IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] ILNP: existing applications & other critiques

Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> Tue, 13 November 2012 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@castlepoint.net>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E7121F8808 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:16:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2njjf+e9MLW for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E5021F85C0 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4A0C720DE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:16:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbp.castlepoint.net (174-29-211-99.hlrn.qwest.net [174.29.211.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C44920C7; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:15:59 -0700 (MST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <50A19CA4.8000007@firstpr.com.au>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:15:58 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <44EED7F5-2C8E-4784-B72D-EF28C8366F61@castlepoint.net>
References: <A5F253CD-71F6-49BD-95CC-897F803860F1@gmail.com> <50A19CA4.8000007@firstpr.com.au>
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Nov 12 19:16:01 2012
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9898
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9709 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 50a1ad61199631447464159
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, 2012+at, 0.01000, at+#+#+PM, 0.01000, Subject*Re+rrg, 0.01000, that+#+#+to, 0.01000, the+#+of, 0.01000, the+#+of, 0.01000, 2012+#+#+#+PM, 0.01000, to+be, 0.01000, Cc*rrg+irtf.org, 0.01000, Nov+#+#+at, 0.01000, On+Nov, 0.01000, of+the, 0.01000, of+#+#+#+to, 0.01000, Nov+#+2012, 0.01000, On+#+#+#+at, 0.01000, On+#+#+2012, 0.01000, Url*83, 0.40000, IPv6+#+#+are, 0.40000, are+#+#+of, 0.40000, To*Robin+#+rw, 0.40000, IPv6's+imminent, 0.40000, 100+#+of, 0.40000, point+#+#+slide, 0.40000, volumes+Perhaps, 0.40000, for+#+#+#+decade, 0.40000, Nick+Hilliard, 0.40000, for+#+Despite, 0.40000
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rrg] ILNP: existing applications & other critiques
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:16:03 -0000

Robin,

On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> wrote:
> As far as I know, ILNP is only practical for IPv6.  Despite a decade and
> a half of faith on the part of many IETF people and repeated "real soon
> now" statements about IPv6's imminent widespread adoption, I see no sign
> of it.  If a 2012-11-07 statement by Nick Hilliard is to be believed:
> 
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-November/007374.html
> 
> 
> then excluding "the top 10% of the v6 talkers", IPv6 traffic volumes are
> an order of 1/100,000 of IPv4 traffic volumes.

Perhaps you missed the following?
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-iab-5-technical-plenary.pdf

http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/127213-ipv6-now-deployed-across-entire-t-mobile-us-network

http://conference.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/50813/vzw_apnic_13462152832-2.pdf
In fact, I would point you to slide 13 + 14 of that PDF as to the success of IPv6 traffic growth.

http://comcast6.net/index.php/8-ipv6-trial-news-and-information/92-deployment-update

Those are just a sampling of recent announcements/activity I can recall recently.  I'm sure if you looked around, you'd see similar activity by other wireless networks and residential broadband providers.

Admittedly, we're still quite a ways from when IPv6 traffic volume will exceed IPv4 traffic growth.  Regardless, it's illogical to (continue to) assume that IPv6 is not being widely deployed in the real-world, right now.

-shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email