Hi, Douglas:
0) Thanks for the feedback.
1) I do not sort eMail with any tools. Other than important ones that
do I save a copy off the system as a document for long term reference, I
only flag those of substance for the keeps and allow the rest to
"expire" (I do house cleaning every three months or so.). Consequently,
I have no idea about the terminologies that you mentioned.
2) My basic understanding is, an eMail in its entirety is the original
work of its composer / writer / sender. As such, a receiver is free to
do anything with it, but not to impose certain "rules" back onto the
writing. Through the years, eMail writing styles have diversified from
the business letter protocols that I knew so much that I had to develop
my own conventions of writing that enabled me to organize my eMails for
retrieval. They seem to be tolerated by most parties that communicated
with except NANOG. If you have certain clear rules that can pass my
"logistics" considerations, I will definitely learn and follow.
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-24 16:00 EST)
On 2022-11-24 06:51, Douglas Fischer wrote:
Hello Abraham!
I believe your e-mail client (MUA) is splitting every message on a new
thread.
I'm not sure if it is happening with everyone, but using Gmail as MUA,
it isn't aggregating the mails on the same thread.
Cloud you please check the confs of your tool to avoid it?
Thanks in advance.
Em qui., 24 de nov. de 2022 às 05:56, Abraham Y. Chen
<ayc...@avinta.com> escreveu:
Dear Joe:
0) Allow me to share my understanding of the two topics that you
brought up.
1) "... https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks
like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years.... ": Your numbers
may be
deceiving.
A. The IPv6 was introduced in 1995-12, launched on 2012-06-06 and
ratified on 2017-07-14. So, the IPv6 efforts have been quite a few
years
more than your impression. That is, the IPv6 has been around over
quarter of a century.
B. If you read closely, the statement "The graph shows the
percentage of users that access Google over IPv6." above the graph
actually means "equipment readiness". That is, how many Google users
have IPv6 capable devices. This is similar as the APNIC statistics
whose
title makes this clearer. However, having the capability does not
mean
the owners are actually using it. Also, this is not general data, but
within the Google environment. Since Google is one of the stronger
promoters of the IPv6, this graph would be at best the cap of such
data.
C. The more meaningful data would be the global IPv6 traffic
statistics. Interestingly, they do not exist upon our extensive
search.
(If you know of any, I would appreciate to receive a lead to
such.) The
closest that we could find is % of IPv6 in AMS-IX traffic statistics
(see URL below). It is currently at about 5-6% and has been
tapering off
to a growth of less than 0.1% per month recently, after a ramp-up
period
in the past. (Similar saturation behavior can also be found in the
above
Google graph.)
https://stats.ams-ix.net/sflow/ether_type.html
D. One interesting parameter behind the last one is that as an
Inter-eXchange operator, AMS-IX should see very similar percentage
traffic mix between IPv6 and IPv4. The low numbers from AMS-IX
does not
support this viewpoint for matching with your observation. In
addition,
traffic through IX is the overflow among backbone routers. A couple
years ago, there was a report that peering arrangements among
backbone
routers for IPv6 were much less matured then IPv4, which meant that
AMS-IX should be getting more IPv6 traffic than the mix in the
Internet
core. Interpreted in reverse, % of IPv6 in overall Internet traffic
should be less than what AMS-IX handles.
E. This is a quite convoluted topic that we only scratched the
surface. They should not occupy the attention of colleagues on this
list. However, I am willing to provide more information to you
off-line,
if you care for further discussion.
2) "...
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/
...": My basic training was in communication equipment hardware
design.
I knew little about software beyond what I needed for my primary
assignment. Your example, however, reminds me of a programing course
that I took utilizing APL (A Programming Language) for circuit
analysis,
optimization and synthesis. It was such a cryptic symbolic
language that
classmates (mostly majored in EE hardware) were murmuring to express
their displeasure. One day we got a homework assignment to do
something
relatively simple. Everyone struggled to write the code to do the
job.
Although most of us did get working codes, they were pages long. The
shortest one was one full page. Upon reviewed all homework, the
professor smiled at us and told us to look for the solution
section at
the end of the text book. It turned out to be the answer for a
problem
in the next chapter to be covered. The code was only three lines
long!
Although it did not have the codes for debugging purposes, it covered
all error messages expected. It was such a shocker that everyone
quieted
down to focus on the subject for the rest of the semester. During my
first employment, we had the need to optimize circuit designs.
Since I
was the only staff who knew about it, I ended up being the
coordinator
between several hardware designers and the supporting programmer.
From
that teaching, I am always looking for the most concise solution
to an
issue, not being distracted or discouraged by the manifestation on
the
surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language)
3) Fast forward half a century, I am hoping that my "one-line code"
serves the purpose of "there exists" an example in proofing a
mathematical theorem for inspiring software colleagues to review the
network codes in front of them for improvement, instead of presenting
such as a valid hurdle to progress.
Regards,
Abe (2022-11-24 03:53 EST)
On 2022-11-21 19:30, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> David Conrad wrote:
>> Barry,
>>
>> On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>>> We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years
>>> with very limited success
>>
>> According to
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it
>> looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years.
>> https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an
>> Internet population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and
>> wrongly) argued to mean 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a
>> transition to a technology that the vast majority of people who
pay
>> the bills will neither notice nor care about, and for which the
>> business case typically needs projection way past the normal
>> quarterly focus of shareholders, that seems pretty successful
to me.
>>
>> But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the
IPv4
>> Titanic, the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of
>> "commenting out one line code”. There isn’t “one line of code”.
There
>> are literally _billions_ of instances of “one line of code”,
the vast
>> majority of which need to be changed/deployed/tested with
absolutely
>> no business case to do so that isn’t better met with deploying
>> IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out numerous
times, but
>> it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit tedious.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
> Had the titanic stayed afloat some hours more, many more would have
> survived and been rescued when assistance eventually arrived. So
that
> makes this a debate over whether this is deck chair
re-arrangement or
> something more meaningful.
>
> As I and others have pointed out, it depends on how it is used. And
> perhaps the attempt should be made regardless of knowing in advance
> which it will be.
>
> You assertion needs some back of the envelope numbers, which once
> provided, I suspect will render your estimate grossly incorrect.
>
> You can hardly attempt to convince anybody that 240/4 as unicast
would
> not be the more trivial change made in any of these products
natural
> life cycle points.
>
> Especially as we have examples of what that type of effort might
look
> like. IGTFY and here
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20080108011057.ga21...@cisco.com/
>
> The burdensome position is ridiculous even more so when stated
with a
> straight face.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com>
--
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação