Ok Dirk, but those are IPv6 statistics, maybe they are IPv6 only deployments, how to know if they are using the transitioning technologies? Maybe Dual stack is preferred IMHO.
Also, the article cannot be used as a reference to the billions ☺ Khaled Omar From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:33 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Hi all, Regarding the question these sources may give some hints on actual IPv6 figures although there are variations in different measurements and definition of metrics (deployed, capable, preferred … actual usage etc.) – and of course there are big deviations on IPv6 adoption between countries and regions: https://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/?tags=ipv6 or this article quoting the Billion … https://www.itu.int/en/myitu/News/2020/05/25/13/47/Where-are-we-in-the-transition-to-IPv6-QA-with-Latif-Ladid-President-of-IPv6-Forum Hope it helps! Kind regards Dirk From: Int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Khaled Omar Sent: Montag, 21. September 2020 12:57 To: Fred Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Maybe if you can provide me with all the statistics I need that shows the deployment so I can believe. Khaled Omar From: Fred Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:49 AM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Erik Kline <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Boy. If “millions and billions” isn’t wide deployment, maybe I need to go back to grammar school. Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2020, at 4:18 PM, Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: But none of these transitioning solutions are widely deployed, maybe it is IPv10 time ;-) Khaled Omar From: Erik Kline <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:05 AM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Fred Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) As noted before: RFCs 6052, 6146, 6147, 6877, 7915, and others comprise the solution deployed to literally hundreds of millions if not billions of mobile devices and numerous access networks worldwide. On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:24 AM Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved? Network engineers everywhere, they are waiting for the announcement of an official robust solution to the depletion of the IPv4 address space and the division that occurs recently on the Internet. People read the draft and many wrote about it because the idea is simple and requires no intervention from their side, that’s why I ask the IETF to take the draft seriously and put personal benefits aside for now, as LATER everything will back to normal, believe me, all are in need for this. Khaled Omar -----Original Message----- From: Fred Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 12:24 PM To: Khaled Omar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Roland Bless <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; int-area <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Still need to know what has changed.... Re: IPv10 draft (was Re: FW: [v6ops] v6ops - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 109 - IPv10) Sent from my iPad > On Sep 17, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Khaled Omar > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Regarding the confusion, the community is curious about the idea, many people > support it as it solves the problem that they think they are not part of it. This statement has me a little confused. I see a lot of commentary, but I don’t see people commenting along those lines. I frankly see commentary similar to what I sent you declining a v6ops slot, Who are these “many people”, and what problem do they see being solved? _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
