Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Internet Networking Technology

Worldwide IPv6 Adoption: Where Do We Stand Today? 327

skade88 writes "IPv4 is much like a limited natural resource; it can't last forever. The well of new IPv4 addresses is already running dry in many parts of the world. The solution to this problem, which was presented decades ago, is to switch to IPv6. With peak IPv4 far behind us, why do we still see limited IPv6 adoption? Ars takes a good look at where we are and where we are going with the future of IP addresses, the internet and you. Quoting: 'As with all technology, IPv6 gets better and cheaper over time. And just like with houses, people prefer waiting rather than buying when prices are dropping. To make matters worse, if you're the only one adopting IPv6, this buys you very little. You can only use the new protocol once the people you communicate with have upgraded as well. Worse still, you can't get rid of IPv4 until everyone you communicate with has adopted IPv6. And the pain of the shrinking IPv4 supplies versus the pain of having to upgrade equipment and software varies for different groups of Internet users. So some people want to move to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind sooner rather than later, but others plan on sticking with IPv4 until the bitter end. As a result, we have a nasty Nash equilibrium: nobody can improve their own situation by unilaterally adopting IPv6.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Worldwide IPv6 Adoption: Where Do We Stand Today?

Comments Filter:
  • The reason why is (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04, 2013 @04:16PM (#42479409)

    With peak IPv4 far behind us, why do we still see limited IPv6 adoption?

    The reason why is simple: because we haven't run out of IPv4 addresses yet.

  • by maz2331 ( 1104901 ) on Friday January 04, 2013 @04:50PM (#42479869)

    Seriously, it sounds like SOMEONE can't convert between decimal and hex.

    The addresses are easy once you get even slightly used to them, and once you memorize your /48 or /64 prefix is no more difficult than v4. 2001:123:45:67::2E/64 isn't hard. [2001:0123:0045:0067:0000:0000:0000:002E]. I have memorized our /48 and our usual scheme is to split it into /64s that then match the 3rd octet of our 192.168.x.x private for example, I'd set up a host that is on as 2001:123:45:10::5/64.

    Or even better... just let the router on the subnet autoconfigure the hosts, or setup DHCPv6 on a server.

    (Ocourse the 2001:123:45 addresses are totally made-up and fictitious... no need to give my real-world v6 netblocks on here!)

  • Re:That's easy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MajroMax ( 112652 ) on Friday January 04, 2013 @04:54PM (#42479925)

    ISPs don't want to do carrier-grade NAT, because then they have to maintain carrier-grade NAT.

    CGN is a stateful protocol, meaning that each of their implementing-boxes needs to maintain and process state for each data flow to or from your devices. That's no big deal for a single home, but it's a problem for a carrier. If the boxes are too far towards the customer-end of their network, they will be small but they will also be numerous, making maintenance more frequent. If the boxes are too far towards the core of their network, an ISP will only need a few, but the hardware requirements are much heftier to provide acceptable performance. (Already, bittorrent can saturate some of the cheaper home routers).

    Simply routing packets is technically far, far easier than running network address translation. Even ISPs that use deep-packet inspection have the option of turning it off if things go wrong -- the network fails open. Carrier grade NAT doesn't have that option.

  • Multicast? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04, 2013 @05:36PM (#42480565)

    I've been waiting for the IPV6 killer application to show its head. Until then I don’t think Joe public will know or care what IPV6 is and why they should use it.

    So I mention this here in the hopes that it will light somebodies bulb and somebody will probably correct me on this, but I always thought IPV6 included global multicast, which would make lots of new application possible. Imagine being able to stream content from your home to any number of people without the need for a costly connection. Kinda makes bit torrent look so last century.

  • It ain't working (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Friday January 04, 2013 @06:41PM (#42481577) Homepage

    IPv6 ain't working. This should pretty much be clear to all, since it is not being widely adopted. The IPv6 proponents can down moderate those who point the flaws all they want but the facts speak for themselves.

    A more constructive approach was to take steps to facilitate its adoption, such as tunneling, the IPv6 day and the IPv6 experiment. It didn't work. Fourteen years since it has been introduced with IPv4 address space running out rapidly and still only 1% of the internet. At this point we have to believe that nothing short of a completely new protocol will succeed.

  • Re:That's easy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by firewrought ( 36952 ) on Friday January 04, 2013 @06:42PM (#42481585)

    Privacy extensions are enabled by default in Windows, Mac OS X (since 10.7), and iOS (since version 4.3).

    But it doesn't keep ISP's from moving to permanent, static IP addresses. So privacy extensions will "blur" the PC's within a single household together and keep stalking firms (um "ad agencies") from tracking you as you move between coffee shops*, but, in practice, all household traffic you generate will be branded with the same permanent, unique address.

    I'm not poo-pooing IPv6, that's just an unfortunate drawback that comes with all of its advantages.

    *Tracking you by IP, that is, there are still cookies, local storage, browser fingerprinting, etc.

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday January 04, 2013 @08:17PM (#42483049) Journal

    I have this fight for a long time and some of what you say is true, but in my experience its always worked out better where my DNS rule is observed on a largish network. That is: if its not in DNS it does than it does officially not exist, that address is mine ( network admin ) to freely use as I please, and if your refer to a resource by IP directly its subject to change with minimal warning.

    A proper DNS infrastructure does not just fail ( most organizations don't have that but its a different matter ). Other 'stuff' happens all the time. Companies get acquired that happen to use your same address space, services have to be moved to different sites for one reason or another, something at some subsidiary starts causing problems on the wan and you need to know what is right away etc. A solid DNS database makes it possible to find the information you need quickly both for humans and machines, and to effect changes easily without having to chase all across your 30 site nation wide WAN to fix every the address of the time server on every box. If you are not using DNS, even in ipv4 world, everywhere you possibly can I say you are doing it WRONG. That extra layer is there to help you and give you options.

    Also even without DNS and DHCP most the time ipv6 is not going to require you to know any more bytes of an address than you do today. If you subnet properly the prefix should be predictable inside your organization. So you should still only need to communicate the last part of the address to all but the least clueful users

  • Re:NAT (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Saturday January 05, 2013 @02:07AM (#42485561) Homepage

    ARIN has been pretty clear they don't want carrier grade NAT. The carriers don't want carrier grade NAT. You aren't going to be forced behind a NAT. You'll have a v6 address and pool for v4 outgoing once they roll out v6.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton