Thanks > On May 4, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > draft-ietf-trill-irb-12 is now posted including IPv6 example addresses. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Fred: > > Thank you for commenting on the missing examples in trill-irb. We'll see > about adding those examples. > > Sue (TRILL co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:01 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: IPv6 examples in draft-ietf-trill-irb > > Hello: > > I'd like to bring something to your attention with regard to > draft-ietf-trill-irb, if I may. It uses IPv4 examples (examples using > addresses in 192.0.2.0/24 <http://192.0.2.0/24>, 198.51.100.0/24 > <http://198.51.100.0/24>, or 203.0.113.0/24 <http://203.0.113.0/24>), 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 > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,ch,us,pt > ,de,gr,lu,pe,ec,ee,jp,fr,cz,my,fi,no,br,ca,ro,nl > <https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=be,ch,us,pt,de,gr,lu,pe,ec,ee,jp,fr,cz,my,fi,no,br,ca,ro,nl> > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
