Switzerland Tops IPv6 Adoption Charts; US Lags At 4th 155
hypnosec writes "According to recent statistics, Switzerland has topped the IPv6 adoption charts by leapfrogging Romania, which led the charts for nearly a year. According to Google, Switzerland's adoption stands at 10.11 percent — the highest for any country. Romania, on the other hand, has an adoption rate of 9.02 percent, followed by France at 5.08 percent. Switzerland took the top position near the end of May and the primary reason seems to be Swisscom and its drive to adopt the next IP version. The U.S. stands at fourth place with just 2.76 percent adoption."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Switzerland's population (Score:4, Insightful)
You know there are these neat things called "google" and "wikipedia".
Switzerlands population is 8million.
There is only one city in the US with a larger population - New York. There are only 9 cities with a population of over 1 million.
So what is a "regular" city?
And what is the IPv6 penetration in this city? (I.E. your argument is not just wrong but also ridiculous).
Re: (Score:2)
Whohoo! Canada is roughly tied with the UK at 0.2%.
I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated, as it equals 1.4 computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should do the per capita stats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's because Switzerland needs all those extra bits in which to hide money that is illegally stored in their banks.
Lags? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lags? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
As you should. If not then someone in power may decide they need to export some freedom to your country.
Re: (Score:1)
Shear equipment? Baaah!
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be a way to try and take a case where the US is doing decent and instead make it bad and hate on the US. So the US is 4th, out of 196 nations, some of which have very little infrastructure? Sounds like it is doing s decent job to me. Particularly since the US has a ton of infrastructure, some of it older (given that the Internet started in the US) and that the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it.
The US doesn't have to be first in everything, it isn't a case of "anything other than first is a failure."
IPv6 adoption is going to be a slow process. There's a lot to doing it right. In particular you find plenty of equipment either flat out doesn't support IPv6, or doesn't support it in hardware, meaning that it can't do much of it without falling over.
Re: (Score:3)
the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it
Just reposting this for emphasis. Nobody's wife or mom is complaining about IPv4 block shortage; just like anything else in life, that's really all that matters.
SSL without SNI (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The US used to be the first (I'm talking about the Internet in general). Not anymore. It's not not just about IPv6, it's also about speed and access. The same is true for cellphone and probably a lot of other technologies. The US is technologically falling behind. That's the point.
And actually the US is not fourth out of 196 country, it is fourth out of some arbitrarily chosen countries. I looked up a few countries and, while the US is at 2.78%, Japan is at 3.13% and Germany is at 2.81%. So it's in sixth pl
Re: (Score:2)
Compared with Europe, and especially Asia (notable by its absence in the table of top adopters of IPv6), US has a much larger pool of IPv4 addresses left, so there is less urgency to adopt IPv6. And yet there it is, up in fourth place. The only region with less urgency is Africa.
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Funny)
Most of Africa could probably be switched by just buying a new home router at Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
And actually the US is not fourth out of 196 country, it is fourth out of some arbitrarily chosen countries. I looked up a few countries and, while the US is at 2.78%, Japan is at 3.13% and Germany is at 2.81%. So it's in sixth place at best.
Compared with Europe, and especially Asia (notable by its absence in the table of top adopters of IPv6), US has a much larger pool of IPv4 addresses left, so there is less urgency to adopt IPv6. And yet there it is, up in fourth place. The only region with less urgency is Africa.
Were you even paying attention? You tried to give an excuse why USA shouldn't be leading, which didn't refute the argument that they're in a position worse than fourth, and then you claimed they're still in fourth.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK the US was never first with cellphones. Given our low population density we have lagged in cell from the beginning. If anything the last 5 years have been a period where the US had done a remarkable "catching up".
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But the other thing is enterprise software and business. Home and small business are easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Having an IPv4 address does not help, if the party you want to communicate with does not have one. Does ARIN have enough IPv4 addresses to hand them out not only to users in the ARIN region, but also to everybody those users want to communicate with in the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would someone in the United States want to communicate with the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:3)
The US doesn't have to be first in everything,
Actually the US is first in nearly nothing, particularly if you prorate things per capita.
If you think about it, more likely than not, a small country that has placed special emphasis on X will easily beat the US where because of sheer size is harder to clean up. What is remarkable is in how many categories America ranks in the top 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the US is first in nearly nothing, particularly if you prorate things per capita.
Nonsense!
The US is #1 in teenage pregnancies [latimes.com], #1 in gun ownership, #1 in healthcare costs, ...
Re: (Score:2)
The US is number 4 in a chart with 5 countries, just add Belgium and the US is 5th.
http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=ch,ro,fr,us,gb,be [vyncke.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Add Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that just because the USA isn't #1 on some arbitrary list it's "hate on the US"?
The article doesn't even mention the USA and the summary only mentioned it at the end as a contrast because /. is a US-centric site and readers here probably wanted to know where we stood.
The amount of people on here that immediately went on the defensive shows a scary amount of nationalism in the US. Get over it people, we aren't #1 in everything.... Accept it.
Re:Lags? (Score:5, Interesting)
The linked article seems more than a little odd; I just checked Japan at the same place they link to, and it has an adoption rate of 3.13%, ahead of the US. So it seems the comparison is only among a restricted set of countries (the linked page has only five countries displayed), and not really relevant to much of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany, Japan, Luxemburg and Belgium are above 3%. So that means the US is at least 7th or lower, because I didn't check all countries.
Re: (Score:2)
It even says that right in the
Take some small subset of the data, and you can show that any country 'lags'. Why isn't this titled - "South Korea, probably the most connected country on the planet, comes in at dead last with 0% IPv6 adoption" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The largest economy in the world is the EU, not the US.
And I'm pretty tired of this argument that its okay for the US to be lagging in so many things because they are big. The US has gobs of resources and a very high GDP per capita. As someone previously pointed out, why can't you find a city or small state with higher IPv6 adoption than Switzerland? It's not like New York is somehow being held back because Los Angeles exists.
It's like that same tired argument that size is why bullet trains are impossibl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have much of a point really but you should Google "TSA train stations" (sans quotes). Well, maybe you'd rather not know... *sighs* I didn't do it, don't blame me. I vote third party.
Re: (Score:3)
The EU isn't a country, duh.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually they are fourth in the small selection of a few countries. I've for pure interest added Germany, and it happened that in the last data point it overtook the U.S. (although only slightly), making the U.S. at best fifth. Given that there's a large number of other countries you might add, I have no idea where the U.S. really are.
Re: Fourth? Awesome! (Score:1)
Sadly the US is not at the fourth place. Germany and Belgium have a higher IPv6 adaption as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a nice report on from the OECD on the quality of health care systems. And a short summary on the US system compared to the rest of the OECD countries http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/HealthSpendingInUSA_HealthData2012.pdf [oecd.org]
Re:Fourth? Awesome! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cute, but socializing the costs will not fix the problem of high cost. It will just mean that the costs will be paid through taxes. Not much of an improvement. Find a better argument for socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually counts the complete amount of money spent on health care, through private means and through taxes (it even makes a difference between private spending and spending through taxes and other public money, so you can compare the shares). And there the U.S. invests 50% more than every other country on Earth.
Even after accounting for all money that flows into health care, the U.S. system is horribly inefficient compared to any other system.
Re: (Score:2)
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
Re: (Score:2)
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
Murdering people against their will is even sicker, and seems to be what you are advocating for.
While I appreciate you giving me the OK to murder you without cause or further consent, I on the other hand refuse to lower myself to your level to do so.
Gee (Score:1)
I'm still working on IP5
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was never known as IPv5
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still working on IP5
Yeah you should do that before upgrading to IE6.
Romania! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You just had to bring it up after we'd forgotten about it...
No more burgers for me in the next weeks...
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious... what is it about a horse vs a cow that makes the meat wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Just curious... what is it about a horse vs a cow that makes the meat wrong?
Nothing, as long as horse meat is labelled as "horse meat", and the paperwork trail can be traced. The problem is when horse meat is labelled as "beef", and their isn't a full paperwork trail.
The paperwork trail is important to show that it is "fit for human consumption". How the animal dies is important - was it put down using a barbiturate for instance. If it was, it shouldn't get into the human food chain.
(As a vegetarian I take a neutral view as to the relative merits of horse meat vs beef - I eat
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
what about that other thing, how are the vampires in Transylvania doing?
Re: (Score:1)
Nobody expected the Romanian IPv6 adoption.
Conclusions are misleading (Score:2)
If you RTFA you find that the 10.11% figure they are reporting is for hits Google has had from web browsers using IPv6. What's more, the article only compares a small number of countries. If you add Japan into the mix it pushes USA to 5th place.
If you look at some of the other charts, you can see that USA is top with the most IPv6 alive prefixes, announced prefixes, allocated prefixes and web servers.
So this is about household adoption of IPv6, not overall adoption. Without businesses providing services fro
Re: (Score:2)
Your IPv6 location might vary based on the country where your tunnelbroker is hosted.
My IPv6 network at home through HE places me as US user from googles view point, and it's annoying that they keep suggesting me to use google.com rather than the localized one.
Native IPv6 at work on the other hand works just fine since the subnet links to our real location.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. According to some threads in the tunnelbroker.net forums from May there are HE users who get redirected to Google's Taiwan site. And Google Public DNS apparently sends all users of tunnelbroker.net to a datacenter in Sydney.
Re: (Score:2)
US at 5th? (Score:1)
When I add Japan it is showing it above the US, making the US at least 5th.
US not fourth place (Score:1)
Another "crisis" that isn't. (Score:1)
Sure, eventually we'll need to move to IPv6.
But if you look at the IP utilization there are GIANT blocks of IP addresses that are locked behind allocations determined by technology's 'big players' in what, 1981? 1990?
The facts are that:
1) IP addresses are not actually 'running out' anytime soon
2) it's going to be far easier to simply re-allocate blocks that are currently unused than to force everyone to buy new hardware.
3) in most cases today, people aren't consuming new IP's, in fact, I suspect that most o
Re:Another "crisis" that isn't. (Score:4, Interesting)
That part is true. But back then allocations only came in three sizes. Those allocations really were of the smallest size, which would cover their need. That practice was changed soon enough to avoid problems. Slowing down the allocation of IP addresses and not having any of the already allocated addresses handed back would have given enough time, that IPv6 could have been deployed.
The only problem was, that nobody did. People just kept going on deploying more and more IPv4 networks and ignoring IPv6. Other workarounds came along, which stretched the supply of IPv4 addresses even further. The truth is, those workarounds have caused more problems than they solved. They were not necessary in the first place, there was plenty of time to deploy IPv6. The workarounds mean that we now have a much bigger Internet that needs to be converted, which means more work, and it is more expensive. But worse than that, the workarounds are actually part of the reason transitioning to IPv6 is so damn hard. Had IPv4 been free from any NAT, it would have been easier to have IPv4 and IPv6 co-exist.
Some people suggest those early players should hand back those addresses. It wouldn't solve any problem. It would have delayed the problem by a few months. But the problem would have returned and been just a tad worse. Also, it is a myth that those addresses are unused. Even if they are not all advertised in BGP, they may be used internally on systems, which also need to communicate with the public Internet. Hence they cannot be reused without breaking some communication. And even if they could be handed back, the amount of work it would take to ensure they are really not used plus the administrative overhead, means it is just not worth the effort. All that effort would be better spent working on a real solution.
All of those addresses, which could possibly have been handed back would have been used already in 2011. IANA ran out of addresses in early 2011, and APNIC was growing fast at the time.
That's only true, because they already have. Rationing of IPv4 addresses is happening already, and it is affecting end users. The problems end users experience will get worse over time. But very few people understand the connection between the problems they are experiencing and shortage of IP addresses.
But that won't help. There aren't addresses to reallocate. Extrapolate the curve from before IPv4 addresses and ignore the limit. Then you'll find consumption would reach 200% before the end of this decade. No redistribution of IP addresses will solve that. Also redistribution of IP addresses is a problem in itself. Every time you break up a block and redistribute the addresses, the address space gets more fragmented. This fragmentation means more routing table entries, which consume costly CAM resources on the backbone routers. This is a side effect of stretching the utilization of addresses too far.
Research has shown that you should not expect to utilize more than 80-90% of the bits in an address, if that address is supposed to be used for routing. That means you should not expect to utilize 32 bits of the IPv4 addresses, but only 26-29 bits.
I had no idea this was a thing (Score:2)
Competing based on IPv6 saturation? I guess the US is doing pretty well for not even trying.
I suspect IPv6 adoption isn't nearly as critical for the US as it is for other countries. As the US controls an obscene portion of the IPv4 address space.
why the US is so low (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T has more IPv6 users than any other ISP in the world:
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ [worldipv6launch.org]
Granted, it's all based on 6rd, but you can't say they're not trying.
Re: (Score:1)
Surprising (Score:2)
I would have thought the US would have been near the bottom.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite the opposite, I am seeing an ever-widening Internet as the pacific rim regions that have run out of IPv4 addresses allocate only on IPv6, while you don't see any of it. The value is obvious, being able to see the whole net versus being able to see only a part of it.
But it's your choice to be smalltown and to willfully narrow your net horizons, I can't help you there.
Re: (Score:3)
And sometimes I wonder if you ACs are actually all just one guy talking to himself. It's actually more comfortable imagining that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite NAT, you still have all those complaints about your e-mail being read, your data access being known and so on. NAT is not and has never been a security mechanism on its own. There is no anonymity, since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor, not just to the NAT boxes in between.
Actually, NAT is not the direct issue here. The issue is IPv4 address depletion - it's already happened at the level of the RIRs, and will next happen at the level of national registries. As that shortage hits downstream, that's when people will find IPv4 addresses being rationed, and connections being at a premium. And this is where the preparedness will make a difference: countries that are ready for it can switch relatively painlessly, as opposed to those that ain't.
Honestly, I don't get why entities that are capable of IPv6 support, be it companies, ISPs and so on - that have all the IPv6 compatible equipment - don't start switching now. There is nothing to be gained by waiting, and the first step is in any case going to be a transition to dual-stack, not IPv6-only. So do that, and over time - maybe decades, IPv4 can start getting deprecated.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone doesn't understand what NAT does. The T part means translation. It's not needed in IPv6 anymore, but can be used for obfuscation. The NAT box keeps track of the translation so that traffic handles won't know where the real origin is. With a limited address space like you get in IPv4, which is usually just ONE address, then NAT translates everything to that address. With IPv6 NAT can translate the internal network structure into random IPv6 addresses in the standard /64 minimal assignment. So i
Re: (Score:2)
Problem w/ trying to break everything up and re-distribute would have been that every organization would have had to redo its entire network configuration from scratch. I'd say the introduction of both CIDR and NAT was the cause of this problem.
The reason that companies don't give up millions of unused IP addresses is simple. In the early days, when someone like HP got an entire Class A to themselves, they probably had simple networking configurations where a router would get something like 15.x.x.x and
Re: (Score:2)
NAT is not and has never been a security mechanism on its own.
While NAT has not been designed to be a security mechanism, it blocks incoming connections, so it can be seen to increase security regarding network attacks against the machine.
There is no anonymity, since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor, not just to the NAT boxes in between.
In that scenario there is more anonymity than exposing your real IP address. That route-back information changes for every TCP connection established, so while tracking you might still be possible, it's a bit tougher.
Re: (Score:2)
While NAT has not been designed to be a security mechanism, it blocks incoming connections, so it can be seen to increase security regarding network attacks against the machine.
Actually it doesn't block incoming connections, the stateful-firewall does. NAT is implemented however the implementer wants to, as it is not a standard. It is a hack that has no security guarantees and only needs to work good enough to sell devices. There is nothing saying that NAT has to work a specific way or needs to cover certain cases. Many implementations of "NAT" have security holes, even on high end enterprise equipment. Why? Because there is no wrong way to implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why entities that are capable of IPv6 support, be it companies, ISPs and so on - that have all the IPv6 compatible equipment - don't start switching now.
Because it's work and if you don't get any real benefit, why do it? That principle governs a lot of my decisions at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is happening already. The ISP I am using ran out of IPv4 addresses in 2012, and started rationing them down to two per customer. Before that I could have as many devices online as I needed. When they started rationing, I had three devices online, but in the past I have had more.
But I am still better off than customers of certain other ISPs. Some don't even get a single IPv4 address as they are put behind CGN.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but how many levels of NAT do you want, or does a system support? A network has one routable address NATed into, say, several Class C domains, and finds that it still ain't enough. What then? Does it then NAT those NATed addresses even further? How deep does that work?
The main 'security feature', that incidentally comes along w/ NAT, is a firewall. In IPv6, one would still have that, and the same permission rules, implemented properly, would demarcate blacklisted and whitelisted addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that IPv4 will be present for a long time. We will still have the old addresses and things will still be using them. I suspect that one can configure a router to dish out IPv4 addresses and handle IPv6 traffic at the same time. It seems trivial enough though I'm not an expert. I'm *fairly* well read on the IPv6 configurations, methods, and whatnot but I'm not employed in the field (I'm retired) so I don't have any deep knowledge but it seems fairly trivial to still accomplish what you're lookin
Re: (Score:2)
I also figure some folks will specifically request them in the future just for the reason of them not being assigned to a specific PC within a network. I haven't seen a designated IPv4 end date in the specs or whatnot. As DHCP doesn't forward the local machine's private address there's some measure of difficulty in ascertaining the actual PC the requests originated from and people may see that as a value added service. As you mentioned, there's bound to be legacy devices for ages. I'd actually guess that yo
Re: (Score:2)
With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.
IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.
Email problems can be alleviated by more companies and people being responsible for their own systems again instead of using gmail and placing too much trust in third parties.
If ad companies have no problem tracking individual systems behind nats using a number of technologies.. cookies, environment fingerprinting, cache fingerprinting, dns fingerprinting, flash cookies...etc I'm less certain of realizable practical benefits.
Finally my understanding with CGN deployment there are mapping protocols which all
Re: (Score:2)
... because all the porn, music, movie, and warez sites are moving to IPv6 to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's only ONE exactly like that, but the network allocation of 2001:0db8 has 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,333 of them (not counting a few needed to manage the space). Too bad it's all reserved, so not even you can have one like that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are talking about just him, all he needs is a /64. 2001:db8:85a3:42::/64 would be all his, and then within that, he has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses that he can assign. Yeah, 2001:db8 is reserved for documentation and meant to be used as an example. But there are plenty more where that came from.
If you are talking about the nation as a whole, then let's assume that you are assigning Class A blocks to everybody, similar to the early days of IPv4. The IANA allocates it currently in /16 a
Re: (Score:3)
Hey! That's the combination to my luggage!
Re: (Score:2)
No more Bittorrent, nobody will have an open port range.
I'm curious to see how piracy will be impacted if CG-NAT really gets implemented widely. Most of warezing happens in P2P manner and, unable to accept incoming connections means a big hit for that kind of systems. Some MAFIAA representative must already be rubbing hands together and laughing maniacally there somewhere. I wonder if some Pirate Party would then try launching its own ISP where the selling point is to have a real IP address.