Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Tops IPv6 Adoption Charts; US Lags At 4th
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."
Just because Swiss population in a few millions, probably smaller than a regular city in the United States.
I'd say the largest economy in the world is probably not lagging by being fourth, considering the shear amount of equipment in use, and that the three preceding countries are considerably more compact. Big ships make wide turns.
The U.S. isn't much of a leader anymore.
Our rankings in quality of health care, percentage of population in prisons, upward mobility, broadband, children in poverty, military spending, are embarrassing for a developed nation.
Fourth place is probably something we should celebrate, considering.
I'm still working on IP5
rewriting history since 2109
We are in news that's not about horse meat. HELL YEAH!
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.
Switzerland has plenty of money and a good president : Switzerland President
You personally are still living in the IP dark ages, and you seem to want to project your personal failure onto others or to blame the technology. Well sorry to have to inform you otherwise, but the technology is excellent and those around you are adopting it at an ever faster pace.
Meanwhile, it is you who are doomed to seeing an ever decreasing portion of the total net through your IPv6 denial.
We love the Swiss !! Renowned for its chocolate AND cheese !! And now, to top if all off !!
IPV6
Find me a router that REALLY works with IPV6 for all your elec-devs for the cost of some of that Swiss cheese and I will show you my unsanitary cheese hole goat.cz style !!
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.
Anyone care to explain what I actually gain? I currently get 20mbps into the US and 40mbps to Japan so speed isn't one of them. What is?
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 from servers via IPv6 the end user adoption would be pretty pointless.
Even the article points out that using another statistics gathering method, employed by Cisco, you get different results (still showing a similar ordering of adoption in different countries, but adoption percentages are completely different). So I'd be a bit wary of trusting the statistics here.
It is interesting to see from the charts that there's been a big push in Switzerland in the last month and how much ISPs pushing IPv6 can therefore help adoption... and that should be message to all the other ISPs out there, get on with pushing IPv6 to your customers.
The U.S. isn't much of a leader anymore. ....Our rankings in quality of health care,
I've heard that the health care rankings may be skewed because doctors in the US system are willing to try in cases where the patient would not be treated in other countries. For example, US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people, where in some other countries they are not considered for medical care and are not counted in health care stats.
Complete fiction. The US is ranked 34th in infant mortality.
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
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.
No really, since we have most ( at least that is what i heard ) of the v4 blocks, and plenty to spare, why do we even need to worry about it? Only those that are running out of v4 will "need" to adopt v6.
When I add Japan it is showing it above the US, making the US at least 5th.
Don't you realize that you can never run out of addresses like 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334?
" since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor"
Isn't that some session id in the packet put there by the NAT server? The NAT server knows how to route them, but that's my ISP's NAT. Your point about email is noted though, but linking the IP I use to login to my email doesn't help if its the same as lots of Spartacus people out there.
"The issue is IPv4 address depletion"
I thought that was the whole point of these Super NATs, I don't get a unique IP, there's something extra in the packet that is used to route and that's only per session. So we use fewer IP4 addresses. Potentially the whole ISP could have only 1 IP4 address, and protect the privacy (partially admittedly) of all their customers.
Perhaps they're complaining about not being able to access a particular web site because Internet Explorer for Windows XP and Android Browser for Android 2.x can see only the first SSL certificate on port 443 of a given IP address. These browsers don't support Server Name Indication, which is required for name-based virtual hosting with HTTPS. For example, https://pineight.com/ works on most browsers but gives a certificate error on IE/XP and Android 2 because pineight.com shares an IPv4 address with other customers of the same hosting company. So either they have to log in insecurely or the site has to put up a paywall or other source of revenue in order to be able to afford a dedicated IPv4 address for use with pre-SNI SSL stacks. IPv6 would make name-based virtual hosting (and thus Server Name Indication) less critical.
They set a date for all public facing servers to be IPv6 (which has just past) yet there's a ton of department run servers that aren't compliant. Not sure if its due to older equipment, lazy admins who don't care or what.
Our section of ITS though has been full IPv6 for over a year (load balancers and all)... Except one service and that's because the proprietary software doesn't support IPv6 and we've been trying to work with the vender to get it implemented.
They also have a set date for all internal services to be IPv6 by sometime next year (forget the date) and again, while we're already there I bet there will be a lot of systems that won't hit the target date because of older equipment or lazy admins.
The future of the internet is where one only consumes DRM'ed content on their smartphone/tablet devices. The creation of content or any form of media sharing threatens the media industry. IPV4 exhaustion is the perfect opportunity to lock down the internet so only preapproved protocols will make it through NAT. No more Bittorrent, nobody will have an open port range. Want to do video/audio chat, forget about running mumble you'd better use an approved client like Skype or Google Hangouts. Cable companies don't like 3rd party SIP providers siphoning off customers from their overpriced VOIP service, so carrier NAT will conveniently make that service unreliable. Forget about tunneling to get yourself a working IPV6 address. Carrier grade NAT will break that too. Carrier grade NAT will put the genie of the internet back into it's bottle and will be their attempt at keeping their old business models alive for the next few decades.
The fact that you're not running out of IPv4 addresses in US is actually somewhat dangerous to your own universality of net access, unless you are happy with being restricted to only one part of the Internet. Those who use only IPv4 will probably see a rise in the proportion of US websites on the net, since there is no pressure on new US sites to gain IPv6 addresses domestically. While US take-up of IPv6 remains small, US end users won't see any of the ever-expanding Internet that uses the newer protocol, so their view of the net will become preferentially domestic.
It's slightly akin to China's blocking sections of the Internet, except that you're doing it voluntarily to yourselves. The motivation is of course entirely different, but the end result is the same, restricting domestic access to less than the whole Internet.
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
"Actually it doesn't block incoming connections, the stateful-firewall does."
I don't see how it can probe behind the NAT unless it knows current session ids the NAT will route. Otherwise there's simply no way for the NAT to route that packet. So the mechanism of routing gives you that protection. There's simply no way for an attacker to probe the computers behind the network, they'd have to guess the session ids currently in use.
I like the Super NAT, I haven't had problems with it yet, and I hope my holiday home ISP does the same.
If you add other countries, the US is not fourth place any more, so the chart is totally misleading.
For example, US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants ...
Complete fiction. The US is ranked 34th in infant mortality.
Well, "trying very hard to.." isn't the same as "succeed in...".
Until there is some content people can't get via IPv4 or until IPv6 offers some other desirable benefit, there won't be any switch to IPv6. I have IPv6 capable equipment but I stay with IPv4 because everything works. Why change?
They are indeed neat, in so many ways. Not the least of which is that they are not in IPv6 denial , and so they provide their services both on the current version of IP (which is officially IPv6 since June 2012) as well as on IPv4.
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 organizations are fronting with fewer IPs, and translating that internally. So the demand curve is slowing anyway.
-Styopa
You got it wrong. IPv4 is the one doomed because is used far beyond the scale it was meant for. Probably big part of the blame should go to the industry behind, that still now is making hardware that only supports ipv4, or doing mass installations using that kind of hardware (afaik Uruguay is doing a countrywide fiber optic installation, and what is being installed in every home right now don't support ipv6)
Your suppositions are correct. IPv6 works completely transparently alongside IPv4, and IPv6 is not intended to "replace" IPv4 except in the limited sense that IPv6 usage is increasing (exponentially) while IPv4 usage will dwindle over time.
I expect IPv4 to be with us for another 20-30 years or more, until old IPv4-only devices die of old age. However, ISPs may well pull the plug on IPv4 earlier than that, because at some point it won't be profitable to support a minority population of IPv4-only users. When that happens, IPv4 will still continue to exist, but only within private sites to support legacy equipment.
Montana has even better IPv6 penetration RATES.
But then again, its easy to have good statistics when NOBODY LIVES THERE.
Basicly your data means that the U.S. spend about 50% more on health care than any other country and gets just average results out of it. Must be that nationalized inefficiency in the U.S. health care system compared with the free market approach in about every other developed country.
The best of US health care really is the best in the world, but our country makes little effort to guarantee that such high-quality care is available to everyone. Anyone here who advocates a real national health system is decried as a "socialist", so instead we have a hodgepodge of providers and facilities of all levels of quality. With one breath we claim that universal health insurance would be too expensive, and in the next we proceed to spend more on our military than the military budgets of the next ten nations put together.
The US absolutely has the technical expertise to have the best health care in the world, but our society has other priorities.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The IPv4 part of the internet is the real internet. The IPv6 part is the amusing playground for researchers, networking enthusiasts and open source fanatics.
Getting more people connected should be the US's primary goal, not IPv6 adoption. Connecting the remaining 25% of Americans to the internet is pretty important, especially considering that this remaining unconnected populace are also disproportionally the poorest demographic. Without access to the internet, the poor and their children are going to be left even further behind.
The reason we have a low IPv6 adoption rate is because ISPs such as AT&T just don't try to upgrade. Their users want IPv6 support, but the ISPs won't deliver.
while
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.
I would have thought the US would have been near the bottom.
lose != loose
You're a cretin. That's like a Chinese official saying that what's behind their firewall is "the real Internet".
The real Internet is the whole Internet, not just the part you prefer. The Pacific Rim nations that ran out of IPv4 addresses a long time ago are allocating all new address blocks on IPv6, and that's a part of the Internet which you cannot see because of your comically blinkered IPv6 denial. You don't get to exclude them from the "real Internet" just because you feel like it.
In any event, it's irrelevant arguing with you since IPv6 takeup is on an exponential upward curve. Good luck arguing with an exponential. Have fun in your smalltown restricted enclave as it becomes an ever decreasing portion of the full Internet.
At least 50% of the 20M Comcast internet users have IPv6 since 2012 http://www.comcast6.net/index.php/8-ipv6-trial-news-and-information/92-deployment-update
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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.