Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC

Tue Nov 22 04:19:25 UTC 2022

David Conrad wrote:
> Barry,
>
> On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, bzs at 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