> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Ø Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to
> be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate
> to other stakeholders.
>
>
>
> I 100% agree…
>
>
> Great
>
> and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation
> between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that
> refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don’t
> understand that correlation.
>
>
> I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO
> correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have
> opinions that are not supported by evidence or data
>
You guys are talking across each other.
Honest’s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn’t say what
Honest said.
It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that there
are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion.
Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning a
lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no evidence of
any such lack of correlation.
>
>
> Sadly, I’ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is
> going unanswered.
>
>
> Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding?
If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest because
the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now claiming it
says.
> As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any
> conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual
> drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them?
>
>
> No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is
> at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct.
Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at LACNIC?
If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have said
about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation between
gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, the
wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology.
This isn’t exactly startling news.
However, it’s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of IPv4
resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn’t a meaningful lack of IPv4
resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still remain relatively
inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing rising IPv6 adoption rates
since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There
are statistics to support this.
IPv6 – Google
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjPhZzHk_3PAhVpqFQKHS95BKgQFgg3MAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fintl%2Fen%2Fipv6%2Fstatistics.html&usg=AFQjCNF9akCtvOxGx3DO8AXKb1ibt3R4Jg>
For example.
> It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an
> argument from what she has provided.
So, the presentation you and Honest use to “prove” your point is orthogonal to
your point. That’s Andrew’s point.
I’ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is
accelerating since depletion.
Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption or not
and get back to the real business at hand… Getting IPv6 deployed before IPv4
melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning left?
Owen
>
> -Omo
> <http:/>_______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
