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