<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Doug Barton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us" target="_blank">dougb@dougbarton.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">We have a LONG, LONG way to go before we will have anything approaching even a solid minority of traffic over IPv6,</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> 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.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In effect, you're saying that to solve an issue that is not a problem today, and that has over time gotten better and not worse, we need to add complexity to hosts and applications. I don't think that's the right tradeoff.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If there were evidence that this is actually blocking or slowing down IPv6 deployment, then maybe. But if not -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.</div></div></div>