4 ms·

There was a time when running out of IPv4 addresses meant that ISPs and other providers _had_ to switch to IPv6, or they would run out of addresses (or spend to

There was a time when running out of IPv4 addresses meant that ISPs and other providers _had_ to switch to IPv6, or they would run out of addresses (or spend too much acquiring them). With NAT and stuff, that risk has seemed to decrease significantly. Google statistics show that nearly 20% of their traffic is over v6, which is honestly not bad. The USA itself is 35%, with no latency hit.

hannob 9y ago
> Google statistics show that nearly 20% of their traffic is over v6, which is honestly not bad. The USA itself is 35%, with no latency hit. This is totally bad. We need close to a 100% for v6 to make any sense. 20% IPv6 is pretty pointless.
- josteink 9y ago
  > This is totally bad. We need close to a 100% for v6 to make any sense. Considering how it was 2% not many years ago, this is a huge improvement. What's going to drive this further is that the cost of supporting IPv4 will increase more and more as IP-space is exhausted and ISPs will have to apply new hacks like CGN. At that point getting people to IPv6 and IPv6-only will be a purely be about economics.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  For a large ISP, that's 20% less traffic through their very expensive, slow CGN system.