David Conrad wrote:
Barry,
On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years
with very limited success
According to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it
looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years.
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an Internet
population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and wrongly) argued
to mean 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a transition to a technology
that the vast majority of people who pay the bills will neither notice
nor care about, and for which the business case typically needs
projection way past the normal quarterly focus of shareholders, that
seems pretty successful to me.
But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the IPv4
Titanic, the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of
"commenting out one line code”. There isn’t “one line of code”. There
are literally _billions_ of instances of “one line of code”, the vast
majority of which need to be changed/deployed/tested with absolutely
no business case to do so that isn’t better met with deploying
IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out numerous times, but
it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit tedious.
Regards,
-drc
Re-replying. Changing the standards is not what is intended to drive
vendor changes. Userbase requests and projected needs do that.
The standards are not responsible for the business case. However, they
should not unreasonably impede it.
Joe
