idnits 2.17.1 draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 160 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 12 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 6, 2001) is 8390 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2373 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 3513) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2462 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 4862) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2471 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 3701) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group M. Blanchet 2 Internet-Draft Viagenie 3 Expires: November 5, 2001 May 6, 2001 5 IPv6 Test Address Space Reserved for Documentation, Examples and 6 Private Testing 7 draft-blanchet-ipngwg-testadd-00 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as 17 Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 20 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 21 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2001. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, an IPv6 prefix 39 is reserved for use in private testing or as examples in other RFCs, 40 documentation, and the like. Since site local addresses have special 41 meaning in IPv6, these cannot be used in many example situations and 42 are confusing. Instead, an IPv6 prefix is reserved in the range of 43 the test address space. 45 1. Rationale 47 IPv6 introduces many types of addresses in its addressing 48 architecture RFC 2373[1], like scoped addresses (link-local, 49 site-local) and global addresses. It also introduces mechanisms for 50 renumbering RFC 2462[2],RFC 2894[5]. Organisations might want to 51 make tests networks, using the different kinds of addresses and try 52 renumbering. For example, one could have site-local as well as a 53 global prefix and try to renumber to another global prefix while 54 preserving its site-local addresses live. RFCs, vendor 55 documentation, books and the like also give examples with addresses. 56 Authors always have an issue of using: already allocated addresses, 57 not currently allocated addresses or private (site-local) addresses 58 in their examples. Using the configuration examples in a real 59 environment can cause a problem. If the example uses site-local as 60 global address example, then the actual mechanism for handling 61 scoped addresses with site-local scoping can not be done. If 62 allocated addresses are used, then this obviously can make address 63 spoofing inadvertly if the environment is connected to the internet. 64 Same could happen later for a non-currently allocated address space 65 that becomes allocated. Similar, but different, discussion also 66 applies to top level domain names and some have been reserved for 67 the same purposes RFC 2606[4]. 69 2. Assignment 71 The prefix 3ffe:ff00/24, out of the test address spaceRFC 2471[3]. 72 currently used on the 6bone is reserved for any documentation or 73 private testing purposes. The 6bone will never use that prefix. 75 3. IANA Considerations 77 IANA reserve 3ffe:ff00/24 address space out of the test address 78 space so that no one will ever receive this allocation. 80 4. Security Considerations 82 This document encourages the use of test addresses in private 83 testing and documentation so that less issues will arise from people 84 that could instead use address space already allocated or to be 85 allocated in the future. These could cause ip address spoofing. 86 This proposal minimize such possible conflicts. 88 References 90 [1] Hinden, R.M. and S.E. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 91 Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. 93 [2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address 94 Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. 96 [3] Hinden, R.M., Fink, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address 97 Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998. 99 [4] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 100 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 102 [5] Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894, August 103 2000. 105 Author's Address 107 Marc Blanchet 108 Viagenie 109 2875 boul. Laurier, bureau 300 110 Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2M2 111 Canada 113 Phone: +1 418 656 9254 114 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 115 URI: http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/ 117 Full Copyright Statement 119 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 121 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 122 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 123 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published 124 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 125 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 126 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 127 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 128 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 129 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 130 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 131 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 132 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 133 English. 135 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 136 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 138 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 139 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 140 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 141 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 142 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 143 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 145 Acknowledgement 147 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 148 Internet Society.