I would repeat my initial response. 5% is over simplistic. Its between 0 and 50% depending on provider, economy and CPE issues.
its like saying the world economy grew by 2% when China was on 14% and Greece was in recession. Yes, there is a world figure. No, it doesn't adequately desribe things.
And no, this is not the best we can do. Its the best we've done, given a very non-interventionist model.
We didn't ask regulators to incent the industry by offering tax allowances and accelerated plant depreciation. Telcommunications equipment can be on a 20 year deprecation schedule.
We didn't require compliance to exceed tick-box status. Many LTE deployments have V6 capability not enabled because it wasn't required, and saved dollars.
GOSIP experience negatively informed mandates. You know I was there, I know you were there. I suggest, that at an industry level we took the wrong signals from what GOSIP actually told us.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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