Hi Carlos, > Carlos Friaças wrote : > We have to acknowledge "IPv6 zealots" are real. > Disclaimer: i think i was part of that group some years ago.
Indeed, and so was I. WAS. > But Mr.Rey's reference about IPv6 deployment rates also makes a good point! Nobody cares about deployment rates. What good does it do, if people don't use it ? This is more realistic : https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html During the week, we are below 25%. > We also have to acknowledge "IPv4 zealots" are real. And they are the ones with the money. The lobbyists. The connections. The banana peels. The 75% market share. The IPv4 zealots have not always been there; they have been created as a reaction to the nonsense of the IPv6 zealots. IPv6 replacing IPv4 is a delusion. 3 months ago, I turned DECNET off on my network. It was actually not even an IT/network decision; customer decided they were done with a product, and we de-commissioned the tools with DECNET. Business decision. We run OS/2 Warp, MS-DOS, Windows 95, HPUX, Solaris, Windows 2000, and I probably forget some. In 20 years, I will still need IPv4. And I have enough IPv4 on my hands for the foreseeable future. I bought some recently, just in case. I encourage the WG group to read this : https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/ And the full text : https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IPv6-Migration-Study-final-report.pdf Serious work, paid by ICANN. Michel.
