Re: IPv6 Adoption Curve (was Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard)

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

I would repeat my initial response. 5% is over simplistic. Its between 0
and 50% depending on provider, economy and CPE issues.

its like saying the world economy grew by 2% when China was on 14% and
Greece was in recession. Yes, there is a world figure. No, it doesn't
adequately desribe things.

And no, this is not the best we can do. Its the best we've done, given a
very non-interventionist model.

We didn't ask regulators to incent the industry by offering tax allowances
and accelerated plant depreciation. Telcommunications equipment can be on a
20 year deprecation schedule.

We didn't require compliance to exceed tick-box status. Many LTE
deployments have V6 capability not enabled because it wasn't required, and
saved dollars.

GOSIP experience negatively informed mandates. You know I was there, I know
you were there. I suggest, that at an industry level we took the wrong
signals from what GOSIP actually told us.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 12/3/2014 1:29 PM, John Curran wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> 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,
>
>
> John, Dave, Fred and George, et al,
>
>
> First, please note that Bob Hinden offered the single Google reference
> as the basis for arguing against the proposed IPv4-related activity.
> (Also please note that I'm not commenting on that proposal at all.)  I
> was merely responding to the use of that number.  My note was pointing
> out the problem with the implied import of that number, not with its
> validity nor with other, un-cited numbers.
>
> That said, everything I keep hearing still says that v6 adoption is
> very, very far from dominating the Internet.  Things appear to be
> getting better, but that doesn't mean IPv4 is dead and irrelevant.
>
> So to all the folk who are already touting the success of IPv6 -- and
> especially using this to try to denigrate or dismiss v4 work --, I will
> repeat my query:  When will IPv6 use hit 60%?  And if that's the wrong
> number -- I did choose it rather randomly -- please select a better one,
> justify it, declare a due date, and justify that.
>
>
> Second, when comparing IPv4 adoption to IPv6, let's at least try to make
> the comparison between apples to some form of vegetation rather than
> bicycles.
>
> v4 was a research project.  There was arguably no serious, large-scale
> commercial market until around 1990, plus or minus a couple of years.
> (Some product work predates this a few years, but the market was tiny.
> It really required removal of the NSF restrictions to signal permission
> for global growth.  And it took that long for the distraction of
> artificial enthusiasm over OSI to die down.)  So really, it took less
> than 10 years for IPv4 to reach a level of global penetration to a very
> high percent.
>
> By contrast, v6 was started with an explicit goal of serving a global
> market and it was started to solve a serious problem.  (Arguably the
> start of that work marked the start of serious v4 adoption, since it
> marked the recognition that v4 really had developed into a global market.)
>
> Claims that we didn't have a near-term 'need' for v6, when it was first
> started, go against the original, stated impetus for starting the work.
>  We did make the mistake of developing arguments to convince ourselves
> that we could delay 10 or 15 years.  This allowed us to take far longer
> to finish the work and to create an entirely incompatible version of IP,
> thereby dramatically increasing adoption costs and barriers. (For those
> who haven't read about 'second system syndrome', I recommend it.)
>
> But just for grins, let's take Fred's 2007 date for V6, although I think
> it far later than reasonable.  That means that in 7 years of serious
> promotion, we have achieved only 5% penetration.
>
> Given the importance of this bit of mechanism, that is really the best
> we can do in that amount of time?
>
>
> d/
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>