On 12/3/2014 9:04 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not support this action. The words in the abstract in RFC6346:
>
> We are facing the exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free IP address pool.
> Unfortunately, IPv6 is not yet deployed widely enough to fully
> replace IPv4, and it is unrealistic to expect that this is going to
> change before the depletion of IPv4 addresses. Letting hosts
> seamlessly communicate in an IPv4 world without assigning a unique
> globally routable IPv4 address to each of them is a challenging
> problem.
>
> are not accurate. Noting one of many statistics that IPv6 use is
> growing, Google is reporting that 5% of their access traffic is from
> IPv6:
So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration. Wow.
And that's for a single, special service provider.
And while yes, the more recent adoption rate is considerably more
promising that that statistic implies, it leaves a basic question:
According to what operational model does 5% adoption counter a
claim that "IPv6 is not yet deployed widely enough to fully replace IPv4"?
What are the current projections for at least 60% penetrations? And is
even that sufficient for claiming that IPv6 sufficiently counter the
above text about IPv4?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net