After Launch Day: Taking Stock of IPv6 Adoption 244
darthcamaro writes "So how did World IPv6 Launch go? Surprisingly well, according to participants at the event. Google said it has seen 150% growth in IPv6 traffic, Facebook now has 27 million IPv6 users and Akamai is serving 100x more IPv6 traffic. But it's still a 'brocolli' technology. 'I've said in the past that IPv6 is a 'broccoli' technology,' Leslie Daigle, CTO of the Internet Society said. 'I still think it is a tech everybody knows it would be good if we ate more of it but nobody wants to eat it without the cheese sauce.'" Reader SmartAboutThings adds a few data points: "According to Google statistics, Romania leads the way with a 6.55% adoption rate, followed by France with 4.67%. Japan is on the third place so far with 1.57% but it seems here 'users still experience significant reliability or latency issues connecting to IPv6-enabled websites.' In the U.S. and China the users have noticed infrequent issues connecting to the new protocol, but still the adoption rate is 0.93% and 0.58%, respectively."
IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:4, Funny)
What a terrible metaphor. Everyone knows that IPv6 is closer to a Brussels Sprout.
Re: (Score:2)
That was true when people only used it once a year.
Re: (Score:2)
And why ruin a good piece of broccoli with cheese sauce? Just boil it for a few minutes, and serve it while it's got a slight crunch. If you must add butter, only use half a teaspoon. Cheese sauce? Sounds fatty.
IPv6 is more like a red double-decker bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why ruin a good piece of broccoli with cheese sauce? [..] Sounds fatty.
It's true that broccoli tastes better when you're eating it with something saucy, but I've never heard of it being covered in cheese sauce in itself. Is someone confusing it with cauliflower and cauliflower cheese [slashdot.org]? (Article says this is a British dish, so maybe the Yanks eat broccoli with cheese instead, but I've never heard of that, and its article doesn't mention cheese).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they even sell frozen broccoli with the cheese already in it. Throw the bag in the microwave, nuke it, pour it into a bowl and you're done. Cauliflower's good with cheese, too.
Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Before or after blanching?
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that, just slop it in a bowl and throw it in the microwave for a couple of minutes. Then put melted velveeta on it. Not all of us have a weight problem, and I imagine that few of us who actually LIKE brocooli and Brussels Sprouts have a weight problem. I mean, when was the last time you ordered brocolli at Burger King?
"Let's see, I'll have two Whoppers, a large... no, make that HUGE fries, half a gallon of Coke... oh, and a plate of brocolli!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, most people I know with a weight problem don't eat regularly at fast food joints, and they do like vegetables. And I don't know about Burger King, but MacDonalds had Broccoli soup at least a few years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
but MacDonalds had Broccoli soup at least a few years ago.
Water, salt, fat/oil/lard/whatever, broccoli flavoring, green food dye.
Just a guess, but it IS McDonalds after all...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fat with your vegetables improves their nutritional content (fat soluble nutrients don't get absorbed without them).
This is an interesting claim. Do you have a reference for it? I'm imagining people being fed broccoli with and without fat, and then serum concentrations of vitamins being tested shortly after. Would be an interesting experiment.
Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is an example Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection [ajcn.org]. It is basically accepted lore in the field that fat is required to absorb fat-soluble nutrients (if there were no fats, all the hydrophobic molecules would cluster together into unabsorbabably large clumps; with fats they would dissolve into them, which can then be absorbed in the intestines).
Re: (Score:2)
Very cool. I figured the fatty nutrient corpuscules would be phagocytosed or something like that. I'll be sure to have some feta cheese around for future salads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What a terrible metaphor. Everyone knows that IPv6 is closer to a Brussels Sprout."
Which is better with bacon instead of Cheese sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vinegar, try vinegar on your kale. That metaphor is for the younger generation that grew up eating pizza and chicken nuggets. I have always liked broccoli, brussell sprouts and kale.
Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, broccoli is good if it's fresh and is in the "goldilocks zone" - not too crisp, not too soggy. Brussels sprouts are similar: Obviously don't give them to me raw, but I'd prefer to not eat a soggy bitter mass of plant pulp.
Can't say I've ever had kale. I enjoy collard greens, does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't say I've ever had kale. I enjoy collard greens, does that count?
Kale and collard greens are similar enough that the same people usually like both. But many people don't know how to cook collard greens. You need to bring them to a boil, drain the water, add cold water, and bring them to a boil a second time.
Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (Score:5, Informative)
Can't say I've ever had kale. I enjoy collard greens, does that count?
Amazingly enough (getting way OT now), broccoli, kale, collard greens, cauliflower and cabbage are all the same species. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Brassica oleracea [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Ranch Dressing makes EVERYTHING better.
The only way to make Ranch Dressing better is if someone figured out put caffeine in it.
Yum, Caffeinated Ranch Dressing!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to make Ranch Dressing better is if someone figured out put bacon in it.
Fixed that for you.
Oh, wait, they already did.
Re: (Score:2)
How to eat Kale (Score:5, Funny)
Note: This recipe works well for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, spinach, and many others.
Re: (Score:2)
Wilt the kale
Huh? Chef jargon. I'm not sure what that means.
Facebook.com AAAA records (Score:4, Funny)
http://blogs.voxeo.com/speakingofstandards/2011/05/22/fun-with-ipv6-addresses-check-out-facebooks-aaaa-record-in-dns/
Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (Score:5, Informative)
On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.
On the enterprise front gear has been labeled as IPv6 ready or compatible or even listed it as a feature for a long time. However if you work in security and have to implement policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows... At an enterprise level switching isn't easy without swamping out a lot of gear, or reducing expectations... IPv6 enabled deep inspection, and application layer inspection tools are only now becoming available, or only now becoming mature enough to roll out.
Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can forgive Juniper when compared to Cisco on the topic of licensing and complexity.
Despite advancements for support at the device level the next major hurdle for large enterprise is the management tools and monitoring tools not fully supporting IPv6.
It is really hard to manage a modern network without flow monitoring, snmp and syslog data from all systems. This is another area where you end up with a setback or compromise if you try and roll out right now.
Re: (Score:3)
I totally agree with the Juniper EX licensing issue. Why is there a difference between OSPF and OSPFv3 ? I could understand if an advanced license was needed for both or for none of them but the split is just awkward.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of the box you get access to a lot more (ipv4 features) than with Cisco without extra licensing, however you are right that the split is odd.
Also with enterprise gear (Score:5, Informative)
There can be a real difference between "Can do IPv6" and "Can do IPv6 with realistic traffic." Most high end Cisco gear, even older stuff could be updated to support IPv6. However the problem is that it is all in software, all on the rather small CPU. So sure it'll work if you have only a couple IPv6 flows, however if everything went IPv6 it'd fall over. You need support in the ASICs for it, and that means buying new hardware.
Of course being high end it isn't so cheap. We upgraded all our stuff on campus to do IPv6 and it was millions to get all the hardware needed. Now we are large, but not compared to many ISPs. So it isn't so easy to just say "Oh buy a bunch of new equipment to replace the perfectly good stuff you already have."
IPv6 is coming, slowly, but it isn't going to be a fast process and anyone who things people, ISPs, etc should "Just do it," hasn't spent any real time looking at what is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.
That's what custom firmware and 6 to 4 gateways are for.
policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows
That's a feature, not a bug.
nat routers... (Score:3, Interesting)
How many ipv4 nat routers are out there? How many of the big ISP's turned it on (or will by 'end of the year')?
Take my ISP for example (a pretty big one). They are just talking about turning it on this year 'by the end of the year' (which is marketing speak for next year).
Then how many consumer grade routers out there can you buy that are still only ipv4 (a lot btw). You have to go out of your way to get something with IPv6 you need to know exactly which router to get. You even had one decent sized manufacture yank the feature out for all intents and purposes so be careful which firmware you are running... Sure you can flash the firmware on many to get it. But what a pain. I dont feel like playing root my wireless access point to get a feature which should ALREADY be included... In 2005 this was understandable. In 2012 not so much anymore...
Then we can talk about the devices themselves. There are thousands of embedded devices out there sold within the past 2 years that ONLY do IPv4. TV's being the worst of the offenders... Bought a network enabled bluray a couple of months ago. IPv4 only... And both of these devices are from major manufactures...
the tl;dr ver 'it will take time not enough devices that support it yet'.
Re: (Score:2)
Take my ISP for example (a pretty big one). They are just talking about turning it on this year 'by the end of the year' (which is marketing speak for next year).
Is it rogers? They've been saying that up here in Canada for the last few years, heck my ISP(teksavvy) who leases from their headend still doesn't have IPv6 for cable. Though they've been working to get IPv6 for DSL up and running for the last couple of years and you can opt in via their beta program, and they even provide a compatible firmware for most open-standard routers.
Horrible Analogy (Score:2)
Calling IPv6 broccoli is a horrible analogy. IPv6 is chocolate, vanilla, cake, topped in cheese sauce. The only reason it is not being widely used is that IPv4 is working for the vast majority of people and they are not willing to invest time or money on equipment in switching to IPv6. Hopefully, this will change.
The day my ISP and my home hardware (MacOSX, Roku, iPhone, Android) support IPv6, I am using it.
Re:Horrible Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
So, it sounds disgusting and nobody wants it? Cheese sauce on cake?
That would explain a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Cream cheese frosting is delicious and fairly common. If you've never had it you're missing out.
Re: (Score:2)
Cream cheese frosting is one thing.
Cheese sauce in the context of broccoli (which is how we got here) is an entirely different thing ... that's either Cheese Whiz, or a bechamel sauce with cheese melted into it.
On cake, cheese sauce sounds nasty.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he's implying that the cheese sauce is the effort needed to implement it. IPv6 sounds ever increasingly delicious, that is until you get to where you actually need to lift up a finger to add it to your network, in which case then that delectable chocolate vanilla cake has been soured by the cheddar of corporate laziness.
Re: (Score:3)
All your Apple gear has supported IPv6 out of the box for a few years now. I think Windows supports it out of the box, and probably your Android phone too, though I'm less sure about that. Most likely the missing link is your NAT box (unless you have an Apple box, which as I said is IPv6 ready), and your ISP.
Quick Fix (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except of course everyone would still need to upgrade to versions which would work with that.
Which would be just as big as getting to them to upgrade to IPv6. Probably even bigger since nobody has ever written code to handle your solution.
I don't think there's anything "quick" about your solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no delay in adoption.
Did you even read the article? You know, the one with the adoption rate in the US of less than 1%?
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing left is for ISPs to activate and end-user routers/network to be upgraded. Most new computer hardware in the last 5 years supports IPv6, so it's just a matter of the NAT/routers. Most residential NATs that support more than 40Mb/s
Re:Quick Fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Routers and end systems would still need to be taught how to speak a new protocol; machines that only know how to construct and decode packets in IPv4 format would be unable to deal with your "extended addresses". What exactly would you gain?
Also, IPv6 is much more than just an extension of the addressing space. I won't bother listing all the niceties here since it has been done before (and you can find them easily). But to think that everything IPv6 has to offer is a lot more addresses is extremely narrow-minded.
Re: (Score:2)
still need to be taught how to speak a new protocol
Yes, I said so above though not in the original post. Nobody said anything about not needing an upgrade. You are arguing against a phantom.
IPv6 is much more than just an extension of the addressing space.
Yes, I said so above, again not explicitly in the original post because that was the point: the extra features slowed adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
We have also managed to do without the Internet as a whole for years without a problem. Or without computers. Or without electricity. Hell, we've managed to do without toilets for years.
That argument is completely useless. Yes, we did, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful, and if we're upgrading anyway, might as well put them in now because FSM knows we won't have another opportunity like this soon.
Re:Quick Fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Extending an IPv4 stack to use 64 bit addressing
Almost as much work as IPv6. You would still have to change out ALL of the hardware in the world and still have to update ALL of the software. If it's going to be the same amount of large scale work, just do it correctly the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
1. As mentioned by others, people would still need to upgrade their hardware/software to work with it.
2. we already had fixed to extend the life of IPv4:
- Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)
- Use of private network addressing / NAT
- Name-based virtual hosting of web sites
- Tighter control by regional Internet registries on the allocation of addresses to local Internet registries
3. the other thing people keep mentioning is reclaiming the large legacy IPv4-address blocks from for example Apple and HP.
As the
I Tried (Score:2)
I really tried. I tried versions of DD-WRT, OpenWRT, and Tomato on my WRT54GL. I tried using 6to4 using both anycast and tunnelbroker. The best I managed to achieve with either method was successfully pinging ipv6.google.com. I never succeeded in pulling it up in a browser on any of my computers. I thought I got radvd working, but it must not have been working well enough. Maybe next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is at least one thing that the World IPv6 day actually brought us.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Bing, Akamai, Netflix and others now all have IPv6 enabled and they are going to keep it that way.
So pinging ipv6.google.com isn't needed anymore, you can just ping www.google.com ;-)
And there is nothing to change in the browser, the websites all look the same anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should try this on your desktop machine instead:
http://www.sixxs.net/pops/ [sixxs.net]
It should by pass a NAT router just fine.
I Tried Anyway... (Score:3, Informative)
I bought a business connection from my local provider, asked my salesperson if they had IPv6, they said yes. Tried to set it up for World IPv6 day. Well, their tech support says no they do not have IPv6. So, that was my IPv6 day experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Front line tech support and supervisors have NO idea what ipv6 is or how to get it to you.
I have Charter cable, and "just for fun", called tech to ask about if they had native ipv6 availible, and if not, if they had better "regional" tunnels or 6rd gateways. Note that I already had the info from http://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/Support.aspx?SupportArticleID=2665 [charter.com] working with my Linksys E4200v2; I just wanted to see if there was a closer 6rd tunnel gateway to my location. Over 45 mins and no help
Re:I Tried Anyway... (Score:4, Interesting)
When I last worked in the ISP business, or more specifically for an open citynet which handled last-mile access for a number of ISPs, we would get the occasional request about IPv6, both from regular customers who couldn't get a clear answer from their ISP and from the ISPs using "our" network. From the number of requests and the tone of the requests from the ISPs there was clearly customer demand for IPv6.
After a very long time of us forwarding all of these requests to upper management the reply finally came through. The official stance of the citynet was that there had been no noticeable demand for IPv6 and thus there were currently no plans to make the network IPv6-capable. This was told to all tech support and customer service staff as well, any requests from ISPs (or customers calling us directly) was to be answered with some version of "well as far as I know you're the first to ask and we currently don't have any plans to make our network IPv6-capable in the foreseeable future.".
Yup, upper management thought the investment would be too big so they "decided" that there was no demand and ordered everyone else to play along with their little fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
The network hardware vendors tried this and their strategy failed, it might have delayed it, guess what will happen to an ISP or other network provider that doesn't do IPv6 ?
Bing and yahoo (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They might be waiting for the tech savvy slashdot folks to lead the way...
; > DiG 9.8.1-P1 > aaaa slashdot.org ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 26261 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
Re: (Score:3)
They might be waiting for the tech savvy slashdot folks to lead the way...
$ host -t aaaa lwn.net
lwn.net has no AAAA record
$ host -t aaaa arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com has no AAAA record
$ host -t aaaa tomshardware.com
tomshardware.com has no AAAA record
$ host -t aaaa phoronix.com
phoronix.com has no AAAA record
$ host -t aaaa smallnetbuilder.com
smallnetbuilder.com has no AAAA record
Re: (Score:2)
But to be honest, I am not sure if that held the adoption rate down...
Re: (Score:2)
bing.com and yahoo.com don't return a v6-address, but they both are only a redirect.
www.bing.com and www.yahoo.com do return a v6-address.
China??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually heared, China has some of the biggest installations of Carrier Grade NAT.
Maybe because Windows XP is still used which doesn't have IPv6-enabled by default (and no GUI to do it) they thought it would be difficult to support IPv6 for those users ?
We need a model for consumers (Score:2)
Hey, cool, facebook now resolves to an IPv6 address by default :)
As for my point, how will regular consumers deal with firewalling? Modern OSes have to have good firewall protection, because people take laptops to all kinds of insecure networks. Stil, I'm not sure it's a good idea to make all devices directly accessible over the internet, it's kind of like begging for a wormpocalypse. On the other hand, we have UPnP for NAT-ed IPv4, allowing applications to specifically request incoming ports. This is cruc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NAT isn't security. There's no real difference between IPv4+NAT+stateful firewall and IPv6+stateful firewall in terms of security, with the exception that with IPv6 you don't need port forwarding and other weird hacks like you do with IPv4 NAT.
I haven't looked into it, but I woudn't be surprised if UPnP had been extended to IPv6 stateful firewalls: rather than forwarding ports to an internal IPv4 address, the firewall could simply open the incoming port to that IPv6 address. Same effect, but with less kludg
Re: (Score:3)
Stil, I'm not sure it's a good idea to make all devices directly accessible over the internet, it's kind of like begging for a wormpocalypse.
You're expected to have a stateful firewall at the very same place where you have a NAT right now. This is described in RFC 4864 [rfc-editor.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What about /.? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why isn't slashdot accessible over IPv6?
IPv6 faster in Romania (Score:2)
On the Google IPv6 statistics, it says in Romania IPv6 is faster than IPv4.
I've been using native IPv6 for well over a year (Score:4, Informative)
My ISP (Internode [on.net]) has been providing opt-in dual-stack support for at least a couple of years, and enabled it by default for all new customers in January. Internode currently have about 2% of their customer base on IPv6.
Note: if you go to that page and the logo is spinning, it means you've connected via IPv6.
I get a static /56 prefix (earlier when it was still considered a trial they gave a /64 that could change when you lost ADSL connection). My router (Billion 7800N) acts as a DHCPv6 server and everything is hunkey-dory except for one minor quibble - the router advertises the upstream DNSv6 servers instead of itself, so if you've done static MAC->IPv4 mapping in the router they won't be returned when a DNSv6 request is made. The fix there is to manually set the link-local address of the router as the DNSv6 server on each of the machines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly because a lot of enterprise IT departments have serious issues with anything new and thus "scary" and "untested". Hell, I know places that still critical production systems on NT4 and think Subversion is too new and untested to be used as a production VCS so they just stick to CVS since "everyone knows it and it works".
On a similar note, these are the kind of places that mandate that all database queries be made as stored procedures (T-SQL, of course) since that's the only "safe" way of accessing a database. Bring up parameterized queries and they look at you like you're mad. In places like that they have working security put in place 10 - 15 years ago and they have no intention of changing anything until they absolutely have to. In their world security "needs" NAT (because that's what their equally old firewall appliance needs).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Privacy Concerns (Score:4, Informative)
IPv6 most certainly does NAT: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296 [ietf.org]
Re:Privacy Concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never understood this concern. With IPv6 I have, say, 2^64 addresses to use. I could use a different source IP address for each and every HTTP request I send out. Even at 1000 requests a second we'll all be long dead before you had to reuse a source address.
IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible.
Re:Privacy Concerns (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember - we're comparing IPv4 with NAT against IPv6.
Yes the ISP allocates the IPv6 prefix, but then again with NAT every source packet has the same IPv4 address. The real difference is that with IPv6 every single request can be given a different source address. If the source addresses are picked randomly from the /64 pool then it should be impossible to identify individual hosts within the /64 based solely on IP address information. As you rightly point out there are other effective ways of doing this
Re: (Score:2)
Which computer,..? Well, with IPv6 privacy extensions enabled (which is the default in most operaring systems) a new random IPv6 address will be generated at every startup or every 24 hours.
So that is hardly useful at the server to distingues between client computers.
Re:Privacy Concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never understood this concern.
Me either.
IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible
It it won't be that much different with v6 and a slight change in mindset. Instead ofblocking an IP you go after the prefix instead.
For example an ISP customer is abusing my service and I want to block him. I don't go after his IPv6 IP I go after his entire /64, /48 prefix or whatever it is his ISP allocated to him. He can change his local bits all he wants he is still blocked.
There are other examples where it is difficult such as blocking some computers on the same /64 segment as others you want to allow however when we look at this problem today all we see most of the time is a NAT for the whole network with a single IP.
The address space is bigger and there is more room to hide yet allocation is still hierarchical and we still know what blocks are allocated to who via SWIP or working an ISPs abuse channels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is already something called IPv6 privacy extensions, which is enabled by default on most operating systems, and it will create a random IPv6 address ones every 24 hours which it uses to connect to other hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
To make an effective scan of the first half of a
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that software-wise if you truly wanted to use your entire /64 (or /48) to stay somewhat anonymous it shouldn't be extremely hard to hack up an IPv6 stack that uses one address per remote host. So facebook.com sees one address, slashdot.org sees another, google.com sees a third. Doesn't even have to be sequential.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they won't. It would be more work for them to give out a single IPv6 address than to give out a block. The official recommendation for residential customers is a /56, in Comcasts trials so far they've been giving out /64s. That's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for each home. I don't think you remotely understand the size of the IPv6 space. NAT will die.
Re: (Score:3)
Then what makes you think advertisers/data-gathers will not start assume that all requests from the same /64 block come from the same person?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
NAT only breaks broken applications
Such as everything that needs to receive a connection from the outside, like chat, games, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
What privacy concernts ?
In Windows XP (if IPv6 is enabled), Windows Vista, Windows 7, newer Mac OS X, newer iOS, Android, newer Ubuntu IPv6 privacy extensions are all enabled by default.
So it is pretty much the same privacy-wise as IPv4.
(Just checked and Fedora does NOT enable privacy extensions, not sure why)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people it relative.
Comcast is the largest access provider in the world and they are busy rolling out IPv6 to more and more customers as we 'speak'.