5 ms·

This article is two years old. I don't think things as as dire as they seem, just a bit more boring than people might like. I can't see any sign that long-term

This article is two years old. I don't think things as as dire as they seem, just a bit more boring than people might like. I can't see any sign that long-term IPv6 growth has stopped, it's just ceased to accelerate. Looking at Google's IPv6 traffic graph (https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html), this is entirely consistent with being the first half of a classic logistic curve, with growth now linear as it approaches the 50% point after 15 years. If this is actually a logistic growth curve, we will presumably see the end of IPv4 sometime around 2040. Even if we take a more optimistic view and assume linear growth continues, it will still take until about 2035. And that's fine. Old technlogies tend to wither away, not go out with a bang.

CrLf 2y ago
The issue with looking at IPv6 adoption from that point of view is that it only shows half of the picture. It shows the percentage of IPv6-enabled clients, which has been growing steadily. On the other side there are still major services that are IPv4-only, and growth is not uniform. This means the combined situation is not as cheerful. It's hard to arrive at definitive conclusions, but IPv6 traffic(1) may be as low as 15% when considering this mismatch. https://blog.cloudflare.com/ipv6-from-dns-pov/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/ipv6-from-dns-pov/ Without stronger incentives, IPv6 may be an eternal runner up. At least it looks like it will take quite a few decades more to make IPv4 obsolete. (1) By connections or requests. By bytes transferred, IPv6 might have already overtaken IPv4 for all we know (I'm not aware of a broad enough study on this, so I'm open to this possibility). The largest streaming providers are IPv6 enabled.
- jofla_net 2y ago
  Another good reason for slow adoption is that the pushers of V6 herald it as the death of all nat, and i wager there are certain types of net admins who really like at least SOME nat. I have a longer writeup here http://www.jofla.net/?p=00000113#00000113 http://www.jofla.net/?p=00000113#00000113 granted i would love for more v6, if it yielded a 1 for 1 repacement, with all features .
  - nickburns 2y ago
    IPv6 certainly has its own technically legitimate uses, absolutely. thanks for my next read! (curious how many things you discuss that i hadn't even considered.)
- anonym29 2y ago
  Every service I run for all time will be exclusively ipv4. Ipv6 gets a heckler's veto from me for trying to do too much. Give me an addressing scheme and absolutely NOTHING ELSE - just like IPv4 - and I'll consider it. IPv6 does an order of magnitude more than just this one thing, and therefore is too complex to be a replacement as it adds a bunch of anti-features that I don't want anywhere near any of my networks for any reason ever. I am a permanent rejecter of all ipv6, both as a client and a server. For every downvote this post gets, I'm going to increase the number of sockpuppet acconts I automate in my crusade against ipv6 in all public forums by 1 order of magnitude. Each downvote will multiply the number of voices standing in opposition to your own desired outcome coming from my system by ten. Don't like it? Propose a better standard that fixes the address space problem without adding layers of shit on top of it next time. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to each for lunch, and for this particular subject, I can (and will) make more virtual anti-ipv6 wolves than there are pro-ipv6 sheep that are real humans. Don't like that? Demand a better governance system than democracy.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - transpute 2y ago
    > a bunch of anti-features that I don't want anywhere near any of my networks for any reason ever Is there a good write-up on IPv6 anti-features?
  - nickburns 2y ago
    the very notion of technology factually implies that it never gets less complex as it iterates upon itself. reminds me of the rhetorical ponderance: how many humans did it take to invent the pencil eraser? (and somehow your post also calls to my mind the woeful Luddites! but i digress...) pray tell who, my good man, are you railing against?
  - jacob019 2y ago
    Like it or not this is the way forward and you might as well get used to it.
nickburns 2y ago
very well said about legacy technologies, plus estimated projections based on actual current adoption at least to me informative. thanks for sharing your thoughts.

CrLf 2y ago

The issue with looking at IPv6 adoption from that point of view is that it only shows half of the picture. It shows the percentage of IPv6-enabled clients, which has been growing steadily. On the other side there are still major services that are IPv4-only, and growth is not uniform. This means the combined situation is not as cheerful. It's hard to arrive at definitive conclusions, but IPv6 traffic(1) may be as low as 15% when considering this mismatch. https://blog.cloudflare.com/ipv6-from-dns-pov/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/ipv6-from-dns-pov/ Without stronger incentives, IPv6 may be an eternal runner up. At least it looks like it will take quite a few decades more to make IPv4 obsolete. (1) By connections or requests. By bytes transferred, IPv6 might have already overtaken IPv4 for all we know (I'm not aware of a broad enough study on this, so I'm open to this possibility). The largest streaming providers are IPv6 enabled.

jofla_net 2y ago
Another good reason for slow adoption is that the pushers of V6 herald it as the death of all nat, and i wager there are certain types of net admins who really like at least SOME nat. I have a longer writeup here http://www.jofla.net/?p=00000113#00000113 http://www.jofla.net/?p=00000113#00000113 granted i would love for more v6, if it yielded a 1 for 1 repacement, with all features .
- nickburns 2y ago
  IPv6 certainly has its own technically legitimate uses, absolutely. thanks for my next read! (curious how many things you discuss that i hadn't even considered.)
anonym29 2y ago
Every service I run for all time will be exclusively ipv4. Ipv6 gets a heckler's veto from me for trying to do too much. Give me an addressing scheme and absolutely NOTHING ELSE - just like IPv4 - and I'll consider it. IPv6 does an order of magnitude more than just this one thing, and therefore is too complex to be a replacement as it adds a bunch of anti-features that I don't want anywhere near any of my networks for any reason ever. I am a permanent rejecter of all ipv6, both as a client and a server. For every downvote this post gets, I'm going to increase the number of sockpuppet acconts I automate in my crusade against ipv6 in all public forums by 1 order of magnitude. Each downvote will multiply the number of voices standing in opposition to your own desired outcome coming from my system by ten. Don't like it? Propose a better standard that fixes the address space problem without adding layers of shit on top of it next time. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to each for lunch, and for this particular subject, I can (and will) make more virtual anti-ipv6 wolves than there are pro-ipv6 sheep that are real humans. Don't like that? Demand a better governance system than democracy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- transpute 2y ago
  > a bunch of anti-features that I don't want anywhere near any of my networks for any reason ever Is there a good write-up on IPv6 anti-features?
- nickburns 2y ago
  the very notion of technology factually implies that it never gets less complex as it iterates upon itself. reminds me of the rhetorical ponderance: how many humans did it take to invent the pencil eraser? (and somehow your post also calls to my mind the woeful Luddites! but i digress...) pray tell who, my good man, are you railing against?
- jacob019 2y ago
  Like it or not this is the way forward and you might as well get used to it.

nickburns 2y ago

very well said about legacy technologies, plus estimated projections based on actual current adoption at least to me informative. thanks for sharing your thoughts.