Subject: [Int-area] Fwd: IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:25:18 -0300

Folks,

FYI. This is being discussed in the v6ops list. BUt given the breatdth 
of the topic, I thought this might be of interest to this group, too.

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 <[email-masked]>
To: IPv6 Operations <[email-masked]>

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: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492