Re: [Int-area] Google Statistics for IPv6 adoption. Sun, 16 April 2017 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E7E12741D; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 LdDnflDm4lqT; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F3B124D6C; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Apr 2017 12:06:35 +0000
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D763BD788D; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=ZJunYXOPlSDE27AO+s18JwO9KOo=; b= FhEECMFFR8GqL66wxZuOA58Oueyup4syLKZw/HAaxJJ53Xt5sussoEapoIfsi1qm aLTdvx14P6h/UIfeOV8aMgeRgByhLH+NRb9+Yww877N78GcuynibbDKfiWN2f0dl uoX6ywMBsrRXxAg9KlTeavOxjTLjpiosOuHh3c+kb4U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=ZmpN3sXojJXmJM1CVckrf5C IoJHXqk5jR9owwvFrkVUA19vwwWP58EcwfC+CMaNyxP8lCDVbROB4eAGmr5szC/z V6GMW5fyKNeTVrzwCl/T/ZNsq8jv/01j2IVpI6xvUfJJGrvYQ29pOqLGSwTxPliY bJKxuQazwIOwSb7JIFko=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65EAAD788B; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 05:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2584AA9DBB5D; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:06:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_22D5E9C8-A319-45BD-9EDF-24D27908AFE2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:06:29 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
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 12:06:37 -0000


> 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,