rfc9637.original   rfc9637.txt 
V6OPS G. Huston Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Huston
Internet-Draft APNIC Request for Comments: 9637 APNIC
Updates: 3849 (if approved) N. Buraglio Updates: 3849 N. Buraglio
Intended status: Informational Energy Sciences Network Category: Informational Energy Sciences Network
Expires: 31 December 2024 29 June 2024 ISSN: 2070-1721 August 2024
Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space Expanding the IPv6 Documentation Space
draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update-05
Abstract Abstract
The document describes the reservation of an additional IPv6 address The document describes the reservation of an additional IPv6 address
prefix for use in documentation. This update to RFC 3849 expands on prefix for use in documentation. This update to RFC 3849 expands on
the existing 2001:db8::/32 address block with the reservation of an the existing 2001:db8::/32 address block with the reservation of an
additional, larger prefix. The addition of a /20 allows documented additional, larger prefix. The addition of a /20 prefix allows
examples to more closely reflect a broader range of realistic, documented examples to more closely reflect a broader range of
current deployment scenarios and more closely aligns with realistic, current deployment scenarios and more closely aligns with
contemporary allocation models for large networks. contemporary allocation models for large networks.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 31 December 2024. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9637.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Current Assignment and Allocation Data . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language
3. Filtering and appropriate use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Current Assignment and Allocation Data
4. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Filtering and Appropriate Use
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. IANA Considerations
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC3849] introduced 2001:db8::/32, describing the use of the IPv6 [RFC3849] introduced the IPv6 address prefix 2001:db8::/32 as a
address prefix 2001:db8::/32 as a reserved prefix for use in reserved prefix for use in documentation. The rationale for this
documentation. The rationale for this reservation was to reduce the reservation was to reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion
likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating documented when relating documented examples to deployed systems.
examples to deployed systems.
As the global deployment of IPv6 expands and evolves, individual IPv6 As the global deployment of IPv6 expands and evolves, individual IPv6
network deployment scenarios have also increased is size and network deployment scenarios have also increased in size and
diversity, and there is a requirement for documentation to reflect diversity, and there is a requirement for documentation to reflect
this increased diversity and scope. The original 2001:db8::/32 this increased diversity and scope. The original 2001:db8::/32
reservation is inadequate to describe many realistic current reservation is inadequate to describe many realistic, current
deployment scenarios. deployment scenarios.
Without this additional address allocation, documentation address Without this additional address allocation, documentation prefixes
prefixes are drawn from address blocks already allocated or assigned are drawn from address blocks already allocated or assigned to
to existing organizations or to well known ISPs, or drawn from the existing organizations or well-known ISPs, or they are drawn from the
currently unallocated address pool. Such use conflicts with existing currently unallocated address pool. Such use conflicts with existing
or future allocations or assignments of IPv6 address space. The or future allocations or assignments of IPv6 address space. The
reservation of a further /20 IPv6 address prefix from the Global reservation of a /20 IPv6 address prefix from the Global Unicast
Unicast Address pool [RFC4291] for documentation purposes avoids such Address pool [RFC4291] for documentation purposes allows such
conflicts. conflicts to be avoided.
2. Current Assignment and Allocation Data 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 According to the allocation and assignment data published by the
Regional Internet Registries, [NROStatsReport], in August 2023 some Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) (see [NROStatsReport]), in August
25.9% of all 62,770 recorded IPv6 unicast allocations and assignments 2023, 25.9% of the 62,770 recorded IPv6 unicast allocations and
are larger than a /32 in size. The most common allocation or assignments were larger than a /32 in size. The most common
assignment size is a /29, used in 24.8% of cases. allocation or assignment size was a /29, used in 24.8% of cases.
The four largest assignments made to end users have been /19s, but The four largest assignments made to end users have been /19s, but
these allocations were made before the RIRs' address allocation these allocations were made before the RIRs moved away from the use
policies moved away from the use of a fixed /48 site address prefix of a fixed /48 site address prefix in IPv6 address assignment
IPv6 address assignment policies, and in the foreseeable future its policies, and in the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that
unlikely that individual networks require more than a /20. It is individual networks will require more than a /20. It is believed
believed that a reservation of a /20 would cover the documentation that reservation of a /20 will cover the documentation needs as they
needs as they relate the broad range of realistic network relate to the broad range of realistic network deployments.
deployments.
3. Filtering and appropriate use 4. Filtering and Appropriate Use
Documentation prefixes are for the use or relaying configuration and Documentation prefixes are for the use of relaying configuration and
documentation examples and as such MUST NOT be used for actual documentation examples, and as such, they MUST NOT be used for actual
traffic, MUST NOT be globally advertised, and SHOULD NOT be used traffic, MUST NOT be globally advertised, and SHOULD NOT be used
internally for routed production traffic or other connectivity. internally for routed production traffic or other connectivity.
Documentation prefixes should be considered bogon and filtered in Documentation prefixes should be considered bogon [BOGON] and
routing advertisements as appropriate. filtered in routing advertisements as appropriate.
4. Conventions and Definitions
None.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This special use prefix should be marked as and considered [BOGON]. This special-use prefix should be marked as and considered bogon
As is appropriate with bogon prefixes, packets whose src/dst belongs [BOGON]. As is appropriate with bogon prefixes, packets whose source
to this prefix should be dropped and disallowed over the public or destination belongs to this prefix should be dropped and
Internet. disallowed over the public Internet.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is to record the reservation of TBD::/20 in the IANA IPv6 IANA has registered the following in the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose
Special-Purpose Address Registry; [IANAIPv6SPAR]. The Source, Address Registry" [IANA-IPv6-SPAR].
Destination, Forwardable, Globally Reachable and Reserved-by-Protocol
fields should be recorded as False. There is no Termination Date for Address Block: 3fff::/20
this entry. The name of the reservation is “Documentation". Name: Documentation
RFC: RFC 9637
Allocation Date 2024-07
Termination Date: N/A
Source: False
Destination: False
Forwardable: False
Globally Reachable : False
Reserved-by-Protocol: False
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[IANAIPv6SPAR] [IANA-IPv6-SPAR]
"IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry", n.d., IANA, "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special- <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 7.2. Informative References
[BOGON] "Team Cymru Bogon Guide", n.d., <https://www.team- [BOGON] Team Cymru, "Unravelling the Mystery of Bogons: A senior
cymru.com/post/unravelling-the-mystery-of-bogons-a-senior- stakeholder and IT professional guide", July 2023,
stakeholder-and-it-professional-guide>. <https://www.team-cymru.com/post/unravelling-the-mystery-
of-bogons-a-senior-stakeholder-and-it-professional-guide>.
[NROStatsReport] [NROStatsReport]
"NRO Stats Report", n.d., "NRO Stats Reports",
<https://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/nro-stats/latest/ <https://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/nro-stats>.
nro-delegated-stats>.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, July 2004, 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 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input from XiPeng The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input from XiPeng
Xiao, Chris Cummings, Russ White, Kevin Myers, Ed Horley, Tom Xiao, Chris Cummings, Russ White, Kevin Myers, Ed Horley, Tom
Coffeen, and Scott Hogg. Coffeen, and Scott Hogg.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Geoff Huston Geoff Huston
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
93 lines changed or deleted 111 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.