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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Sun, 16 April 2017 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC85512706D for <>; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 06:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1m92Lm1tFZMa for <>; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 06:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639C9128B90 for <>; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 06:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1492347942; x=1492952742; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=FPl0qJOBq8mYX9JJvBStMiCap cLQAlY0NfTG63rc1YQ=; b=POmyH1WKjkjFNJlr3vGZ7r6xNP/RyGr2bPVSRu33C BSN6HVZKP/Y4NjoAU6h6HWDF34xgEGg/ozF/5GaVuPj5PPYUMNr15GH7Lwwh4HEY L3eDM1Xp5JuQga0HXH47IDaWMPwEEwH7z6t7qUs7UwtMRuFTx2n4XwpdXsE+c4NT 7E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon;; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=YogCNipNELfijeKgYdusK9emWhEtnTGFD1YjvB+rUHaRkW7c5WN/8euUudCc p7R7XkTheppHsOw9wtJPnbubom51aKvfE1wVR6SvrTGPYNbe0RrFHdsi+ SYsNxM5P1VrZ9hJ3oxQLBYrDZPjjXnM/8E0N+2i7MAnDs26rrataFg=;
X-MDAV-Processed:, Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:05:42 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:05:41 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50005409216.msg for <>; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:05:40 +0200
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
X-HashCash: 1:20:170416:md50005409216::KLsY6kkZhOa+/ylc:00009X+j
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.21.0.170409
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 15:05:35 +0200
To: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 13:05:47 -0000

I agree that that was the plan (and it is in the medium term), but my response is to Khaled specific point that seems to say (I understood that at least) that only 15% can access (now) to IPv6-only.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: domingo, 16 de abril de 2017, 14:06
Para: <>
CC: "" <>rg>, "" <>rg>, "" <>rg>, "" <>
Asunto: Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption.

    > And actually, in general, nobody complains that any hosts in IPv4 is not able to access resources at IPv6 hosts. This is why we have the transition mechanism, that are being deployed in parallel to the IPv6 deployment.
    This is not true.
    The plan was for a short period where hosts were dual stack and then as soon as IPv6 was everywhere, turn IPv4 off.
    That's not where we are. I would expect the number of  IPv6 only networks and services to grow. Possibly without IPv4 support at all, or where the cost and responsibility of legacy support will be pushed out towards the IPv4 only users.
    > Nobody is so crazy to just deploy IPv6 and do not provide those transition mechanisms.
    > If that happens, clearly is the fault of somebody that doesn’t know how to do his job. This can happen exactly the same if your protocol becomes approved and some folks don’t update their hosts or routers to comply with your protocol, right?
    The transition has turned out to be a real pain.
    I understand the problem Khaled set out to solve.
    Unfortunately his solution is not practical nor deployable.
    And we have in fact tried many of the same flavours of solution before.
    Given Khaled's apparent non-interest in two-way communication I wouldn't imagine any number of emails would help in that regard.
    Best regards,

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.