Skip to main content

Gap Analysis in Internet Addressing
draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis-02

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Yihao Jia , Dirk Trossen , Luigi Iannone , Paulo Mendes , Nirmala Shenoy , Laurent Toutain , Abraham Chen , Dino Farinacci
Last updated 2022-03-06
Replaced by draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

There exist many extensions to Internet addressing, as it is defined in [RFC0791] for IPv4 and [RFC8200] for IPv6, respectively. Those extensions have been developed to fill gaps in capabilities beyond the basic properties of Internet addressing. This document outlines those properties as a baseline against which the extensions are categorized in terms of methodology used to fill the gap together with examples of solutions doing so. While introducing such extensions, we outline the issues we see with those extensions. This ultimately leads to consider whether or not a more consistent approach to tackling the identified gaps, beyond point-wise extensions as done so far, would be beneficial. The benefits are the ones detailed in the companion document [I-D.jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing], where, leveraging on the gaps identified in this memo and scenarios provided in [I-D.jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing], a clear problem statement is provided.

Authors

Yihao Jia
Dirk Trossen
Luigi Iannone
Paulo Mendes
Nirmala Shenoy
Laurent Toutain
Abraham Chen
Dino Farinacci

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)