Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 26 February 2020 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A866D3A0A87 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:14:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Z-5n3_lcP2Q for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 471303A0A76 for <>; Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:14:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99CBC80982; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:14:39 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: Christian Huitema <>, "Carlos M. Martinez" <>
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB08431E138262F2A43C1D0621AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <PR3P194MB0843939F3B38426960A66E70AE130@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:13:47 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 23:14:49 -0000

On 26/2/20 19:56, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On 2/26/2020 9:28 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 26/2/20 14:20, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>>> It’d be strange to find such phones for sale. Not saying that there 
>>> aren’t any though.
>>> Automatic / embedded devices are a different matter though.
>>> On 26 Feb 2020, at 10:03, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>>> Have e.g. 3G-only mobile phones been banned? Or do users *opt* not 
>>>> to buy such phones for a reason? (there might be an implicit message 
>>>> in the possible answer to this question).
>> The point is exactly that: nobody had to ban them for them to go away. 
> Uh? Buying 3G phones is not that hard. See for example this offer of 
> "simple 3G phones for seniors": 
> Without going into the details of the phone market, this is just an 
> example of the "long tail" phenomenon that affects the evolution of 
> networks. Yes, when a new technology becomes popular, the most popular 
> devices will get updated quickly. But beware the long tail, all the 
> devices that still want to keep using the old technology for a variety 
> of reasons. Each of these devices may have a minuscule market share, but 
> taken in aggregate they make for a significant volume. The transition 
> plans to the new technology can never just ignore them.

My argument was: make the new technology attractive for people to adopt 
it over the legacy one, and you won't need to ban anything.

And if you do feel you need to buy anything, there's probably an 
implicit message. (As with the phones: easier to use, battery lasts 
forever when compared to new ones, I can drop the phone and it will not 
break badly).

If folks don't stop using them, there's probably a reason why (whatever 
that is).

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492