| Internet-Draft | Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space | January 2022 |
| Horley, et al. | Expires 30 July 2022 | [Page] |
To reduce the likelihood of addressing conflicts and confusion between lab deployments and non-lab (i.e., production) deployments, an IPv6 unicast address prefix is reserved for use in lab, proof-of-concept, and validation networks as well as for any similar use case. This document describes the use of the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7 as a prefix reserved for this purpose (repurposing the deprecated OSI NSAP-mapped prefix).¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 July 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The address architecture for IPv6 ([RFC4291]) does not explicitly define any prefixes allocated exclusively for lab use, nor is such address space allocated in [RFC6890] or in [RFC8200]. While lab deployments could potentially use IPv6 address prefixes typically assigned and configured in non-lab network, the use of such addressing in lab environments may create addressing conflicts and operational confusion. For instance, designing labs utilizing ULA fc00::/7 [RFC4193] is problematic due to the random global ID requirement preventing hierarchical network prefix design possibilities. Further, default address selection behavior [RFC6724] by end nodes may result in a depreferencing of such addresses and prevent lab deployments from accurately modeling their desired non-lab equivalents.¶
To resolve these problems involved in building large-scale lab networks, and pre-staging, or automating large-scale networks for deployment, this document allocates the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7 for these purposes.¶
The goal is to allow organization to share working lab configuration files (with little or no need of modification) to be deployed in a third party lab environment like,¶
public and private clouds,¶
virtualization or hosting environments,¶
and in other networks like Service Providers, Enterprise, Government, IoT, and Energy,¶
all with the knowledge that the lab GUA address space will perform the same as any GUA but with the added knowledge that filtering will be used to protect accidental leaks to the Internet.¶
The following criteria is for selecting the lab prefix:¶
The precedence for the lab prefix should no be lower than the GUA prefix as defined in [RFC6724] (unlike ULA). Reduce the operational impacts to IANA and the RIR's in selecting lab prefix space.¶
The prefix reserved for lab and testing purposes is 0200::/7.¶
This space SHOULD NOT be employed for addressing use cases which are already defined in other RFCs, such as addresses set apart for documentation, testing, etc.¶
Enterprise and large-scale networks have some specific criteria around building and validating prior to deployment. The issues with ULA for infrastructure modeling and labbing at the host level are more impactful in large enterprises. This is due to the increased focus on large-scale hosts, servers, and apps testing. Also, it is likely that both GUA and ULA may co-exist (or are planned) and reconfiguring lab hosts and networks isn't practical or desirable due to inconsistent results for host preference due to [RFC6724] behavior.¶
Most large enterprises strive to build lab, dev, and QA environments that reflect production as accurately as possible. This is a fairly straightforward way to avoid disparity between production and non-production. Enterprise environments are an area that need increased IPv6 adoption. In an effort to make it easier to model a global enterprise and to avoid the pitfalls of ULA de-preferenced host behavior or squatting on other IPv6 space, a specific IPv6 lab prefix is being assigned.¶
Because this address prefix has previously been used for the OSI NSAP-mapped prefix set in [RFC4048] and [RFC4548], and deprecated, this address prefix is already limited in its usability. In addition, the address prefix was returned to IANA and is available to be marked for lab or other purposes.¶
This assignment implies that IPv6 network operators SHOULD add this address prefix to the list of non-routable IPv6 address space, and if packet filters are deployed, then this address prefix SHOULD be added to packet filters. This is not a local-use address prefix so these filters may be used in both local and public contexts.¶
IANA is to record the reservation of the IPv6 global unicast address prefix 0200::/7 as a lab-only prefix in the IPv6 address registry. No end party is to be assigned this address.¶
The addresses assigned for lab and staging use SHOULD be filtered as noted above.¶
Setting aside address space for lab and staging use, and adding this address space to common filters to prevent destinations in this space from being routed in production networks (including the global Internet) improves security by preventing the leakage of prefixes used for testing into production environments. As such, setting aside this space improves the overall security posture of the Internet.¶
The authors acknowledge the work of Bob Hinden and Stephen Deering, in authoring the protocol standard and the addressing architecture for IPv6.¶