>> Michel Py wrote:
>> The unanswered question is: are all these tricks going to be
>> enough to keep operating IPv4. Nobody knows, but almost
>> everyone who already has a v4 address can wait.
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Well, if in the forseeable future (3 years is a bit short,
> though) 50% of all hosts has IPv6 connectivity, I would call
> that a resounding success.
Me too, that's why I used "even if". I am glad you have come to
admitting this publicly. Given some private email I have received
yesterday, it appears that some of the most active participants in the
IETF (and/or this mailing list) have been shocked to hear that, as of
yesterday night, less than 50% of all hosts did not have IPv6
connectivity yet.
Well, M$ will eventually fix Vista and it will eventually become
popular; nothing to worry about :-D
> (I'll even take 25 or even 10 % or whatever is enough to make most
> ISPs deploy IPv6 in their networks.)
That percentage is a heck of an interesting speculation, and I would not
dare no bet anything more than a beer on it. More on this below.
> That the other 50/75/90% is still IPv6-only wouldn't be a problem:
> presumably, IPv4 works for them so there is no need to add IPv6.
I presume you meant "the other 50/75/90% is still IPv4-only"
^
That's the real deal: if 90% of hosts don't need IPv6, it never takes
off. This is hardly a new notion, but there is such thing as a critical
mass.
> The tricky part is what happens to people that run into
> limitations that exist in IPv4 but not in IPv6. (NAT, hard
> to get enough addresses, that kind of stuff.) So far, deploying
> IPv6 to work around these problems has rarely been a workable
> option. But hopefully, it will become one in the next few years.
Iljitsch, I like your eternal optimism but please face reality: despite
being evil, NAT is a feature that IPv6 does not have (yet?), and for
anyone who can read this today, "hard to get enough addresses" is a red
herring.
I just [forklift] upgraded one of my old small customers; they are 100%
IPv6 capable and 90% IPv6 configured (Vista on every desktop, Server
2003 SP1 x64, Exchange 2007, IOS 12.4). They have a /28 from {major ISP,
name withheld to protect the guilty and accessorily save my @55} which I
did not ask for; all I use is a single IP. The next thing I foresee
coming from {major ISP} is to change that /28 into a single static IP.
For the next 5 years I still don't have a single reason to upgrade.
<flame bait>
While you're at it, explain me something else: I'm a fat ignorant dumb
lazy American imperialist. Why should I bother if, in 5 years, someone
in a country that I have not heard the name yet has to sub their
Internet connectivity to an American company {which I, ahem, happen to
own shares of} instead of getting their own PI?
</flame bait>
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf