IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 18 March 2021 05:21 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EA23A1E6F; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 l5b07IGgaXVg; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (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 CA74E3A1FA3; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id t18so2299570pjs.3; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:date:subject:in-reply-to:to:references; bh=s9AJSTHEiz5o0X8o89/C8L7lMqXUX7ikHwg0sV5WQGY=; b=ivYMRc4SNnNsmG+haFxjIHdP7TK+crr77DjXv1Wf+YRHumsMmqDFmHU0/5VW3wSkOF ARGZIUfOhgBKGPugoNgix+sJDTonvfQPx7SAUEQ/ZuFNn97UmeNOp/Zfi/OOUw9LzX0R 5n22N/McJKPoN+CoNLHmNKTLkrtD83oVLEfY6oohpF5tsnLsKsEJBNkn5pNPbOr+VCda Iwagd7jKu48DsbaZM6q2fuU6XuQQz8zJ8ihEz1lADiaQI9fyY3H2Vy1ejOpxI0yVmwJd IAlPs0OseQKJybCINNx542AMbQVAHrhSCIzyFKGE2lHP2G5UJBriyD0yEXtzsDkLC1/0 CZHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:date:subject :in-reply-to:to:references; bh=s9AJSTHEiz5o0X8o89/C8L7lMqXUX7ikHwg0sV5WQGY=; b=OIQf63HAa3C09UVo0gNfwNpZxFiBZm/gAaAgTtG2cWCkHitenUtc7LTXRNo5nQ0QtM 4fNxr3BN0xXbW4OZ7TJYnU2aophPakNcnt50EjBnN47XN7eETBUWSns9E6/a2hskEFdM h0Ezz8yZdVa1/x1O9gPLamk432N2Cr2NYpZBE0r3lJhtU/nFpmTg6ys79Ps4AN0QCfmk 63jc1UlEAAX37+CrJH4M7fNEQS+JqyF6La1uuQjnq3/ddydMgC/CaJ6BMrTCUYjHojqP BsRj6eZnwuzrEJvik/QWfQiVI/u0mbEKGlZAvkIz4/yLiUyjLkftF2JjeL5Nj+ODwtc2 Gwmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531bIQbPczYrw6DMlo4U/tuFc7omuYu4mUN0IqS02H6ES4ndwVe2 /NBe5AKt4S34DZ7utNJWyEZxOYs7OX4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJ9rOmcQlAGpnUT4oT5jjWfLgNUb/vfZL9GzTiJ4ZqxxyyLWVoJ0/SWeGMzN4XsVSXdjdPVw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:38f:: with SMTP id ga15mr2387418pjb.149.1616044883314; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ip68-111-231-227.sd.sd.cox.net. [68.111.231.227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s3sm777058pfs.185.2021.03.17.22.21.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <59B5C1F7-48E4-4915-BAAC-41D8ADA29E8F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4674401A-8DF7-401B-98D5-51B9234A8ABA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\))
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:21:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB5316425C5650B5D2FE43DE4DAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <BL0PR05MB5316425C5650B5D2FE43DE4DAE6C9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/feJwN4V_9tC4R69K-Mg7AoWYsUU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 05:21:27 -0000


> On Mar 15, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Each week between now and IETF 111, we will review and discuss one draft with an eye towards progressing it.
> 
> This week, please review and comment on draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment.
> 
>                                                              Fred and Ron

Some thoughts on the draft:

  "Looking globally, IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4 and this means
   that the collective wisdom of the networking industry has selected
   IPv6 for the future." Is a run-on sentence (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run-on%20sentence)
   It would be more understandable, which is the principal complaint with such sentences, if the "and"
   Were placed with an end-of sentence and start of a new one ("IPv6 is growing faster than IPv4. This means...").

  "Then it is presented the survey among network operators"
   I think the authors intended to say "then it presents a survey of network operators..."

  "It was started an IPv6 poll to more than 50 network operators ..."
  I think the authors meant "more than 50 network operators were polled", or "a poll was started of more than 50 network operators"

  Section 8.1.1 mentions 6to4 (RFC 3068, which we declared historic several years ago and obsoleted in RFC 7526).
  Do we still see significant deployment of this? What are the statistics?

  Section 8.1.2 refers to lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison. SHOuld this draft be published as an RFC,
  That will be at best a "work in progress". The authors asked for it to be adopted as a working group draft
  and eventually published as an RFC. Would the authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment like to see that
  happen, so that they can refer to a stable document?

  What I draw out of section 9 is that the logical conclusion for mobile networks is the abandon IPv4 in favor of IPv6.
  We already know of some mobile networks that have done so (464XLAT was developed in that process). If that is a
  General recommendation, it would make sense to say so clearly, and identify the down-sides of doing so.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email