Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 3C8EB1B2A82 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 fo5HFLyHOR7D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A681A036B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1XEhcW-0000BoC; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 18:29:52 +0200
Message-Id: <m1XEhcW-0000BoC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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> <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 5 Aug 2014 09:00:27 -0700 ." <CAD6AjGTBfyT-zNDJtBKCNtRxd=Hi07678Sr_-HgSGYbjAiF3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:29:49 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/7CLKpck9USjbsCUw18pAdqHPk18
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 16:30:24 -0000

> 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.

People have been creating websites that only worked on IE6 long after it
became clear that doing so was a bad idea.

The question is if IPv4 is going to be bad enough that the pain of supporting
IPv6 will be worth it.

If so, the transition will happen and probably will even happen quickly.

The current IPv6 is mature enough that you can run it in production. Whether
people will run it in production depends on whether there is a net gain in
doing so.

That gain has to come from off-loading traffic from scarce IPv4 addresses.