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

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 12/3/14 12:15 PM, "Dave Crocker" <[e-mail]> 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:
>> 
>>
>So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration.  Wow.

A lot of things with 5% penetration are considered wildly successful.

>
>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"?

Depends on what you're trying to do with it. It's great for walled gardens
and translatable clouds, with enormous displacement in some mobile
networks.

>
>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?

Eric Vyncke has provided us with a nice tool for this:
https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/project.php

It only lets you estimate one country at a time. Belgium is a good one,
near 30% using IPv6 to reach Google. Or, using the U.S., extrapolating
from the last 500 days using a 5th-order polynomial curve, we hit 60% in
mid-2017. And 100% in the first half of 2018.

My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care about IPv4
anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.

Lee