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 <fgont@si6networks.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@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: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492