Re: [trill] IPv6 examples in draft-ietf-trill-irb

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
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> 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: fred@cisco.com [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:01 AM
> To: draft-ietf-trill-irb.all@tools.ietf.org
> 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, 198.51.100.0/24, or 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
> 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
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>