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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 16 April 2017 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 94573126C22; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 l9g4lgbYYXOr; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13228120724; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v3GHSBmD021491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:28:12 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1492363692; bh=svqI3EyS3sBqMW2wFzyYFJIG9iYVNzvDWFpwyXy4cbc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=aYvLiyLS5Ey2MDL3bhYPCqvmo5A8t1BavpFv/USD3CZ6lX/j9IB+/PmuAdj6M9Zag DYvjX+uyQzygRlmcDB4Umb1o7quMrSan/LS/CaBAQNS0nT+TwRQWTF5TNLfutgN06H m2R89xhgzgEsFOl339wH4+l3vG45ck89V/VSO7qQ=
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.
To: Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com>, Khaled Omar <eng.khaled.omar@hotmail.com>
Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "intarea-ads@ietf.org" <intarea-ads@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
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> <120F5DC0-AB17-448F-83E3-E633CBF7B1C3@shinkuro.com>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <dec307bb-47c5-ac22-d498-a76dce563b03@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:25:49 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <120F5DC0-AB17-448F-83E3-E633CBF7B1C3@shinkuro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yuL6LZtS250ev2KKhLyJebK2V60>
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 17:25:59 -0000

On 4/16/2017 10:02 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>   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.

Given the amount of time any Internet-scale transition must/will take, 
the term 'transition' is tending to be problematic, because it 
encourages of tone of temporariness.

When the scale is one or more decades -- as we seem to be seeing 
regularly -- the better model is long-term dual-stack with 
interoperability support (gateways and tunnels.)


> Further, there will have to be two incentives at work for the transition 
> to succeed.

+1, but the challenge is figuring out who to incentivize and making sure 
the incentives are powerful and real (and usually immediate.)  We all 
have a tendency to imagine incentives that are convenient to our goals, 
whereas those doing the uptake often prove remarkably uncooperative to 
our view...

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net