Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.

Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> Sun, 16 April 2017 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@shinkuro.com>
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 53ACB127775; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 tznRhHyQNMcl; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from execdsl.com (remote.shinkuro.com [50.56.68.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB05D127735; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dummy.name; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:02:27 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2C966588-8643-4E8B-80E3-A977A81DCD37"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.
From: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0401MB2241979B2A5B4A639D02083FBD070@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:02:25 -0400
Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" <steve@shinkuro.com>, "otroan@employees.org" <otroan@employees.org>, "intarea-ads@ietf.org" <intarea-ads@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <120F5DC0-AB17-448F-83E3-E633CBF7B1C3@shinkuro.com>
References: <1DD1280A-CAF0-4555-87E3-730A609C9423@consulintel.es> <AM4PR0401MB224193019197157A8DC495CBBD070@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <FF381A9D-A312-4DEC-90E6-8FF3A595789D@consulintel.es> <8A03EE98-1C94-4A82-A0E3-B1A144B6B1AB@employees.org> <AM4PR0401MB2241979B2A5B4A639D02083FBD070@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cXiy_tfqd1oFI1tv8__cdRcyhVU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:02:29 -0000

There was a flag day for the transition from NCP to TCP/IP.  There will never be another flag day.  Any transition solution, whether from IPv4 to IPv6 or a successor protocol elsewhere on the stack, has to be designed to permit overlap and interoperability during the very long period when both the old and new protocols will be operating.

Further, there will have to be two incentives at work for the transition to succeed.  One is in favor of the the new protocol.  The other is against the old protocol.  If the former is missing, the new protocol won’t be adopted.  If the latter is missing, the old protocol will persist indefinitely.

To repeat: there will never be another flag day.  If this is one of your assumptions, step back and think about the problem again.

Steve


> On Apr 16, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> That's right, and there should be a place like the IETF that should organize this process until all technology companies prepare the updates and there should be a flag day for the deployment,
> If a host still not updated, will not gain access to the Internet until updating the OS.