IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

otroan@employees.org Fri, 05 November 2021 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.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 D2A083A0791 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 02:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 yIIWIMO6SJFx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA4A3A073D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 02:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:44c1:1250:d8e5:fbb8:3376:cc79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B8674E11B56; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:58:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C3B65480DE; Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:58:39 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <10EBDDEB-F632-41AF-A828-C24073377057@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0C2D3600-3472-4C71-9CB6-B6B8CC761943"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 10:58:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <7238184A-53D6-42C3-B9C3-E333513A8636@sobco.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
References: <8F4B97EA-665F-4A59-B99D-791B4AB9F2F7@yahoo.co.uk> <c3e9fe1b-8e48-a364-9e25-4084dac70889@meetinghouse.net> <3a6bf8ad-5492-0942-a451-6317e8a93705@network-heretics.com> <3e685576-a230-a7c4-f371-d66a55aa820d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ZwqFx7qp6-19mqqrW_a3hn_OFhk>
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 09:58:47 -0000

> ...
> 
>> My point is just that IETF should accept the operational reality
>> that IPv6 is not and will not be deployed so widely, with reasons,
>> to reach the critical mass and deployment schemes today require
>> NAT, we should abandon IPv6 and live with IPv4 and NAT.
> 
> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html - total IPv6 at Google 32.41%

Perhaps a better lithmus test would be:
"Would an end-user notice if IPv6 was removed from his/her/it's host?"

O.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email