Yesterday's Windows update causes IPv4 to be default

[Doug Barton]

Lorenzo,

It's exhausting to try and discuss anything with you because you have 
taken "selectively reply to bits of a message in order to refute a point 
the author is not actually making" to an art form. So just in case I 
haven't made my point clear to the _other_ members of the list, who 
might actually be willing to listen, I will try one more time. Then I 
will stop, and let you have the last word (as if I had a choice). :)

On 11/21/2012 04:35 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us
> <mailto:dougb at dougbarton.us>> wrote:
>
>     We have a LONG, LONG way to go before we will have anything
>     approaching even a solid minority of traffic over IPv6,
>
>
> Not that long. If it keeps growing at 200% per year, we'd be at ~10% in
> two years. And an ISP who deploys IPv6 already sees each order of 40% of
> traffic shift to IPv6 for each IPv6-enabled user.

Reasonable minds can differ on the definition of "significant." I 
personally don't think we'll be there till v6 traffic is more than 1/3 
of v4, but that's a minor issue.

>     and there will be a lot of bumps along the way. Assuming that
>     because the problem is mostly fixed at this point in time, for us
>     (who do not represent the average Internet user), and therefore we
>     don't have to worry about IPv6 vs. IPv4 reliability problems
>     anymore, is pure folly.
>
>
> But this "the network can be unreliable depending on which address you
> choose" problem is one that a) we didn't have for at least 10-20 years
> of IPv4-only operation, b) was a blocker for IPv6 adoption up until a
> couple of few years ago, but has steadily gotten better since, and c) is
> not currently a problem for networks that have deployed IPv6.

I have repeatedly said that I'm not all that concerned about the people 
who have _already_ gotten it working. I have also repeatedly said that 
they make up a tiny fraction of the overall number of content and user 
networks that are going to implement it in the coming years.

What we're going to see over the next decade are an ever-increasing 
number of v6 rollouts, many (most?) of which will be repeating the same 
mistakes over and over again as they come to grips with this new 
technology. So for user networks that have already implemented it 
successfully there will be a constantly changing list of content sites 
that have only recently implemented v6, and have done it wrong. And of 
course, there will be ISPs with new v6 rollouts that haven't got all the 
kinks worked out yet, which will affect users of the content sites that 
have successful v6 implementations today.

So unless we solve what will unquestionably be the _ongoing_ problem of 
faulty v6 connectivity (wherever it is located) causing problems for 
users, in real time, the answer to the problem is going to continue to 
be "turn off that eye pee six crap."

Doug