On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Daniel Suchy wrote:
Hello,
Hello again,
On 2/8/19 9:15 AM, Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg wrote:
I think only one reason, which will really boost IPv6 adoption is real
exhaustion of IPv4 pool within our (RIPE) region.
I also would like to see a stronger IPv6 adoption, and reach the point
where IPv6 packets become dominant (i.e. >50%) and at a later stage
reach a point where IPv4 routers/services/everything could be
disconnected because they weren't useful anymore.
Since there're happy-eyeball RFC implementations, it's somewhat harder
to perform such measurments. But I think IPv6 adoption was boosted in
regions, where IPv4 pool dried.
It's difficult to measure accurately, and even harder to establish a
cause/effect link from IPv4 dried pools. :-(
Google is currently measuring (globally) around 25%, from 15% 2 years ago,
and from 5% 4 years ago. I also read that as a "boost", yes :-) But
unfortunately it's still a bit away from 50%... and we must not forget
that Google is only one (big) content provider. There is still a lot of
IPv4-only content around, and access to it naturally measures at 0%.
2019-02 proposal is just delay this (and allowing more newcomers to
start their bussiness), nothing else.
The core purpose of 2019-02 is to allow (more) newcomers to access a
tiny bit of IPv4 address space so their (hopefully IPv6-enabled)
infrastructure will have path to the IPv4-only world (without going to
the market).
Yes, I understand this purpose and to be clear - I'm not against this
proposal (that means, I support it). /24 allocations for newcomers are
also used within ARIN region (since 2015 depletetion), so this cannot be
any problem with such limitation within our (RIPE) region.
Thank You!
Regards,
Carlos
- Daniel
