of the current aggregatable global unicast 
>address space, in which case all this would be irrelevant.
>
>Anyway, if you have any comments on this please reply to me or the list by 
>20 June.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bob
>
>===
>>Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:48:07 -0400
>>To: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>, Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>,
>>    fink@es.net
>>From: Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>
>>Subject: Re: wrt: draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt
>>Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>>
>>there was suggestion to not use 3ffe::/16 space so that it can be later 
>>(humm, do not know how many years...) reclaimed and reused as part of the 
>>001b/3 current addressing architecture.  So may be something out of 
>>2000::/3 is the right thing, I don't know, and actually, I don't care. My 
>>point was to reserve a space, any space, for documentation/examples/... 
>>purposes.
>>
>>Marc.
>>
>>At/À 12:08 2001-06-06 -0700, Alain Durand you wrote/vous écriviez:
>>>At 11:50 AM 6/6/2001 -0700, Bill Manning wrote:
>>>
>>>>         Strong Objections to this tactic.  If you want a 6bone prefix,
>>>>         you should follow the process. Hijacking is bad form. I'm
>>>>         sure Bob would be amenable to making the delegation, but
>>>>         asking is appropriate.
>>>
>>>This is the reason why I had Cced Bob to this thread.
>>>
>>>Bob:
>>>- do you think it would be appropriate to use a 6bone ptla for that purpose?
>>>- what should be the formal process to follow?
>>>- would you have any preferences? 3ffe:ff00::/24, 3ffe:5550::/28, 
>>>anything else?
>>>
>>>         - Alain.
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------