Re: [lisp] IPv6 examples in lisp documents

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Wed, 06 April 2016 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1979B12D853 for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mm_fEsg7gAYD for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB18212D11B for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83762240A9B; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1459955933; bh=MOuru2pVT5s77NkTAccCDRk09Lcjadtqf7ZPWmVSnU0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=E0MZo4IPUZDD2IMlYZvMqRacYA5aFLCHRqdMiBTKEBWz6N29G3p3gdjndoaUB1Rzw swgMgNGcMGgXpIX/qrEBwGt0yYEK9HtajKHC1PE6uba8iRuHFAPxOtEzY9HuJoCrTY 2wNbGLsjUWPkj/ZsvkZyBpUxHMGlVoZzH5WTLW/8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 444F3240529; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
To:, "" <>
References: <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:18:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] IPv6 examples in lisp documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:22:46 -0000

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.


On 4/6/16 11:01 AM, 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,, or, 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
> 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