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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net