IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Wed, 19 February 2020 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 05DEF120820 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:09:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZfUiq2pmGMqS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x836.google.com (mail-qt1-x836.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::836]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A66C912084E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x836.google.com with SMTP id d5so903441qto.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:09:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CVCU/nY53Pi7U7osdEA+McGRD7+kgaIdYvC3bqSKFDM=; b=WZ+FIzFVZjiiaRtjIWRhCAtk1Kpzstf833JTm/mGjOCUGDfIa5Bdvl0TmKUO5k+QTV GZIZw0+M90lrjvfzHNm0onM8FULO0eLnZJxkcP681oYRZMEjhjMSadTc523MnFZObi67 lEn+dswkcRVS+wNzapcOv1y+fJ1rporrtSAhassriefUuvolA/2LDbvq7jxX51BU9RSV 1p3ZOBjc7/brSV9Jcx8+LYuJMuXrBBbkZg9Rodc3qGIFcdJrVT5VLtEXs6ZA0k8+wneG +dJgpmuIsYzU134+6zzX501r1PAb719S2UHSwr0L9RaSeLfzJ3CVhvt0doOdIw7cfW7y 4Qdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CVCU/nY53Pi7U7osdEA+McGRD7+kgaIdYvC3bqSKFDM=; b=N9WqIiM4aFXbkdfRbgRSC6GGbJYsnTeyR9OqjRrXpoYPcqYn/WOk1sze/6C6jPT3KG TcaHN/UryHPyI9apj+jUDqvK/E7oyvGwqWinqw1dFOjCH8wGQUiXrLStqGqRNDoac/Ka GQv+1XhM22MeI1MO08gzswzEx0pgxdH6tn/gMhVyd2IDckw5tRSOPCP9Gt7aAlkWM7e5 wR5rQje2pXrP2pXm6I7CavT9thm7xzEz9Y94NaSDGfsVqP5trfmj9vJS7W0t7QeoKP1o a/QPN9E0wacywH9VG2gVwAiQieIcG0xQ5gQmPxR/PwE1EC2OQatazHWmgVCsCf6Outa6 vYFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXz9jxECVswsGrYuB+c4ZvZAI+zIxoMTpXyfKtSyRaS13i1hzLz DnSzVPj3hFeTOD//8V018cUk/rd9G4xJcu2WVq0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybkTP7M6D4oodjFuvBhFlWH37SyICXM5b5kCGm6mT0FkG1taMFaujrMY2Sh1l4C3OAlWo+Tr6p83Bt4l831yc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:74c:: with SMTP id k12mr23212005qth.185.1582135764580; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 10:09:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <PR3P194MB0843ACAE01F33CEC57266A1AAE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAL9jLab3GN5eEwbC1cHQkG9onUn5rry7OMykQ7MiRGo90TKizg@mail.gmail.com> <PR3P194MB08432397118C0AB443EC7611AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <PR3P194MB08432397118C0AB443EC7611AE100@PR3P194MB0843.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:09:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaaD-nCB+FxcaU9-zGQjor0Zr-DJFqhgCqu7yq3K0F-96w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 Coexistence.
To: Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/n8fkPTXqgsJBo9MymvQf618J300>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:09:28 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:35 PM Khaled Omar
<eng.khaled.omar@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> >> these numbers are ~2yrs old... but 25% is not "almost nobody".
>
> Actually, devilations in percentages makes things worse, some think it is 25% others think it is 30% others think no IPv6 at all :) and all these percentages are incorrect because only one thing can make it clear, to find an official solution announced for everybody stating that what should we do in such situation.
>

Perhaps you are arguing about your perspective:
  "My network/isp and there for things I poke at are ipv4 only"

sure.

But the rest of the world really has moved along to deploying ipv6.
Mobile networks are largely moving entirely to v6 with nat64 things to
get access to legacy-ip resources.
Content folk largely provide both v4/v6 endpoints for all of their resources.

Some consumer ISPs are making v6 the  norm, others are foot-draggers.

-chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email