RIPE-address-policy-wg@Apr 15, 2009

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:57:33 +0200
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft Proposal: Assignment of an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes

Dear WG,

this is a rough draft policy proposal. I'd appreciate some feedback before
I decide whether to invoke the formal process.

Summary:
The RIPE NCC is asked to assign an IPv4 /24 for documentation purposes.

Background:

In example configurations, RFCs, training material and other documentation
it is necessary from time to time to include IP addresses, domain names
or even phone numbers as examples. These resources should meet all
syntactical requirements (e.g., be "real" IP addresses), but should not
interfere with assignments or registrations by innocent third parties.
See RFC 4085 (BCP 105) for what could happen in the worst case.

For the DNS, RFC 2606 (BCP 32) has set aside several top level and
second level domain names and the network 192.0.2/24 has been dedicated
for documentation and test purposes by the IANA in the past (see RFC 3330).

RFC 3849 ("IPv6 Address Prefix Reserved for Documentation") documents
APNIC's assignment of 2001:DB8::/32 for the sole use in example texts.

Motivation:

During recent discussion within the IETF, but also on other occasions
in the past, it appeared that a single /24 is often not enough to
support instructive examples. This may include more complex network
designs, or the use of addresses for DNS name servers, where good
practice (see RFC 2182, BCP 16) suggests topological diversity.

Sometimes, address space from RFC 1918 (BCP 5) is used in addition to
or as a replacement for 192.0.2/24, but this is also a source of
confusion due to the special nature of the "private address space".
It also conflicts with the goal to avoid any collision with addresses
used in real life, even if the burden would be spread across many
users of RFC 1918 address space.

Request:

The RIPE NCC is asked to assign and dedicate a /24 that is reasonable
visually distinct from 192.0.2/24 for documentation only purposes.
The network is not to be used and the prefix is never expected to be
announced in any BGP session (cf. 3849).

The new assignment is not intended to serve as a supplement to RFC 1918
address space. It is intentionally left open here whether similar
considerations would suggest an additional assignment in v6 space, as well.

The pros should be obvious to anyone who ever had to write documentation
or example configurations, but there are also some cons:

o another /24 is a waste of space
o just a /24 won't be enough
o this creates yet another bogon
o any invest in IPv4 is a waste of resources, anyway
o nobody knew 192.0.2/24 in the first place, so why add to the confusion?
o this doesn't need a policy proposal, but could be dealt with through
a specially "sponsored" PI assignment

A special action seems cleaner to me than some random PI assignment, but
this is why I'd like to ask the WG for feedback. Also, if anyone is
aware of other address space similar to 192.0.2/24, I'd appreciate a pointer.

Best regards,
Peter


ドキュメント用に192.0.2.0/24というネットワークが用意されているが、
複雑なネットワークのためにもうひとつ別の/24を割り当てようという提案。
なんでプライベートアドレスじゃだめなの？という反論あり。