Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 05 November 2021 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EEF3A0CF2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 04:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 SSxRRHZ0JlI4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 04:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEC903A0CEF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 04:22:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: ietf@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.17.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 1A5BMWUr021525 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:22:32 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
To: otroan@employees.org
Cc: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <8F4B97EA-665F-4A59-B99D-791B4AB9F2F7@yahoo.co.uk> <7a087707-499f-e3bf-8701-1a58930a8a22@meetinghouse.net> <4ec32d7a-a17b-635b-91bc-4152313d6800@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <885e62bf-7d6a-4501-a48a-e7c2cbf20382@joelhalpern.com> <e59adb61-a55c-7f5f-a60a-40bf186c139d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceMSrfkqGTYcMNr3JargO3gxJqTaEyf02LGHd-KVeUDHw@mail.gmail.com> <6286da3e-2beb-9556-089a-2e1951573b1e@gmail.com> <59c80b60-438f-b10f-ad61-ba839f6e4f95@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <e834916e85ea47ef94fce07c23928d2b@huawei.com> <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com> <23b450fb11eb4a51bb4ee837b5c52657@huawei.com> <a805b50d-3ccd-dd2a-4931-6c6dc9a8ede3@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceY1gtK5v3WGMd4OB0z826jDiDDw_g1LbjWef7MKTnrcg@mail.gmail.com> <7d6af5bc-9663-7e4e-26ba-23fb1e4dccbe@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7238184A-53D6-42C3-B9C3-E333513A8636@sobco.com> <10EBDDEB-F632-41AF-A828-C24073377057@employees.org>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <bf9261ca-a268-f2f9-1fc6-f0fe75e09ca8@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:22:31 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.51
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <10EBDDEB-F632-41AF-A828-C24073377057@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BeH_DWAomtxXYEQx0K-KbXTWQzk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:22:49 -0000

otroan@employees.org wrote on 05/11/2021 09:58:
> Perhaps a better lithmus test would be:
> "Would an end-user notice if IPv6 was removed from his/her/it's host?"

this would not be the only important test.  Another would be: if ipv6 
were removed from the entire user base, would the operator notice, and 
if it were bad enough, would the end user notice - e.g. pricing, 
video-provider dropping out due to NAT session concurrency problems, CGN 
hardware/software total-cost-of-ownership, etc.

ipv4 will not go away until there is a compelling reason to abandon it 
in favour of ipv6 or another future protocol.  One reason to sit up and 
take notice is that ipv4 addresses currently cost $50/each, so if you 
need lots of ipv4 addresses, they are now a commodity which may make a 
difference to your bottom line.

Conversely there are plenty of organisations in some parts of the world 
that have more than enough ipv4 address space for their needs.

Dislodging organically evolved protocols is always difficult and often 
impossible.

Nick