On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, John Curran <jcurran(_at_)istaff(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 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,
and this did not occur in any of the regions until 2011 (and is yet to
happen in the North American region) You should either measure service
provider enablement of IPv6 from IPv4 free pool runout dates, or need to
consider the IPv6 protocol support that has been achieved in deployed
devices (enabled or not) over the 25 year period.
Also, characterizing IPv6 success based on one providers success is
probably not informative... there are service providers with much
higher enablement -
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/09/verizon-wireless-hits-56-ipv6-t-mobile-usa-40-att-24/
Just to clarify, what is the proposal here:
1) Address+Port become one way to manage the depleted address pool
2) Address+Port become the one and only way
I see no problem with 1, it is a sensible proposal. I would see a lot of
problems with 2.
Turning to John's point, the problem for IPv6 deployment is that IPv4
address depletion is not and will never be a reason for people deploying
IPv6. Until IPv6 delivers 100% of the functionality of IPv4, IPv4 behind
NAT will beat IPv6.
The solution for deployment then is to make IPv6 deliver 100% connectivity.
And there are several ways we might go about that. DNS64 for example. But
any such scheme is going to require a break from the pure IP end-to-end
principle because the addresses have to change from IPv4 to IPv6 somewhere
along the path.
It really isn't a major change. It does not even require a gateway to be
statefull. But some people think that it is more important to suppress such
heretical thoughts than to address the deployment problem.