Shepherd writeup
rfc8215-02

´╗┐Document write-up for draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix

1. Summary: The document shepherd is Fred Baker, who thinks this
document is ready for publication. The relevant AD is Warren Kumari.

This document reserves the IPv6 prefix 64:ff9b:1::/48 for local use
within domains that enable IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms.  This
document updates RFC6890.

RFC 6890 is a BCP defining special purpose address registries.

2. Review and Consensus

The fundamental issue was raised by the author, who is solving a problem
he observes in his network. He uses SIIT-DC to translate between IPv4
clients and IPv6-only services in his data center, and separately uses
stateless NAT64 to certain IPv4-only services. The current specification
permits the use of exactly one prefix for "the" translator,
64:ff9b::/96. If he has two or more translators (in this case, one for
SIIT-DC and one for stateless NAT64) facing different networks, he needs
to be able to distinguish them, using different prefixes within his
network. The use of 64:ff9b:1::/48 enables him to do so.

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix/, the
document was proposed as an individual submission in May 2016, discussed
in the working group, and adopted in March 2017. Discussion was not
about the validity of the requirement or alternate solutions, but about
address scope, "why this prefix" (checksum neutrality), and deployment
considerations. To review, consider
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-anderson-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-
prefix-02.txt

There exists a consensus supporting the revision.

3. Intellectual Property

There is no know IPR related to the document.

4. Other issues...

idnits complains bitterly about the use of prefixes other than
2001:db8::/32. This document is discussing issues with the use of
64:ff9b::/96, and recommending assignment of 64:ff9b:1::/48 to address
them. Since it discusses specific prefix assignment, it has to name the
prefixes.
Back