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

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Wed, 03 December 2014 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977BB1AC3F9; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:29:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 JTq2QMnJNw31; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F0D61A212D; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:29:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [83.111.212.208] (helo=[10.225.110.227]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jcurran@istaff.org>) id 1XwHUA-000AkD-O8; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:29:24 +0000
X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Originating-IP: 83.111.212.208
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/vmgJW9TW+0+5xpCO2H6qM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 01:29:07 +0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89433C24-5E69-463B-804B-62F73E0DFB12@istaff.org>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <547F451C.3010507@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cmD-zuLEeWo8nU5JzmP3YPSf4ho
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:29:26 -0000

On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> ...
> So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration.  Wow.

I'm not certain that it is appropriate to count the years of protocol
development, testing, and deployment into operating systems and routers
as the denominator for the "5% penetration"...  There has not been a 
strong need for IPv6 until there was actual runout of IPv4 free pool,
and this did not occur in any of the regions until 2011 (and is yet to 
happen in the North American region)   You should either measure service 
provider enablement of IPv6 from IPv4 free pool runout dates, or need to 
consider the IPv6 protocol support that has been achieved in deployed
devices (enabled or not) over the 25 year period.

Also, characterizing IPv6 success based on one providers success is 
probably not informative... there are service providers with much 
higher enablement - http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/09/verizon-wireless-hits-56-ipv6-t-mobile-usa-40-att-24/

FYI,
/John

Disclaimer: my views alone.