Folks,
FYI. The intent is to discuss this on the IETF v6ops wg list
(https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops).
But comments will be appreciated, regardless of the specific channel
(whether on this list, off-list, etc.)
Thanks!
Regards,
Fernando
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: IPv6 addressing: Gaps?
(draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:50:48 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6...@ietf.org>
Folks,
In the aforementioned document
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations),
we have tried to do at least three things:
1) Look at what we have and try to discuss things from an architectural
perspective
2) Analyze the implications of #1 (whether operations, security,
privacy, etc.)
3) Find missing gaps that currently prevent us from fully leveraging
IPv6 addressing.
Part of what we've found as doing #3 above is that:
* There are shortcomings associated with the current APIs that prevent
better usage of IPv6 addresses
* Multi-router/multi-prefix routing seems to be broken.
RFC8028 would be a fundamental starting point in the right
direction... but I believe there's more to do in this area.
In that light, we'd like to hear further comments on our document. And,
in particular, we're interested to hear if :
* there are any operational implications of IPv6 addressing that we
have missed, or,
* there's anything related to IPv6 addressing that you consider to
be currently broken or problematic, that is missing in our I-D.
Thoughts on the current contents of the I-D are, of course, also very
welcome!
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
