5 ms·

> versus functionality that quite possibly won't be useful to most Internet users ever.) You don't think that IPv6 is ever going to gain widespread adoption?

> versus functionality that quite possibly won't be useful to most Internet users ever.) You don't think that IPv6 is ever going to gain widespread adoption? Given how much of the US uses Comcast as their residential ISP alone, and how aggressively Comcast has been rolling out IPv6, I think we're near a tipping point[0]. Enterprise/business use will take much longer, but that's to be expected, as rollout for residential use has far fewer potential problems. (For the record, I did not downvote you). [0] http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

tptacek 12y ago
Nope, I don't. (I'm less certain of this than I am about DNSSEC, but in the same ballpark on both). I think this is, for what it's worth, a good thing. IP belongs to the telcos. The failure of IPv6 adoption (and it's been failing for a long time) is forcing us into building overlays on top of ephemeral/translated IPv4 endpoints, which has the effect of pushing responsibilities back towards the endpoints and away from opaque middleboxes.
- zurn 12y ago
  This may be an interesting contrarian position to argue, but come on. The NAT situation takes us toward end-to-end and away from middleboxes? In real life it's more likely for communities and systems to bow than rebound in response to strong chilling effects.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This isn't a contrarian position. The only VC-backed startup I founded had this as a premise. I don't just think it's the right architectural plan for the Internet. I think it's what's going to happen.
tedunangst 12y ago
It's probably useful to distinguish between "people with IPv6" and "people without IPv4" when discussing the realized utility of IPv6 support.
- hobarrera 12y ago
  Indeed. The number of use users with no native IPv4 are probably a lot less than dual-stacked users, but inevitably, the amount of IPv6-only users will continue growing, given the current trend.

tptacek 12y ago

Nope, I don't. (I'm less certain of this than I am about DNSSEC, but in the same ballpark on both). I think this is, for what it's worth, a good thing. IP belongs to the telcos. The failure of IPv6 adoption (and it's been failing for a long time) is forcing us into building overlays on top of ephemeral/translated IPv4 endpoints, which has the effect of pushing responsibilities back towards the endpoints and away from opaque middleboxes.

zurn 12y ago
This may be an interesting contrarian position to argue, but come on. The NAT situation takes us toward end-to-end and away from middleboxes? In real life it's more likely for communities and systems to bow than rebound in response to strong chilling effects.
- tptacek 12y ago
  This isn't a contrarian position. The only VC-backed startup I founded had this as a premise. I don't just think it's the right architectural plan for the Internet. I think it's what's going to happen.

tedunangst 12y ago

It's probably useful to distinguish between "people with IPv6" and "people without IPv4" when discussing the realized utility of IPv6 support.

hobarrera 12y ago
Indeed. The number of use users with no native IPv4 are probably a lot less than dual-stacked users, but inevitably, the amount of IPv6-only users will continue growing, given the current trend.