> […] since IPv6 is approaching half of all traffic, more in many areas, the humor value is limited.
And yet every article on IPv6 has entire brigades of folks of folks going on about IPv6 is DOA, and "I've been here about it for thirty years, where is it?", and "they should have done IPv4 just with larger addresses, adoption would have been much faster and more compatible".
I'm simply pointing out the parallel argument that was made between DNSSEC and IPv6.
Having also been online for thirty years, I’ve seen those jokes soooo many times but only one of them is funny. DNSSEC’s 0.3% usage[1] is within a rounding error of zero but IPv6 is close to half of all internet traffic in many countries. It’s not funny so much as not updating your priors for decades, like joking about how Windows crashes constantly or saying Python is a hobbyist language.
It's a parallel argument, but it's not a good one, because IPv6 is now around ~50% of traffic depending on the service and details, and DNSSEC was introduced earlier and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
IPv6 probably could have been done better and rolled out faster, and whoever works on IPvNEXT should study what went wrong, but eventually it became better than alternative ways of dealing with a lack of IPv4 addresses, and it started getting real deployment.
And yet every article on IPv6 has entire brigades of folks of folks going on about IPv6 is DOA, and "I've been here about it for thirty years, where is it?", and "they should have done IPv4 just with larger addresses, adoption would have been much faster and more compatible".
I'm simply pointing out the parallel argument that was made between DNSSEC and IPv6.