First, the LISP protocol has been specified from the beginning to
support and to run over IPv6. Full IPv4 and IPv6 support has been in there.
With regard to the examples in the lisp-threats draft, I would be very
reluctant to try to make any such changes. The draft is already in THE
RFC Editor queue, and as such we would need a serious problem before we
would even attempt to reopen the draft.
With regaard to lisp-ddt it is probably quite reasonable to add IPv6
examples to the draft before we complete work on that document.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/6/16 11:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hello:
I'd like to bring something to your attention with regard to
draft-ietf-lisp-threats, if I may. It uses IPv4 examples (examples
using addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, or 203.0.113.0/24), but
presents no IPv6 examples (which would use 2001:db8::/32, as specified
in RFC 6890). This suggests that at some future time the protocol will
likely need to be updated to use IPv6 in addition to IPv4.
draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples makes a very practical
suggestion, which is that drafts should consider IPv6, as it is the
direction the Internet is headed, and therefore provide either only IPv6
examples or both IPv4 and IPv6 examples. This has not been agreed to in
the IETF, nor is it a mandate in any sense. However, it seems practical.
I can imagine that you just didn't think about IPv6,
on the assumption that it is not a current reality in the
Internet; while not true, that is a common perception. However, as
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,ch,us,pt,de,gr,lu,pe,ec,ee,jp,fr,cz,my,fi,no,br,ca,ro,nl
displays, Google, APNIC, and Akamai are reporting that at least 39
countries worldwide have non-negligible IPv6 deployment (at least 1%
of the traffic each of them sees uses IPv6 in those markets), 20 of
them have at least 5%, and, in one case and one measurement, over 50%
of their traffic. Additionally, AT&T, Comcast, Google, and T-Mobile
indicate that a significant pecentage (around half to three quarters) of
their mobile handsets or home computers are using IPv6 - in some cases,
accessing IPv4 sites only through NAT64 translation.
In that spirit, would you please consider duplicating your IPv4 examples,
or augmenting them, to display both the IPv4 and IPv6 variants?
Thanks.
Fred
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
