Re: Question about using the IPv6 benchmarking address space

Just to clarify, the IPv6 prefix mentioned in RFC5180(+errata) is 2001:2::/48 and in my understanding does not include the the prefix 2001:2:a:bb1e::/64. However, I don't think there's any issue with using it in the context of an isolated testing environment. 

Marius

On 07/24/15, David Schinazi  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi bmwg,
> 
> We would like to use addresses from the IPv6 benchmarking prefix on an independent test network and wonder if there are issues
> we have not thought of.
> 
> A little background on what we're doing: in OS X El Capitan we introduced a NAT64 mode for the Mac's Internet Sharing feature
> to allow iOS developers to test their applications for IPv6 support. Using this, you can share your IPv4 internet connectivity
> (e.g. from ethernet) to a newly created Wi-Fi network that only supports IPv6, and the Mac will perform NAT64+DNS64.
> Currently the internal addresses of that network are using the Teredo prefix (2001::/64) and we have been advised to use
> something that is not treated differently by RFC 6724 (Default Address Selection for IPv6).
> We thought that since this is a testing network and that those addresses never leave that link, using the benchmarking prefix
> from RFC5180(+ errata) (2001:2/32) would be reasonable. We thought that using 2001:2:a:bb1e/64 as our network prefix
> would be appropriate, as "a:bb1e" looks a bit like "apple". Note that this is the prefix advertised by RA to the Wi-Fi network,
> it is not the prefix of the NAT64 translation.
> 
> Does anyone think there could be any issues with this?
> 
> Thanks,
> David Schinazi
> Apple CoreOS Networking Engineer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg