This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Sat Oct 5 22:40:57 CEST 2019
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Michel Py wrote: > Hi Carlos, > >> Carlos Friaças wrote : >> We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real. >> Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago. > > Indeed, and so was I. WAS. > > >> But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point! > > Nobody cares about deployment rates. What good does it do, if people don't use it ? > This is more realistic : https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html > During the week, we are below 25%. So...? Things move slowly, but they are moving. IPv6 in terms of volume is still a long way behind IPv4. >> We also have to acknowledge "IPv4 zealots" are real. > > And they are the ones with the money. The lobbyists. The connections. The banana peels. The 75% market share. > The IPv4 zealots have not always been there; they have been created as a reaction to the nonsense of the IPv6 zealots. Admitting that "zealotism" is not a got thing might be a good 1st step. > IPv6 replacing IPv4 is a delusion. Same can be said about the oil-driven economy, however... > 3 months ago, I turned DECNET off on my network. It was actually not > even an IT/network decision; customer decided they were done with a > product, and we de-commissioned the tools with DECNET. Business > decision. We run OS/2 Warp, MS-DOS, Windows 95, HPUX, Solaris, Windows > 2000, and I probably forget some. So, hardly any IPv6 there :-) > In 20 years, I will still need IPv4. Sure, if IPv6 doesn't become dominant. > And I have enough IPv4 on my hands for the foreseeable future. I bought some recently, just in case. The "foreseeable future" is also a bit uncertain :-) If a new project pops up that will need 10x the public address space you have... good luck. But yes, a thick wallet might solve it... Cheers, Carlos > I encourage the WG group to read this : > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/ > And the full text : > https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IPv6-Migration-Study-final-report.pdf > Serious work, paid by ICANN. > > Michel. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Have we failed as IPv6 Working Group?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]