Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Christian de Larrinaga <> Wed, 03 December 2014 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2151A1BA9; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:39:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.25
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kng8xbUephCy; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:41c8:1:6062::d46e:bc35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BDCB1A1B6C; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 09:39:03 -0800 (PST)
X-No-Relay: not in my network
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; b=EW6g2Uf/WUJcgijIMOW0f0fdHDx07qtn9avl6mE2TBR+nJihEDoJ6LZV9h0eAzbp4lolIWqatnO0hkgBSLpcPRPYQuYhdcSUSn3dVK99vb17SucuYQ2jSQejnal56ObP; h=X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:X-No-Relay:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
X-No-Relay: not in my network
Received: from MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C446FE0104; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 17:39:00 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:38:59 +0000
From: Christian de Larrinaga <>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bob Hinden <>,, IESG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:39:43 -0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 12/3/2014 9:04 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I do not support this action.  The words in the abstract in RFC6346:
>>    We are facing the exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free IP address pool.
>>    Unfortunately, IPv6 is not yet deployed widely enough to fully
>>    replace IPv4, and it is unrealistic to expect that this is going to
>>    change before the depletion of IPv4 addresses.  Letting hosts
>>    seamlessly communicate in an IPv4 world without assigning a unique
>>    globally routable IPv4 address to each of them is a challenging
>>    problem.
>> are not accurate.  Noting one of many statistics that IPv6 use is
>> growing, Google is reporting that 5% of their access traffic is from
>> IPv6:
> So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration.  Wow.
> And that's for a single, special service provider.
> And while yes, the more recent adoption rate is considerably more
> promising that that statistic implies, it leaves a basic question:
>      According to what operational model does 5% adoption counter a
> claim that "IPv6 is not yet deployed widely enough to fully replace IPv4"?
> What are the current projections for at least 60% penetrations?  And is
> even that sufficient for claiming that IPv6 sufficiently counter the
> above text about IPv4?
> d/


Now that's a question.

We are seeing some more promises in UK that consumer broadband providers
are planning to deploy IPv6 towards the end of 2015.

The new vendor orientated UK IPv6 Council held a meeting recently where
BskyB, BT and Virgin made cooing noises, not entirely in tune with each
other though.

But I've heard this type of thing a few times before over the last decade.

One question in the air for me is those ISPs that don't want to get into
Carrier Grade NAT and so need to go to IPv6 quickly are living in a
market dominated by ISPs who have plenty of IPv4 and or who say they are
happy to CGN their customers who will consequently have no IPv6.

The critical mass of adoption that is needed to justify deployment of
IPv6 seems to be less to do with % of users as being the power of ISPs
to impose their own policies on their customers.

That is not surprising if you consider that IP address policy has been
hijacked by ISPs long ago with IP addresses treated as a resource and
convenience for ISPs to manage their customers on their network rather
than one for users to specify and control to connect into the global

One consequence of all this is that users who are provided with IPv6
with progressive ISPs are likely to be behind CGN and home NATs for IPv4
or some other IPv4 gateway service in the network. Not exactly the
vision of dual stack that was the dream.


Christian de Larrinaga

@ FirstHand
+44 7989 386778