On 12/3/2014 1:29 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > ... >> > So, after 25 years of effort, we've achieved 5% penetration. Wow. > I'm not certain that it is appropriate to count the years of protocol > development, testing, and deployment into operating systems and routers > as the denominator for the "5% penetration"... There has not been a > strong need for IPv6 until there was actual runout of IPv4 free pool, John, Dave, Fred and George, et al, First, please note that Bob Hinden offered the single Google reference as the basis for arguing against the proposed IPv4-related activity. (Also please note that I'm not commenting on that proposal at all.) I was merely responding to the use of that number. My note was pointing out the problem with the implied import of that number, not with its validity nor with other, un-cited numbers. That said, everything I keep hearing still says that v6 adoption is very, very far from dominating the Internet. Things appear to be getting better, but that doesn't mean IPv4 is dead and irrelevant. So to all the folk who are already touting the success of IPv6 -- and especially using this to try to denigrate or dismiss v4 work --, I will repeat my query: When will IPv6 use hit 60%? And if that's the wrong number -- I did choose it rather randomly -- please select a better one, justify it, declare a due date, and justify that. Second, when comparing IPv4 adoption to IPv6, let's at least try to make the comparison between apples to some form of vegetation rather than bicycles. v4 was a research project. There was arguably no serious, large-scale commercial market until around 1990, plus or minus a couple of years. (Some product work predates this a few years, but the market was tiny. It really required removal of the NSF restrictions to signal permission for global growth. And it took that long for the distraction of artificial enthusiasm over OSI to die down.) So really, it took less than 10 years for IPv4 to reach a level of global penetration to a very high percent. By contrast, v6 was started with an explicit goal of serving a global market and it was started to solve a serious problem. (Arguably the start of that work marked the start of serious v4 adoption, since it marked the recognition that v4 really had developed into a global market.) Claims that we didn't have a near-term 'need' for v6, when it was first started, go against the original, stated impetus for starting the work. We did make the mistake of developing arguments to convince ourselves that we could delay 10 or 15 years. This allowed us to take far longer to finish the work and to create an entirely incompatible version of IP, thereby dramatically increasing adoption costs and barriers. (For those who haven't read about 'second system syndrome', I recommend it.) But just for grins, let's take Fred's 2007 date for V6, although I think it far later than reasonable. That means that in 7 years of serious promotion, we have achieved only 5% penetration. Given the importance of this bit of mechanism, that is really the best we can do in that amount of time? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net