IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FA21B2A2A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 KLGWeAyrtUwm for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01AE31B2A3D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w61so1224035wes.11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k4KzOjAho5OhgHfM3cWWPQvLbFn0KKFjxn96ec4QSkw=; b=l0SymzPvREI6yY9n1vWuV41YkAOtN+gh2NkQTPIT5ayWVCEb5MhWGBpD+K+ubCoiKj 2Z7vJ19yXa7Iuc/5hQY77oyn6XEwdixPpHk9wacKHH2NUDyhsQbfwlpTjPnfD9CeUd9/ j0cKDttg+tVQmMwIvbJ8ktjTtY6R7UkcX6IvncN3G2mPmtFdyPddtX0rReCpe4ZviJkY tmRgrFsGrvIbwZHWio/9Eyt/dYKF4C79o5qM5KnjSck6mlPnMQJ5tRlEiRlOViofeaVj 1KcQjuJns0LeWav3gofWWhqLaCyukk72+6djOIYXzWz062FDg9Aw8nx3mGCtqQjs9c9R nNHw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.81.234 with SMTP id d10mr7868551wiy.79.1407254427378; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.49.133 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <4F7D76F6-BD81-453B-94DC-A3C3DFF68505@delong.com> <8600C096-37D0-4651-92C1-BCFDBA674433@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 09:00:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2xa_HYBO6uSPmgSZ-88NP-IKITs
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:00:46 -0000

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> Upgrading your application to be protocol agnostic about its connection
>> to the database server shouldn’t be very difficult these days.
>
> Furthermore, you don't need to upgrade these parts of the application.  The only part you really need to upgrade is the part that sticks out of the data center.   The rest you can leave running IPv4 until the equipment dies: that's really your deadline.
>.


One of the fundamental flaws with the dual-stack transition dream is
that people care and will upgrade.

Today in 2014, a young developer somewhere in the world using the best
tools is hard coding an IPv4 literal into a application.

Somewhere else in the world, the biggest and smartest companies are
investing billions of dollars into futuristic cloud platforms that
dont even have token IPv6 supports (Azure and Google Cloud)

In summary, the premise of the daul stack transition for the Internet
is faulty.  It already failed.

CB
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email