Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 03 December 2014 21:33 UTC
Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E3771AC427 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:33:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 gXmSc8oAXYt2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EC6F1AC423 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id wp18so12212310obc.15 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:33:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=F7rLpWhpSOOMhMRpLoRkzdnbBakH4cRfostJeZWHLH0=; b=cid+IyvlBAdEse9V22/TmqS4QTnwXo/+koOslJmhwUMFzivcqpES9OCBG1Fc8NadGD 5uw0VdGKUurZreONhQ3j/xQbbZlhyWlYExGLoRNtC7RjBhoSUzYUdEw4KPN4vPn97bYp YjjxDvvzonntCqVGjFCmgWPG3tPbqA4Kq2B48=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=F7rLpWhpSOOMhMRpLoRkzdnbBakH4cRfostJeZWHLH0=; b=QmsAYEY1ZAX9D10TiwOK83+XiIztwfms8MQKjRcEKfsqUIEJjYHki8s0AIYTsnAQLl 0bwEGuvMJNYcTUxSO21nVffflZ0IlEikl/w12YSBhXnBfO1i9tvcF3F9lKJVFjscjSLk kWC0ll+VAUQ1C/T67+GLYBRf9iFcwBr0EFSyq2rZEfPBQjZ5xvvQVzuKzEdTWT88nIIs KlZYpedk5AoBEMDmEMEsxInjUYWKiwufM6qARFZWN5aFVqF9X5dZq4Q74LTPtg9tpZMb PIlb6uQb1TPqqA+IOQd/Tx0Ty6/uKutpASc26TPhcYN07m+2vX7Kdmrik8J2jjCXCk8/ yruA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGoW+rNZdpZxUBdY+2Ah2B8XO8FogHcNbzkgYSv0RXr/dGLz23S8yKSHrHLuGYFOfehSZG
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.68.108 with SMTP id v12mr4482739oet.69.1417642420593; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:33:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.227.199 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:33:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:33:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzwReUb-9KruEoMH1PgJDWNHQbf-i1p6SLKR0GUxUePAoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11330d5ee5fc6405095698e2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Bwu6iy2NlYliLVlbRPVROTjkZPQ
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:33:42 -0000
On 3 December 2014 at 17:15, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration. Wow. > Oh, I agree, it's pretty good, especially against a functioning incumbent. Assuming you take the 1974 Cerf and Kahn paper as the startpoint for IPv4, which may not be entirely reasonable, then how long was it before one out of every twenty networked computers used it? 25 years would make that 1999. Hard to say what the percentages were, but I suspect that OSI was still significant, Netware had started the switchover from IPX/SPX only the year before, and Windows tended to use NetBIOS Frames (certainly the installed base did) - however overall, I seem to recall that IPv4 availability in businesses was fairly common at that point, so I'd be willing to bet it was higher than 5%. However, I would guess it didn't pass 5% until toward the end of the '90's. Prior to Windows 95, getting IPv4 support on a typical PC required considerable technical ability, and prior to 1996 or so Win95 didn't install IPv4 by default, so I doubt the numbers were significant at all in percentage terms. So if we pretend - probably incorrectly - that Win95 OSR2 caused an immediate rise above 5%, then it's 22 years for IPv4. In any case, it's essentially in the same ballpark. Dave.
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Curran
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Cridland
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… l.wood
- IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 … Dave Crocker
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
- Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ralph Droms
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Eggert, Lars
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Bob Hinden
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… George Michaelson
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Fernando Gont
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Doug Royer
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Lee Howard
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John Levine
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [eX-bulk] : Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successfu… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… James Woodyatt
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… John R Levine
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Douglas Otis
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- RE: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… heasley
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… 🔓Dan Wing
- Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Pro… Stewart Bryant