Hi, please excuse the aggregate post but not all messages that are hitting the lists are showing up in my inbox. To Nick and Dale, yes thank you for noting that the prefix is still populated in the DFZ. However, there are two mitigating factors - first, the new standard in question would not attempt to use an address from the prefix out in the open Internet; it would only use an address from the prefix in a private-use (or otherwise stub) IPv4 Internetwork. Second, the new standard calls for use of a different IPv4 address from the prefix, i.e., instead of the 192.88.99.1 specified in RFC3068. So, even if a node were misconfigured to send an anycast discovery in the open Internet the specific address would not be recognized by any 6to4 Relays and the anycast discovery request would simply black hole. To Ted who asked about the specific document reference, it is here: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-omni-36.txt To John who mentioned the great study on sunsetting the transition mechanisms, thanks for the detailed analysis of the state of affairs in the wild. I think given the points that I related to Nick and Dale above, however, it would seem that any potential conflicts would be avoided? Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale W. Carder [mailto:dwcarder@xxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 9:31 AM > To: Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Hunter (US), Mark W <mark.w.hunter2@xxxxxxxxxx>; 6man WG > <ipv6@xxxxxxxx>; IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Nache (US), Samuel J <samuel.j.nache@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that? > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > Thus spake Nick Hilliard (nick@xxxxxxxxxx) on Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 05:15:45PM +0100: > > the prefix still appears in the public Internet DFZ. This may cause > > problems if it's redelegated. Would a different address range not be better > > under the circumstances? > > And note that in rfc7526 section 6, there was not explicit direction to > stop announcing it in the DFZ. That would have to be updated before it > could be redelegated. > > Dale > > > > Templin (US), Fred L wrote on 12/08/2021 17:11: > > > FYI, responding to add 6man to the distribution. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:38 AM > > > > To: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Hunter (US), Mark W <mark.w.hunter2@xxxxxxxxxx>; Nache (US), Samuel J <samuel.j.nache@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Subject: I want to reclaim 192.88.99.0/24 - does anyone have a problem with that? > > > > > > > > Hi, RFC3068 set aside the prefix 192.88.99.0/24 as the 6to4 Relay Anycast prefix, and > > > > then RFC7526 came along and deprecated that use. I would like to reclaim the prefix > > > > and use it for a different anycasting purpose - mostly within IPv4 networks that would > > > > not be places where one would ordinarily find a 6to4 Relay router. > > > > > > > > RFC7526 Section 7 says: > > > > > > > > "Redelegation of this prefix for any use requires justification via an IETF Standards > > > > Action [RFC5226]." > > > > > > > > and I have a document that is aligned toward IETF Standards Track that would do > > > > precisely this. This would be "Plan A", but if that would be unworkable then we may > > > > need to press forward with a "Plan B". > > > > > > > > There are those of you out there who know exactly what this is about and some have > > > > even made remarks about it during recent IETF working group presentations. Now is > > > > the time to speak up and put all concerns on the table - silence is no longer an option. > > > > > > > > Thanks - Fred > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@xxxxxxxx > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
