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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954DF12D1C1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.738
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42v5vgld15vS for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (unknown [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0F812D166 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=31.133.178.123;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <fred@cisco.com>, <draft-ietf-trill-irb.all@tools.ietf.org>
References: <201604061501.u36F1Ent004204@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201604061501.u36F1Ent004204@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:02:06 -0400
Message-ID: <011a01d1901d$af2d7be0$0d8873a0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGVwiNZEBaaVmqhidBZME3DCe6NOJ/0tsyg
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/Jm28nxj5RHS9cNXo1cFzFjfGLqY>
Cc: trill@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] IPv6 examples in draft-ietf-trill-irb
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:19:36 -0000

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