Slashdot Mirror
IPv6 Traffic Remains Minuscule
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."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How many home routers support IPv6?
NAT and other hacks I imagine.
Truth is, I don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for about 10 years. The reasoning being that:
- while we are technically out of IPs ... this is not the world ending problem it's been hyped to be.. as evidenced by the world not ending .. these will all need to be replaced. In a decade, there will probably be a noticable "IPv6 transition period" layer in all landfills.
- the stuff we should have been doing 10 years ago at the consumer level we are just starting to do now (how many _new_ home routers still don't do IPv6
- carrier grade NAT "solves" everything
ISPs en-masse should have been giving people IPv6 addresses to play with _years_ ago. I have experimented with IPv6 locally and via tunnel, but it's just not worth it when I don't know how my ISP will allocate addresses. It also concerns me to think how they will roll this out to the masses... because they are going to have to make it user friendly and seemless to the large consumer base... which means it's probably going to be primitive, locked down, and very frustrating for anyone with technical savvy. I _hope_ they don't require everyone to use some half baked custom hardware with some propriatary switchover software that you _have_ to use.
Maybe it will on IPv6 day
This is actually a really good example of what they should be doing.
Make the tech available first.. let people develop a desire for it. ISPs should be handing out IPv6 addresses to anyone who wants them. Let people play with them optionally... eventually more and more people will... and demand for it will increase. It would be a slow, gradual adoption devoide of excessive headaches...
way too rational to actually happen given the current track record though.
Totally agreed.
Another component of the problem is that IPv6 is quite different from IPv4. Arguably better... but people don't like different.
I understand why it happened, the internet _is_ the legacy problem. You can't just roll out a patch to the internet every few years... once it's running it has to work for a long time. I think a lot of people saw this as a good opportunity to fix some other problems ... and the result is people are going to have to change the way they think about certain things, which is going to lead to resistance.
Even myself, who enjoys change. I am comfortable with how NAT works. It makes sense to me. I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out. Now that I understand how it works (read: gateways suddenly became a lot more important) it's not so bad... but I can see why a lot of people, especially who don't work with networks as a career... are just saying "screw that, I'll deal when something actually happens to cause _me_ grief".
And there is no benifit to the ISP either. They can't charge more money to upgrade people to IPv6 because as you said, there is no benifit to the consumer. It just costs them money.. _and_ is going to generate more user issues which is more money and maybe some lost business.
Ultimately, until shit actually starts failing in a big way.. nothing is going to happen.
Enforcement (or at least serious stimulation) by the Government may well exactly what is required to get IPv6 off the ground. The main problem (on the consumer level at least) is the definitely the lack of equipment. Making it illegal to sell modem/routers which lack IPv6 support will fix that in no time making it way easier for providers to roll out dual-stack to there customers.
Providers could use DHCPv6 on their networks and simply issue an IPv6 range to anyone who's router requests it, no one will notice the difference. But currently that's just pointless because nobody will have an IPv6 capable modem, not even when they bought it yesterday.
I'm getting native dual-stack on my VDSL line at home, along with 7000 other customers. But they had to push their modem manufacturer (AVM) to get it properly implemented. Their list of supported modems is depressingly short, it contains 3 AVM models which basically use the same firmware, one Draytek modem and two Cisco which aren't really what I'd call 'consumer grade'. But it works just fine, I'm pretty certain a customer who doesn't care wouldn't notice the difference.
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.
End to end connectivity is the main selling point, but apps like Skype use hacky work arounds that the end user doesn't need to know anything about. The tipping point is going to come when there start being some services only available via IPv6. APNIC has now run out of IPv4 addresses, so I imagine that some services in the Asia-Pacific region will start to be v6-only in the near futures. Not a huge problem, since most ISPs in the region are already providing dual-stack, so their customers probably won't notice, but people trying to connect from the USA will.
I wonder what would happen if Google decided to make HD videos on YouTube v6-only. I imagine some interesting conversations with tech support:
"Hi, I'm trying to watch some kittens on YouTube and it says I only have Internet 4 not Internet 6. I'm running Microsoft Internet 9, but it still doesn't work"
"Sorry, we don't provide IPv6 access, and Google requires that for HD videos on YouTube."
"You pee vee six? Don't confuse me with jargon I just want to watch the video. I paid for an Internet from you, but Google says it's an old Internet. How do I use the new Internet?"
"I'm sorry, but we don't support IPv6, there's no demand for it."
"Well, how do I upgrade to Internet 6? I pay you for Internet and I want to use Internet."
How this conversation ends depends largely on whether the ISP in question has any competition...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News