nanog mailing list archives
Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 23:19:25 -0500
David Conrad wrote:
Re-replying. Changing the standards is not what is intended to drive vendor changes. Userbase requests and projected needs do that.Barry, On Nov 21, 2022, at 3:01 PM, bzs () theworld com wrote:We've been trying to get people to adopt IPv6 widely for 30 years with very limited successAccording to https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html, it looks like we’ve gone from ~0% to ~40% in 12 years. https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 has it around 30%. Given an Internet population of about 5B, this can (simplistically and wrongly) argued to mean 1.5-2B people are using IPv6. For a transition to a technology that the vast majority of people who pay the bills will neither notice nor care about, and for which the business case typically needs projection way past the normal quarterly focus of shareholders, that seems pretty successful to me.But back to the latest proposal to rearrange deck chairs on the IPv4 Titanic, the fundamental and obvious flaw is the assertion of "commenting out one line code”. There isn’t “one line of code”. There are literally _billions_ of instances of “one line of code”, the vast majority of which need to be changed/deployed/tested with absolutely no business case to do so that isn’t better met with deploying IPv6+IPv4aaS. I believe this has been pointed out numerous times, but it falls on deaf ears, so the discussion gets a bit tedious.Regards, -drc
The standards are not responsible for the business case. However, they should not unreasonably impede it.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC, (continued)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 24)
- RE: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Nov 24)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 24)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Chris Welti (Nov 24)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 26)
- RE: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Nov 28)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Masataka Ohta (Nov 28)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Douglas Fischer (Nov 24)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 26)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211232221.AYC Mark Andrews (Nov 27)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211201009.AYC Dave Taht (Nov 27)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Eric Kuhnke (Nov 20)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Eric Kuhnke (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Eric Kuhnke (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Tom Beecher (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Eric Kuhnke (Nov 21)
- Re: Alternative Re: ipv4/25s and above Re: 202211210951.AYC Joe Maimon (Nov 21)