On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:44:36PM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: > > > Am 11.09.2018 um 20:13 schrieb Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>: > > > >> > >> Further comments: > >> > >> 1) The example given in 5.5 should probably used IPv6 addresses and use > >> the IP > >> address space that is reserved for documentation purposes. > > > > I disagree. I think its simpler with IPv4 addresses and shouldn’t matter. > > We want this complex concept to come across as clear as possible. And I > > believe IPv6 doesn’t do that. This is not a v4 versus v6 response. It is a > > notation preference. > > I will let the INT AD to give further guidance, however, general guidance in > the iETF is that IPV6 should also be provided in examples to avoid a bias > towards IPv4. I disagree that an IPv6 example would be an more complicated > than an IPv4 example.
There is an IAB statement that is relevant here (https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/): [...] We recommend that all networking standards assume the use of IPv6, and be written so they do not require IPv4. We recommend that existing standards be reviewed to ensure they will work with IPv6, and use IPv6 examples. [...] -Benjamin _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
