Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Internet Technology

IPv6 Traffic Remains Minuscule 406

judgecorp writes "Even though we are running out of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 traffic is still not taking off. In fact it is less than one percent and falling, according to a report from Arbor Networks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv6 Traffic Remains Minuscule

Comments Filter:
  • home routers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yincrash ( 854885 ) on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @11:03AM (#35880826)
    How many home routers support IPv6?
    • I'd run IPv6 but for this reason. I've looked around to see if there's a firmware upgrade for my routers that will support the new addressing scheme, but no dice, and I don't relish spending another $75 to
      $100 to replace 2 routers. I suppose I'm not the only guy in the world with this problem. So I guess there's your reason.

      • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
        My ISP gave me the option to switch to IPv6. I did that. On my home network I am still using IPv4 and go through a NAT because I am a lazy person, but I can access IPv6 websites easily.

        It happened once that someone sent a link to an IPv6 website on a mailing list I use, some people complained they could not access it but he said he had no way of having a fixed IPv4 address. I expect that as more people do that the pressure on ISPs will increase.
      • by vlm ( 69642 )

        I'd run IPv6 but for this reason. I've looked around to see if there's a firmware upgrade for my routers that will support the new addressing scheme, but no dice, and I don't relish spending another $75 to
        $100 to replace 2 routers. I suppose I'm not the only guy in the world with this problem. So I guess there's your reason.

        Pick up two $10 class PCs, two $5 LAN cards if necessary, less than an hour installing linux, all done and have fun. Educational, at least as educational as inserting a cdrom and googling for 15 seconds "how to get up iptables NAT" can be...

        If you insist on new, you can buy appliance FWs over and over every other year, or you can buy an appliance PC like a Soekris once a decade or so... Sorta like buying cheap shoes at walmart every month or twice that cost shoes at Kohls every year...

    • Re:home routers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Nethemas the Great ( 909900 ) on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @11:11AM (#35880970)
      More than you'd realize. But even so, their's no reason why IPv4 cannot be used by ISPs. NATs are used by many already. NATs for that matter are undoubtedly why IPv6 isn't taking off. They perpetuate ISPs' ability to sell static IP addresses at a premium while making it difficult for the rest to use devices as servers on home networks. Its just another example of big business trying to find ways to squeeze every last dime out of old paradigms to the detriment of progress.
      • In other words, converting to IPV6 is more expensive than keeping IPV4. Are YOU willing to pay an extra $5/mo for IPV6, along with everyone else using your particular ISP? No? Then you're just one of those customers that is trying to squeeze every last "free" thing they can get from big business.

        If you want it, demand it, pay for it. But chances are, your puny wireless router can't do IPV6 and like most people are too cheap to buy one that does that properly.

        Either that, you bought a router that had IPV6 an

        • Are YOU willing to pay an extra $5/mo for IPV6

          I've actually chosen an ISP that provides IPv6 ( []) over a very slightly cheaper one that doesn't.

          It's not that I actually need native IPv6 (Miredo [] works just fine), but providing native IPv6 indicates that the ISP is likely to be less clueless than its competitors when IPv4 addresses actually start running out. The assurance that they'll still be around next year is well worth the couple Euros I'm paying extra.

      • This is based on the idea that everyone wants to run services from home, and that's just not the case for the world outside Slashdot. The vast majority of people would have zero use for that functionality.

        The reason people haven't leapt on IPv6 is because it's a pain in the ass. Organizationally, it's probably the worst transition you can imagine. We did a IPv4->IPv4 (public range to private range) transition company wide a few years back, and it was godawful, and that's just for a piddly ass /16 block t

    • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )

      What's the point? How many consumer ISPs support IPv6?

    • I believe that any DOCSIS3 modem HAS to be IPv6 ready in some form, as part of the DOCSIS3 spec (please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but as far as I am aware, this is the case). Now I don't profess to know how NAT really works at the low level, but from my understanding, a router takes a single external IP and "shares" it via NAT as a (usually) 192.168.x.x IP.
      My question is this - is it possible to NAT an IPv6 IP to an IPv4 address? So while normally your external IP is (for example) yet inter

      • by vlm ( 69642 )

        I believe that any DOCSIS3 modem HAS to be IPv6 ready in some form, as part of the DOCSIS3 spec (please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but as far as I am aware, this is the case).

        This is correct. Very soon (if not already?) it will be impossible to purchase either a modem or a CMTS that does not natively support v6. It's a "must" in the spec, not a "would be really nice".

    • by mmontour ( 2208 )

      How many home routers support IPv6?

      Any of the recent Apple ones, like the Time Capsule I'm currently using with a tunnel.

      The real question is how many major websites support IPv6? Google (, Facebook (, and not too many others that I can think of. Normal people won't set up a tunnel or ask their ISP about v6 availability unless they have a reason to use it.

      Slashdot itself is one site that should have been there years ago, given its techie nature. The last time I checked I could not find any

    • equally a question of how many ISP's support their users using IPv6? Comcast doesn't exactly allow everyone to use it yet, sadly.

  • I've tried to set up my home network to prefer my IPv6 tunnel from Sixxs over IPv4 but there are oh so many hosts on the net that only support IPv4. is a great example of such a host...

    Maybe if more websites and other services actually supported IPv6 we'd see it "take off". Currently it's a bit like complaining about no one taking the train when there are only two stations in the whole country.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AVee ( 557523 )
      Slashdot should definitively start supporting IPv6, it's kinda lame for a tech site not to be a among the first to pick up the new stuff.
  • IPv6 adoption wasn't just going to happen overnight.
  • That's because most people's home internet - eg the fantastically expensive Verizon FiOS network - don't even do IPv6 routing yet.

    • by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

      Fantastically expensive?
      I get 25/25 for $43 after taxes and fees. That is less than I was paying TWC for 15/5, and I actually get 25/25. With the cable company I got about 10/1.

      • Re:Derp (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @11:24AM (#35881168)
        Yeah, but you're not factoring in the cost to move to an area where Verizon offers FiOS.
        • by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

          Good show. I was lucky enough to happen to have them pick my neighborhood. I wish they would roll it out everywhere, or someone would actually compete with them. Seems that neither of those will happen.

      • It sounds like your living in an area of the country with actual competition. Around here I've got the fastest connection offered, at a whopping 5mbps up from 4mbps a decade a go, and I have yet to get a speed test that tells me I'm getting anything over 3mbps.

        And, the cost is $50 a month, before taxes, IIRC, if I want to switch to an ISP with decent latency, good luck, all of the options are pretty pathetic in that regards.

      • yeah, I get 22/6 on comcast for like $80, so you're definitely getting a better deal.

  • by Spad ( 470073 )

    My ISP (Virgin Media) have said that they've "got enough" IPv4 addresses and that they'll start to look at IPv6 "sometime in 2012", so it's not like people are falling over each other to get IPv6 support up and running.

  • Let's say I'm an ISP and I have a bunch of IPv4 addresses. I can invest and convert my customers to IPv6 or only add new IPv6 customers. Or I can make like the IPv4 addresses are a rare commodity and charge more for them.
    Hmmmm... Gouge or invest, what will it be, what would Ma Bell do, where's my federal subsidy ?
  • Just a thought (Score:2, Interesting)

    IMHO, if the IPv6 spec drops the Interface ID requirement, then IPv6 use may change. I don't think that anyone is particularly jumping for joy to have their machine uniquely identified on the net.

    • Re:Just a thought (Score:4, Informative)

      by maswan ( 106561 ) <> on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @11:25AM (#35881178) Homepage

      There is no such requirement!

      One of the many possibilities for choosing the local part of the network is using the MAC address of the network interface. There are several other choices available, like choosing one manually or generating a random one (you can in fact generate random ones rather frequently, see "privacy extensions").

      Depending on your OS vendor, one of these will be the default behavior, but you don't have to do it that way if you don't like it.

    • Please look up "Privacy Extensions". This is enabled by default on Windows 7, and can be enabled easily on Linux (if not enabled by distro) and OS X. This way you won't be identified anymore.
    • I believe the requirement of generating an EUI-64 address from the MAC address of the network interface isn't an absolute 'must', but a 'should', i.e. you can generate the last 64 bits of the IPv6 address in a different way if you wish (I think the RFC mentions doing this for privacy reasons?), the major requirement being that it is unique within the /64 subnet.

      I think Windows Vista used EUI-64 to generate the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address, but Windows 7 generates it randomly?

    • by jd ( 1658 )

      Since IPv4 machines can be geographically located by triangulated pinging, you already are. The difference is, by having it openly uniquely identifiable, you get all the advantages of NEMO and MobileIP. (The practical upshot is that you can alter where you are on a network, or even switch Internet providers, without losing any active connections. A very, very useful idea if you want a laptop in an aircraft to have uninterrupted network coverage, since the protocol takes care of all the transitioning for you

  • Nothing but the blind men and an elephant in the internet age. []

    From what little I have access to, I see it increasing. From what little they have access to, they see it increasing in absolute but decreasing in relative. I'm sure someone else out there can get an equally meaningless datapoint. Who cares.

    I've switched at least some of my infrastructure over to v6. It just works. How boring. In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

  • ...right on time for when the Mayan calendar ends :)

  • I'm a network admin and I honestly don't know enough about it to be proficient or even comfortable. I, along with many in my position, are so swamped and overwhelmed in day-to-day operations that there is no chance of learning enough about it to be able to undertake the kinds of overhauls and ripple effects it would bring. I'd love to get some training and utilize it if there were some gains to be had without needing to replace massive amounts of gear or reorganizing/restructuring things... I just don't see

    • by Skapare ( 16644 )

      Once there are IPv6-only websites ... and it eventually will happen ... then it will be time for you to RTFM.

      • Once the boss needs to go to IPv6-only websites ... and it eventually will happen ... then it will be time for you to RTFM.
      • Absolutely, and I have been looking into it for some time now, not just sitting with thumb in orifice... but it also is not a pressing issue and does not appear to be anytime soon so I also can't waste time and energy on something that may or may not happen or happen as expected. I could see military going this route, but I don't see companies going easily since many have barely began to accept all of the costs and BS that got foisted on them with SOX and the like. I've been around the game long enough to k

    • > I just don't see it happening.

      And you won't. It'll hit you squarely in the back of the head (despite where you are keeping it).

    • by jd ( 1658 )

      That's why I spent time researching it long before it became significant. In fact, it's why I insist that people SHOULD research new technologies. When they do become essential, you are NEVER going to have time to learn them properly. Learning them in advance is the only workable solution.

  • ... all the pr0n, warez, tunez, and moveez sites were to allow free access for non-tunnel IPv6 users.

  • by argoff ( 142580 ) * on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @11:45AM (#35881472)

    In truth, IPv6 for an internal network doesn't make any sense at all, it's not worth the switch for most people. For the internet, it may make some sense if the cost of a fixed IP address is too much, and you provide or use a service that can't use NAT, and the people who are trying to reach you are from a new audience who are not IPv4 bound, and other means like dynamic DNS are not practical. The key question, isn't the number of IPv4 addresses available, but the number that absolutely must be fixed for people to go about their business ... and that number is probably closer to a few million, than to 4 billion.

    IMHO, the key problem here is that the powers that be are not letting IP addresses be allocated by the market, but rather by assignment. The market would automatically adjust supply, and demand, and once the cost reached a certain threshold (if ever) ... that would determine when people think it's worth it to switch.

    I remember a few years ago, I talked about how IPv6 was overrated on slashdot and in the tech community, and promptly got blown off and down voted. They may have had a fundamental understanding about the technology, but didn't jack fuck about the marketplace.

    • Are you aware that there is a limit on how many computers can be NATed behind a single IP address? Have you tried to get a static IP from an ISP lately? It's kind of expensive.

      From a pure supply and demand perspective, we have run out of supply. How many people do you know that actually have a static IP address? Most of us are already NATed. Also, remember that in a marketplace, you can't just sell an IP address to anyone; the IP structure must remain well enough organized to be routable.

      So you can't j
  • Not when I look it up. It returns no AAAA records. And I have IPv6 access.

    Companies tend to use IPv6 DNS whitelisting, meaning if they don't think you really have IPv6 connectivity, then they don't return their IPv6 addresses in queries and so you end up using IPv4. Google does this for sure.

    This makes it tough to measure how many people have/are using IPv6. If companies just switch their DNS whitelisting off (as they are expected to do on IPv6 day), then we'll see how much IPv6 traffic there really is.


  • by FeatherBoa ( 469218 ) on Wednesday April 20, 2011 @12:12PM (#35881866)

    That is the key reason we will never see IPv6: the entities that have to do something to make it happen have no incentive to do it, and a significant disincentive. IPv4 can be controlled by a few large organizations -- large telcos, governments, large technology corporations. IPv4 addresses are scarce and it is impossible for any new entity to come along and start challenging Verizon or Bell. Things like RFC 1918 addresses, NAT and tunneling make is possible for users to get stuff done in the face of IPv4 limits, so there is little subscriber-driven requirement to upgrade. End subscribers -- even very large ones -- essentially depend on the connectivity providers to lead the way in this sort of upgrade transition, and the large telcos have nothing to gain by giving up their de-facto oligopoly power in the market. Why should any guy with a couple of microwave dishes be able to go into business up against AT&T? That would be bad for business. As long as he does all that with RFC 1918 addresses, that's fine. But if IPv6 came to town, a guy like that would be selling fully routable connectivity, and that's no good at all.

    • If everyone is placed behind ISP-level NAT, which is the way things appear to be going, particularly in Asia, BitTorrent would go away. You can't do peer-to-peer communication if you can't receive incoming connections.

      ISPs would love to get rid of BitTorrent, because it's more than half the traffic their customers use. ISPs would also love to get rid of people running servers off their home machines, something also prevented.

      It would not surprise me at all if the movie and music industries would bribe^W con

Have you ever noticed that the people who are always trying to tell you `there's a time for work and a time for play' never find the time for play?