wdiff rfc9637.original rfc9637.txt

V6OPS

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Huston
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9637 APNIC
Updates: 3849 (if approved) N. Buraglio
Intended status:
Category: Informational Energy Sciences Network
Expires: 31 December 2024 29 June
ISSN: 2070-1721 August 2024

Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-05

Abstract

The document describes the reservation of an additional IPv6 address
prefix for use in documentation. This update to RFC 3849 expands on
the existing 2001:db8::/32 address block with the reservation of an
additional, larger prefix. The addition of a /20 prefix allows
documented examples to more closely reflect a broader range of
realistic, current deployment scenarios and more closely aligns with
contemporary allocation models for large networks.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents valid
approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 December 2024.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9637.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language
3. Current Assignment and Allocation Data . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Filtering and appropriate use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Conventions Filtering and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Appropriate Use
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1. Introduction

[RFC3849] introduced 2001:db8::/32, describing the use of the IPv6 address prefix 2001:db8::/32 as a
reserved prefix for use in documentation. The rationale for this
reservation was to reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion
when relating documented examples to deployed systems.

As the global deployment of IPv6 expands and evolves, individual IPv6
network deployment scenarios have also increased is in size and
diversity, and there is a requirement for documentation to reflect
this increased diversity and scope. The original 2001:db8::/32
reservation is inadequate to describe many realistic realistic, current
deployment scenarios.

Without this additional address allocation, documentation address prefixes
are drawn from address blocks already allocated or assigned to
existing organizations or to well known well-known ISPs, or they are drawn from the
currently unallocated address pool. Such use conflicts with existing
or future allocations or assignments of IPv6 address space. The
reservation of a further /20 IPv6 address prefix from the Global Unicast
Address pool [RFC4291] for documentation purposes avoids allows such
conflicts.
conflicts to be avoided.

2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Current Assignment and Allocation Data

According to the allocation and assignment data published by the
Regional Internet Registries, [NROStatsReport], Registries (RIRs) (see [NROStatsReport]), in August 2023 some
2023, 25.9% of all the 62,770 recorded IPv6 unicast allocations and
assignments
are were larger than a /32 in size. The most common
allocation or assignment size is was a /29, used in 24.8% of cases.

The four largest assignments made to end users have been /19s, but
these allocations were made before the RIRs' address allocation
policies RIRs moved away from the use
of a fixed /48 site address prefix in IPv6 address assignment
policies, and in the foreseeable future its future, it is unlikely that
individual networks will require more than a /20. It is believed
that a reservation of a /20 would will cover the documentation needs as they
relate to the broad range of realistic network deployments.

4. Filtering and appropriate use Appropriate Use

Documentation prefixes are for the use or of relaying configuration and
documentation examples examples, and as such such, they MUST NOT be used for actual
traffic, MUST NOT be globally advertised, and SHOULD NOT be used
internally for routed production traffic or other connectivity.
Documentation prefixes should be considered bogon [BOGON] and
filtered in routing advertisements as appropriate.

4. Conventions and Definitions

None.

5. Security Considerations

This special use special-use prefix should be marked as and considered bogon
[BOGON]. As is appropriate with bogon prefixes, packets whose src/dst source
or destination belongs to this prefix should be dropped and
disallowed over the public Internet.

6. IANA Considerations

IANA is to record has registered the reservation of TBD::/20 following in the IANA "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose
Address Registry; [IANAIPv6SPAR]. The Source,
Destination, Forwardable, Registry" [IANA-IPv6-SPAR].

Address Block: 3fff::/20
Name: Documentation
RFC: RFC 9637
Allocation Date 2024-07
Termination Date: N/A
Source: False
Destination: False
Forwardable: False
Globally Reachable and Reserved-by-Protocol
fields should be recorded as False. There is no Termination Date for
this entry. The name of the reservation is “Documentation". : False
Reserved-by-Protocol: False

7. References

7.1. Normative References
[IANAIPv6SPAR]

[IANA-IPv6-SPAR]
IANA, "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-
registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml>.
registry>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2. Informative References

[BOGON] "Team Cymru Bogon Guide", n.d., <https://www.team-
cymru.com/post/unravelling-the-mystery-of-bogons-a-senior-
stakeholder-and-it-professional-guide>. Team Cymru, "Unravelling the Mystery of Bogons: A senior
stakeholder and IT professional guide", July 2023,
<https://www.team-cymru.com/post/unravelling-the-mystery-
of-bogons-a-senior-stakeholder-and-it-professional-guide>.

[NROStatsReport]
"NRO Stats Report", n.d.,
<https://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/nro-stats/latest/
nro-delegated-stats>. Reports",
<https://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/nro-stats>.

[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3849>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3849>.

[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input from XiPeng
Xiao, Chris Cummings, Russ White, Kevin Myers, Ed Horley, Tom
Coffeen, and Scott Hogg.

Authors' Addresses

Geoff Huston
APNIC
Email: gih@apnic.net

Nick Buraglio
Energy Sciences Network
Email: buraglio@forwardingplane.net