> On Jan 30, 2015, at 18:07 , William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> I guess it depends on your definition of ubiquitous, but to me, when a >> protocol >> has the majority of the deployed addresses, I think it counts for this >> purpose. > > LOL, Owen, IPv6 had that with the first /64 ethernet LAN it was used on.
If you want to nit-pick, by “deployed addresses”, I mean addresses actually deployed on hosts and being used for cummunications. This was a really stupid nit, even for you. > How about this: when Verizon starts decommissioning its IPv4 > infrastructure on the basis that IPv6 is widespread enough to no > longer require the expense of dual-stack, IPv6 will have achieved > ubiquity. Um, no. The judgment of one traditional telephone company is hardly where I would look to contemplate the future of the internet. Heck, to a large degree, Verizon hasn’t even figured out how to do IPv6 for FIOS customers yet, let alone their DSL subscribers. Really not the shining example I would turn to. No. Certainly not the worst, but definitely not the leader, either. Owen
