[v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 12 February 2021 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048F23A0F47 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:51:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZVcaSLOb0vX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B21B23A0F49 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:51:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:4181:442:5061:d73f] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:4181:442:5061:d73f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC401283CC4; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:51:02 +0000 (UTC)
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <36ba7456-210c-0626-5ec6-147538e49e5d@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:50:48 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/HWwwB2fhqzc7GcRkr4AO_-E3aMw>
Subject: [v6ops] IPv6 addressing: Gaps? (draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:51:12 -0000

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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492