Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet Technology

IPv6 Deployment Picking Up Speed 158

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the no-ipv4-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Internet's addressing authority (IANA) ran out of IPv4 Internet addresses in early 2011. The IPv6 protocol (now 15 years old) was designed exactly for this scenario, as it provides many more addresses than our foreseeable addressing needs. However, IPv6 deployment has so far been dismal, accounting for 1% of total traffic (the high-end of estimates). A recent paper by researchers at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data analysis (CAIDA) indicates that IPv6 deployment may be picking up at last. The paper, published at the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) shows that the IPv6 network shows signs of maturing, with its properties starting to resemble the deployed IPv4 network. Deployment appears to be non-uniform, however; while the 'core' of the network appears to be ready, networks at the 'edges' are lacking. There are geographical differences too — Europe and the Asia Pacific region are ahead of North America."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv6 Deployment Picking Up Speed

Comments Filter:
  • Stop the Presses! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @10:37AM (#42116707)
    North America fails to take up an International Standard.

    That's NEVER happen. Except with everything.
    • I fail to see how this is offtopic...

    • by Creepy (93888) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @01:11PM (#42118747) Journal

      To be fair, America has adopted standards, but hasn't always standardized on them, and sometimes invents a standard that is outdated by the time the rest of the world adopts it.

      For instance, metric is used in hospitals, at NASA, in many sciences, etc. It was even taught in school until Ronald Reagan in his infinite wisdom and reverence decided America was too f**king stupid to learn it (sorry about the sarcasm injection - it was a REALLY bad time for me to switch, as I was half way into learning metric when it happened and we all of a sudden had to learn these nonsensical English units - I'm still all for switching to metric).

      CDMA predates GSM, and some providers bet big on it early in America. Nothing America can really do about it except wait for it to age and be replaced, hopefully with an international standard. Data already has been merged with LTE.

      Almost all cable providers use DOCSYS international standard.

      IPv6 is supported by some ISPs and CLECs, but many that supported PPPoE like mine bought IPv4 only hardware. The former owner of this hardware, Qwest, said they would never implement IPv6. Their current owner, CenturyLink, is rolling out IPv6 support, but only currently in areas that were not formerly Qwest. Meanwhile, my IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are registered and just waiting for IPv6 to be supported to go live (I hacked the router to get its IPv6 address just in case this is a server only issue - the underlying hardware supports it, just not the PPPoE connection).

      • by Artemis3 (85734) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @02:34PM (#42120119)

        I learned under metric, for me those "customary" units of height are very hard to grasp.

        In metric, everything is in tens, you add or subtract zeros, thats it.

        A meter contains 10 decimeters (rarely used), a decimeter contains 10 centimeters, a centimeter contains 10 milliliters, etc.
        http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html [nist.gov]

        Customary/Imperial units are a mess, and to make matters worse, you don't use a single unit but TWO different ones for measuring things (feet AND inches?). What the hell is an inch? half a feet? quarter? decimal? no... its freaking 1/12. OF COURSE you don't fit 12 feet in a yard, that would be too easy, its 3... AND you also don't fit 12 pica in an inch, but 6...

        To make sense of your nonsense, we have to convert to a single unit first (eg. inches), and THEN move to metric, that is not a trivial mental operation for many.

        Another American annoyance is paper sheet sizes. But there are many more areas for frustration in those outdated customs.

        Let them sink in their isolation, is what we say here.

        • by Zan Lynx (87672)

          Everyone seems to understand meters, centimeters, millimeters and kilometers; bytes, kilobytes and megabytes.

          Yet when I try to describe the distance from Denver to Chicago in megameters my friends look at me funny.

          I find it especially lame when astronomers describe distances in millions of kilometers. Are they too stupid to understand metric and use gigameters?

          • by JohnFen (1641097)

            I wonder how much of this is just visualization problems.

            I'm an old fart who was taught from a young age to measure things in inches, pounds, etc. I understand metric units just fine and use them almost daily, but still when I'm given a measurement in metric, I don't have an instinctive feel for how much the measurement is. i have to convert to the old units to be able to picture it.

            Same for things like gigameters. Yes, I know what that means, but it's not a unit that is commonly used and so there's no imme

      • by jrumney (197329)

        CDMA predates GSM, and some providers bet big on it early in America.

        CDMA deployment in US might predate GSM deployment in US, but GSM development in Europe dates back to 1982, while CDMA development for mobile phone use started in 1995. Perhaps you are thinking of DAMPS, the digital cellular system used in the US before CDMA came into the picture.

      • by adolf (21054)

        I like your rant, and would like to add to it P25 ('merkin, barely works) vs. TETRA (everyone else, seems to have worked for years).

        CDMA predates GSM, and some providers bet big on it early in America. Nothing America can really do about it except wait for it to age and be replaced, hopefully with an international standard. Data already has been merged with LTE.

        But back in context, it amuses me that my DSL provider still doesn't have the ability to give me real IPV6 connectivity, but my CDMA/LTE cell phone

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        IPv6 is yet another example of a niche technology favored by a small elitist segment of a diverse but elitist professional trade categorization, pushing change for the sake of change, against the wishes of everyone else.

        Sorry, but when pretty much everyone except the people who gobble up marketing and training material doesn't think IPv6 deployment is a good idea, it's probably not a good idea. We have decades of equipment considerations to phase out, and that's not even counting applications which won't wo

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Thats what I want to know, IPv6 is old hat! Any respectable IP _must_ have functionality equal to TOR built right into the specs!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      closest thing I know of: https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/

    • by Cyberia (70947)

      Wow, seriously? An anonymous first post, and you blow it with this? *Facepalm*

    • IPv6 ought to be enough for anybody.

    • by unixisc (2429386)
      Contrary to others, I think that ultimately, there will be an IPv7. It will be compatible w/ IPv6 in that it will still use 128-bit addressing. What I think may change are the boundaries - they might make the global prefix the top half, and split the lower half b/w subnets and hosts. If they do it on IPv6, problem is that not all IPv6 equipment will recognize that, since the standard recognizes the entire lower half as being the hosts address. Changing the rev of the header but leaving everything else t
  • by Bradmont (513167) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @10:42AM (#42116757)
    The year of IPv6 on the desktop!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If we make it past December 21st...

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Nope. People have IPv6 enabled browsers so they can connect to IPv6 enabled websites, but how many have some sort of legacy software that doesn't in any way understand or support IPv6 - perhaps there's not even an input field for an IPv6 address. Of course people will now chime "dual stack" but it has practically all of the annoyances while not solving the problem since it means pairing every IPv6 address with an IPv4 address. And by annoyance I mean like some stupid software, I don't remember what would pr

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        And by annoyance I mean like some stupid software, I don't remember what would prefer the IPv6 address over the IPv4 address then leading to a delay before it would connect via IPv4. I couldn't be arsed to find some other solution, so IPv6 is completely disabled on my machine. And so far I've had zero reason to change that. The only people feeling the hurt are those not getting an IPv4 address.

        That would probably be your resolver, since most programs use getaddrinfo() to do a DNS lookup (which returns a lin

        • by BlueBlade (123303)

          The idea with IPv6 is that, even though your network prefix will be assigned to you by your ISP and is subject to change (for example, if you move to a new ISP), you typically won't configure any device with a fixed prefix. You'll assign them a host address (through DHCP, router advertisements or static) and the the prefix will be assigned to your router only. For example, on a cisco router, you would use :
          ipv6 general-prefix ISP-prefix XXXX:XXXX:XXXX::/48

          Everything else will be using that general prefix, g

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            Especially if you're very used to the IPv4 way of doing things

            I suspect that's a big part of the reason why adoption has been so slow. IPv6 is annoyingly different. You pretty much just have to force yourself to accept that you have to do things differently, and a lot of people don't like that.

            NAT is ugly, but people are very comfortable with the way it works.

            • I wouldn't say it's annoyingly different. One of the best parts of IPv6 is that once you have the core infrastructure set-up (ie a NDP-broadcasting gateway with a valid prefix - which is actually much, much, simpler than the IPv4 "NAT router with DHCP server" that everyone is used to) everything "just works".

              - You don't have to assign static IP addresses. They're already static.
              - You don't have to forward ports. NAT isn't getting in the way any more. Everything sees everything else.
              - Discovery takes

      • by unixisc (2429386)

        Nope. People have IPv6 enabled browsers so they can connect to IPv6 enabled websites, but how many have some sort of legacy software that doesn't in any way understand or support IPv6 - perhaps there's not even an input field for an IPv6 address. Of course people will now chime "dual stack" but it has practically all of the annoyances while not solving the problem since it means pairing every IPv6 address with an IPv4 address. And by annoyance I mean like some stupid software, I don't remember what would prefer the IPv6 address over the IPv4 address then leading to a delay before it would connect via IPv4. I couldn't be arsed to find some other solution, so IPv6 is completely disabled on my machine. And so far I've had zero reason to change that. The only people feeling the hurt are those not getting an IPv4 address.

        This! Fact remains that since most people are now either on Windows 7 or OS-X or Android or iOS, most devices support IPv6. If an ISP supports IPv6 now, then a customer could easily request a link, and hook all the devices he wants to that. As it is, the default local networking protocol on Windows 7 is IPv6.

        Issue is that most websites are not IPv6 enabled, which would make accessing them difficult from IPv6-only computers, which is why people still need to be dual stacked, which somewhat defeats the

    • by rvw (755107)

      The year of IPv6 on the desktop!

      It should be branded iPadV6 and then sold in clean stores all over the world. I bet it would be commonplace in no time, especially when the Chinese try to copy it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @10:55AM (#42116957)

    This [ipv6-test.com] is not what I expected from you when facebook and google enabled it long ago ...

    • by canadiannomad (1745008) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:15AM (#42117183) Homepage

      The problem I have faced is that none of my server ISPs will even let me get an IPv6 address even if I know they have it and I beg. That goes for major service providers too. I'm looking at you Amazon Cloud and RackSpace. Amazon kinda has it, but only if you use one of their load balancers.

      • by mellon (7048)

        I use linode.com. They have IPv6 (and have for quite some time). Now if only voip.ms (and oh, say, /.) would support it...

      • by dkf (304284)

        The problem I have faced is that none of my server ISPs will even let me get an IPv6 address even if I know they have it and I beg.

        They'll come round once they start having problems getting more IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, at which point it will start to hit their bottom line (as they need to have all their cloud instances individually direct-routable for configuration and management purposes). We're getting close to that, but aren't there yet.

        I wouldn't base any long term plans on them staying IPv4 only...

        • They'll come round once they start having problems getting more IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers

          They won't, they'll just put everybody behind a NAT, with the added bonus of breaking bittorrent, VoIP, or any other protocol that actualy uses bandwidth.

          IPv6 will only come later, and just for the places that have any competition between ISPs.

    • by Kergan (780543)

      Note that Slashdot is in no way exceptional here:

      http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=apple.com [ipv6-test.com]
      http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=microsoft.com [ipv6-test.com]
      http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=yahoo.com [ipv6-test.com]
      http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=oracle.com [ipv6-test.com]
      http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=twitter.com [ipv6-test.com]

      In light of the above bad examples, I was actually surprised that Internic, ICANN and the White House were IPv6-ready...

      • by jandrese (485)
        The US government has a mandate to support IPv6, which is why most .gov sites can be reached over IPv6. Otherwise they would be in the same boat as everybody else.

        What we really need is for Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc... to enable IPv6 on their networks. Almost nobody is going to set up a tunnel broker for their home connection, it's way to esoteric and most home routers are crap anyway.
  • New Rule: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ledow (319597) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:00AM (#42117025) Homepage

    New Rule:

    Websites are only allowed to try to garner page-views on IPv6 when all the websites that article is posted on are available over IPv6.

  • This is one.
  • IPv6 was no big deal (Score:4, Informative)

    by Cimexus (1355033) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:08AM (#42117101)

    I've been on native IPv6 for a couple of years on my home DSL connection. It works very well - only thing I had to do was check the 'enable IPv6' option in my modem/router and everything 'just worked'. It is rather nice not having to deal with NAT and port forwarding etc.

    I'm in Australia (so within the Asia-Pacific/APNIC region, which as the summary mentions, is a bit ahead of the curve when it comes to IPv6 adoption. Most of the major sites are fully IPv6 now too (e.g. all the Google sites, Facebook, etc. etc.) But the point is, done properly, it should be a completely seamless transition to enable dual-stack (and eventually to turn off IPv4, though I'm sure that won't happen for decades!). Hell I usually forget I'm even on IPv6, unless I happen to do a ping/tracert to an IPv6 host and see all those long-ass IPs :)

    C:\>tracert www.google.com

    Tracing route to www.google.com [2404:6800:4006:800::1014] over a maximum of 30 hops:

        1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms gateway [2001:44b8:(snip!)]
        2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms loop0.lns20.cbr1.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010::5]
        3 7 ms * 7 ms gi0-0-2.cor3.cbr1.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010:14::1]
        4 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms te6-0-0.bdr1.syd4.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010:e::2]
        5 11 ms * 11 ms te0-0-0.bdr1.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b070:1::11]
        6 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms gi1-2-121.cor2.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b060:121::2]
        7 11 ms * 12 ms gi6-0-0-101.bdr1.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b070:104::1]
        8 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms 2001:4860:1:1:0:1283:0:4
        9 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms 2001:4860:0:1::1fb
      10 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms 2404:6800:4006:800::1014

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes your home DSL network is completely and thoroughly analogous to an enterprise implementation.

      Just check some stuff off in the UI and run a dual stack...

    • I've been on native IPv6 for a couple of years on my home DSL connection. It works very well - only thing I had to do was check the 'enable IPv6' option in my modem/router and everything 'just worked'. It is rather nice not having to deal with NAT and port forwarding etc.

      I've been on native IPv4 for ages on my home DSL connection. Only thing I had to do was tick the "NAT" and "UPnP" checkboxes and it just worked. Provided me also with a simple firewall as a nice side effect. ;)

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Provided me also with a simple firewall as a nice side effect. ;)

        I rather suspect you're a troll given how often and exhaustively this has been refuted previously on this site, but oh well.

        NAT is not a firewall. The stateful firewall in your home router is a firewall. NAT isn't . There are plenty of technologies to punch holes into NAT, usually developed because NAT is such a fucking pain to deal with for many protocols.

      • by Cimexus (1355033)

        Well any decent router that offers NAT will also have an actual firewall as well. Which will continue to work on IPv6 ... so it's not like you're unprotected or anything. I'm not one of those rabid "NAT is an awful hack" people, but it's just another tool in the box that ceases to really have a purpose in the IPv6 world.

        Anyway, if your point is that you don't NEED IPv6 (yet), then you're absolutely right. I was merely offering my experience of IPv6 adoption as an end user. And that it was pretty painless (b

    • by Rockoon (1252108)

      only thing I had to do was check the 'enable IPv6' option in my modem/router and everything 'just worked'.

      I would have enabled it long ago 'cept my router doesnt support it, not does it support any of the alternative (open) firmwares available.. this in spite of both previous and later models of this same line of routers being supported by those alternative firmwares.

      I would buy a new router, 'cept this one works and has a decent enough range/power/sensitivity that the bedroom machine on the other side of the wet-wall and about 40 feet away doesnt have issues. It needs a reboot every month or so due to some

  • by concealment (2447304) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:10AM (#42117117) Homepage Journal

    Dear Media,

    Every week, there's a new apocalypse in the news.

    AIDS. Global Warming. Copyright violations. Vodka enemas. Terrorism. ???. Prophet. (I mean... profit.)

    The IPv6 lolocaust is not going to impress us unless there are concrete figures about exactly when and how it's going to devastate us.

    Then, we can plan for it.

    Until then, it reeks of hype.

    Love,
    The consumers

    • by Sique (173459)
      This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers. Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.
      • Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.

        This is insightful and I agree for the most part. However, a consumer facing a "black box" is helpless. It's better to make the box simpler and more accessible so they can fix minor problems when they arise, since they arise with every technology we have on a regular basis.

        This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers.

        Here I disagree.

        This a sp

  • It would be nice if Slashdot itself was available on IPv6... After all, you would have thought that a site reporting on the latest and greatest in tech would have managed to adopt a technology fifteen years old by now!

    • You mean like an edit button?

      • An edit button would drive trolling levels off the scale here.. though it would be nice to correct those moments where you click submit and notice an incredibly stupid typo. I use preview when I remember, but sometimes things just slip by..

        • An edit button that only works for 10 seconds would solve SO many problems and give trolls very little leverage to play with.
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        There is an edit button. It's labeled "preview". If you could edit your comments after posting, you could post a funny comment, have it modded to +5, and then change it to a GNAA troll.

        Just use the preview button and pay attention.

    • They're going to implement it just as soon as Slashcode's Unicode support is ready...
  • Provider slowness. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PlusFiveTroll (754249) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:13AM (#42117171) Homepage

    IPv6 Capable operating systems: check.
    IPv6 Capable router: check.
    IPv6 Capable cable modem: check.
    IPv6 Capable internet service: .........

    Maybe one of these years the cable company will get this figured out, sigh.

    • by ledow (319597)

      Unfortunately, the next step:

      IPv6 Capable end-points:

      is also missing. The website you are reading is IPv4-only and hasn't bothered to publish an AAAA record in all the time it's been posting IPv6 articles.

      And how long does it take to IPv6 enable a website nowadays, even if only in a basic "testing" mode before you try to redo all your blacklist scripts, etc.? About ten minutes.

      • I don't know who hosts slashdot, but I bet they are the ones that are slagging.

      • Oh, I'd add more then a few IPv6 end points to the net if the cable company would provide IPv6 to the business fibre service here. For now we stack services on ip addresses via NAT. Fun to scan an IP and see Windows and Linux services living at the same address.

    • by mrvan (973822)

      xs4all (Netherlands) does provide ipv6 and I find it quite useful to have direct links between computer that would otherwise be difficult to reach (e.g. between my computer at home (ipv4 NAT by the ADSL router) and a virtual server at work for which I didn't get an ipv4 address and hence only has pulic ipv6.

      Also, it is useful to be able to connect directly to my home box from outside, and there are multiple ssh enabled machines on my LAN. Of course, I could give them all different ports and forward them us

      • Just curious, but do you see lots of hack/hit attempts on those now exposed boxes like you do if you put an IPv4 box on the internet with ssh open?

        • by Alioth (221270)

          Network scanning is much, MUCH harder to do with IPv6. Assuming a reasonably random assignment of v6 addresses, your local subnet has 2^64 possible addresses, in other words twice as many bits as the entirety of the world's IPv4 address space. But remember twice as many bits doesn't mean merely twice the effort, it actually means it would take 4 billion times as long to scan a *single* IPv6 subnet as it would to scan the *entire* IPv4 internet.

        • Even for a couple of servers that do not have an external firewall filtering packets for my IPv6, there is basically zero packets besides those going to applications hosted on my servers, and they have published DNS records for web and DNS. Some basic PCs I have online see zero packets from random internet hosts on IPv6.

          The IPv6 address space is literally too large to crawl within any useful amount of time. If you figure an average LAN will have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses (a /64 block). Let's say

          • Thanks. Makes sense given the size.

            I see the next round of software like netcat being much faster/parallel to deal with these huge sizes.

            • Not at all practical even then. You'd need some way other than scanning. Maybe a set of broadcasts designed to provoke a response in some way from common servers, tricking them into revealing their presence. Or passive monitoring.

            • by kqs (1038910)

              Big numbers are big.

              Let's say you have a 10gig connection between you and the target network, for your use only. 10 gig means you can send 10 billion bits per second. And let's say each one of those bits could test one IP address on that one small 64 bit subnet (which is crazy, but why not).

              In that case, it would only take you about 6 years. To scan 10% of the subnet. And most providers are giving out hundreds or thousands of subnets to each house.

              Parallelism and speed increases will not help here!

    • by compro01 (777531)

      Cable companies have it somewhat easy. DOCSIS 3 requires hardware to support IPv6.

      • Does DOCSIS 3 require that the ISP actually route IPv6 packets? Because if it does not, they will not.

        • by compro01 (777531)

          No, but it requires the hardware to support it, making it considerably easier to convince then to start routing.

      • Cable companies have it somewhat easy. DOCSIS 3 requires hardware to support IPv6.

        From what I understand cable companies are sitting on their thumbs waiting for multiple vendors including Cisco to fix broken code at the CMTS so operators can actually deploy IPv6 to their customers.

    • Blame Cisco.

      The major ISPs are generally ready, but they can't do anything until Cisco actually rolls out IPv6 capable head-end gear. Among other things, Cisco has already all but missed their 2012 deadline for having IPv6 working on their CMTSes.

    • by sp332 (781207)

      Setting up an IPv6 tunnel is not hard to do. A couple minutes and you'll have IPv6 internet access. tunnelbroker.net (just for example) walks you through it, then you can install 6orNot in your browser to show off :)

      • 6to4 works on the majority of ISPs too and doesn't require any arrangements with a tunnel broker. I use it myself - originally on Earthlink, now on Comcast, and not had a single problem.

        Modern routers (as in the cheap D-Link crap that combines a Wi-fi hub, PPPoE/DHCP client, and local DHCPD server in a $30-50 box) actually support 6to4 out of the box too. Unless you're one of the unlucky few who uses an ISP that actually blocks 6to4 there's not a lot of reason to avoid it.

    • by jandrese (485)
      You can always set up a tunnel broker [tunnelbroker.net] if you want to play around with IPv6. It's ugly and messy, but it gets you on the network. I've been using this very service for over two years now and have never had a problem with it. As far as supported devices, I have an original 2G iPhone, a Nintendo Wii, an ancient Sharp Zarius, and a pair of TiVos that don't support IPv6, but everything else was able to autoconfigure an address and use it right away.

      Also, it is entirely possible to run a pure IPv6 network to
  • ...and I'm already sick of typing that many extra digits to ping something.
  • by anarcat (306985) on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @11:53AM (#42117649) Homepage

    The game changer here is that US cell phone companies have finally figured out that 4 layers of NAT isn't exactly a great way to manage a growing network, and are switching to IPv6 for their 4G networks. That is millions of customers right there, using IPv6 without even knowing about it.

    Pieces are falling into place, it's just a matter of time now. And if you lobby your ISP instead of complaining about it, you may get it native too soon enough.

    BTW: for those worried about the switch, let me just mention that both ipv6.google.com and www.kame.net (common test IPv6 addresses) are reachable in *less* latency and *less* hops than their ipv4 counterparts. IPv6 rocks.

  • ZyXEL's hardware sucks for CPE since they cannot do IPv6.
    • Many ZyXEL CPEs can do IPv6. Check out their NBG4615, which is your typical home wifi/router appliance that supports IPv6. I think all or most of their current ADSL/VDSL CPEs all support IPv6 out of the box too.

      • by fredan (54788)

        Model P-660HN-F1Z does not support IPv6.
        Model P-2612HNU-F1 does not support IPv6.

  • Inertia.

    I work for a large company that's had a domain since the Elder Days of domain registration, and there's just no way that it'll migrate over to IPv6. Too many computers and routers (including many legacy) and there's no actual need to do it: 10.*.*.* and 196.168.*.* networks abound and work just fine.

    • by Anomalyst (742352)
      Must be nice that to have a company sandbox next to your keyboard in which to hide your head.
  • http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092412-ipv6-side-262674.html [networkworld.com]

    US has the most IPv6 users, North America has the most IPv6 traffic.

    Sure, it's still small in absolute magnitude, but it's a start.

    • by dave420 (699308)
      Of course, as the US has over 300m people. Compare it to the EU, for example, which is a more comparable size, and you realise that the US is not ahead.
  • Hah! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Shaman (1148) <shaman@@@kos...net> on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @01:28PM (#42119061) Homepage

    Companies are still shipping network gear that is IPv4 only. Find me a fixed-wireless device that supports IPv6! Sure they're layer 2 devices, but the units themselves don't have IPv6 addressability.

    IPv6 will take a long, long time. Maybe 10 years for major crossover. The fanbois and the advocates get shriller every day, but moving to IPv6 - even dual-stack - from an existing network is currently *hard*.

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      hard? sudo apt-get install miredo

      or get a free account with tunneling broker, maybe six steps to set up your whole house with one of your machines supplying tunnel and addresses for the others.

      my AT&T DSL supports IPv6 too, but with the broker I get static addresses

      • by CAIMLAS (41445)

        How does this even begin to approach the GP's concerns? It doesn't.

        Sorry, I do not want to have to maintain two address pools because a handful/quarter/third/half of the devices on my network do not fully or properly support IPv6. It's anathema to "internet protocol".

        It's the same reason why we hated on IE for so many years, and why technology like OpenVPN and OpenSSL became not only commonplace but have become preferred over the likes of isolationist technologies like IPSEC. (That's what IPv6 is, an isolat

        • by iggymanz (596061)

          what kind of obsolete junk do you have on your home network. the concerns are the same as with an ISP. use encrypted traffic for things you care about, firewall ports you care about at the tunnel endpoint. it's easy, everything in my house runs IPV6 and IPV4 with no issues and no increased security risk over IPV4 via ISP

  • COX claims they have "plenty addrsses" and IPv6 is not scheduled for deployment "any time soon"

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...