idnits 2.17.1 draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-01.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 == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 3 pages 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 9 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 72: '...ed address space MUST NOT be used for ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 85: '...and the Internet MUST never use that p...' 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 (July 2, 2001) is 8331 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) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-ipngwg-uni-based-mcast-01 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Blanchet 3 Internet-Draft Viagenie 4 Expires: December 31, 2001 July 2, 2001 6 IPv6 Address Space Reserved for Documentation 7 draft-blanchet-ngtrans-exampleaddr-01 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 Internet- 17 Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 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 December 31, 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 is 39 reserved for use in examples in RFCs, books, documentation, and the 40 like. Since site local addresses have special meaning in IPv6, these 41 cannot be used in many example situations and are confusing. 42 Instead, an IPv6 prefix 3ffe:ffff::/32 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 [1], like scoped addresses (link-local, site-local) and 49 global addresses. It also introduces mechanisms for renumbering 51 [2][5]. Since IPv6 has many new ways to use addresses, this means an 52 increase use of examples and scenarios for documenting the use of 53 addresses. 55 RFCs, vendor documentation, books and the like use examples with 56 addresses. Authors always have an issue of using: already allocated 57 addresses, not currently allocated addresses or private (site-local 58 in IPv6) addresses in their examples. Using the configuration 59 examples in a real environment can cause a problem. If the example 60 uses site-local as global address example, then the actual mechanism 61 for handling scoped addresses with site-local scoping can not be 62 done. If allocated addresses are used, then this obviously can make 63 address spoofing inadvertly if the environment is connected to the 64 internet. Same could happen for a non-currently allocated address 65 space that becomes allocated. 67 Similar, but different, discussion also applies to top level domain 68 names and some have been reserved for similar purposes [4]. 70 2. Non Use 72 This reserved address space MUST NOT be used for private networks or 73 test networks. Use instead site-local [1]. 75 3. Multicast 77 Multicast addresses can also be reserved for documentation using this 78 document reserved address space together with the Unicast prefix- 79 based proposal [6] for multicast addresses. 81 4. Assignment 83 The prefix 3ffe:ffff::/32, out of the test address space [3] 84 currently used on the 6bone, is reserved for the purpose of this 85 draft. The 6bone and the Internet MUST never use that prefix. 87 A /32 was chosen as a compromise. Multiple site prefixes and 88 multihoming could not be demonstrated with a prefix greater than /47. 89 A /24, which could be used for multiple TLA in exchange examples, was 90 seen as too much space consumed for documentation. The compromise 91 was /32. 3ffe:ffff::/32 was chosen as the last /32 in the current 92 reserved test space[3]. 94 5. IANA Considerations 96 IANA reserves 3ffe:ffff::/32 address space out of the test address 97 space so that no one will ever receive this allocation, even if the 98 3ffe::/16 test address space is reallocated. 100 6. Security Considerations 102 This document encourages the use of test addresses in documentation 103 so that less issues will arise from people that could instead use 104 address space already allocated or to be allocated in the future. 105 These could cause ip address spoofing. This proposal minimize such 106 possible conflicts. 108 7. Acknowledgements 110 In alphabetical order, Alain Durand, Robert Elz, Bob Fink and Dave 111 Thaler contributed to the discussion and improvements of this draft. 113 References 115 [1] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 116 Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. 118 [2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address 119 Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. 121 [3] Hinden, R., Fink, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address 122 Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998. 124 [4] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 125 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 127 [5] Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894, August 128 2000. 130 [6] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast 131 Addresses", Internet-draft, Work in progress draft-ietf-ipngwg- 132 uni-based-mcast-01.txt, January 2001. 134 Author's Address 136 Marc Blanchet 137 Viagenie 138 2875 boul. Laurier, bureau 300 139 Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2M2 140 Canada 142 Phone: +1 418 656 9254 143 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 144 URI: http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/ 146 Full Copyright Statement 148 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 150 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 151 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 152 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 153 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 154 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 155 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 156 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 157 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 158 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 159 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 160 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 161 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 162 English. 164 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 165 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 167 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 168 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 169 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 170 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 171 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 172 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 174 Acknowledgement 176 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 177 Internet Society.