On 6/17/14 6:12 PM, "Andrew Fried" <andrew.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of >users have access to IPv6 connectivity. How many users have access to IPv6 connectivity? Since this is NANOG, let's talk about North America. Canada is way behind, just 0.4% deployment. The U.S. is one of the top countries, in both number of users and number of top web sites. Three of the big four U.S. ISPs have double-digit deployment. It's not the "vast majority" yet, because: 1. Older modems don't support IPv6 (older than, what, 2008?). As those churn, counts will rise. 2. Older gateways, especially consumer-owned retail devices, don't support IPv6. Churn would help, if new retail gateways supported IPv6. 3. The <10% of people with MacOS use IPv6 half the time (more or less) that it's available. I can't find statements right now, but I think those big three are all >90% deployed, if you don't count rolling trucks to replace modems. The >number of IPv6-capable users is several times higher than the number of >people actually using IPv6, and I don't know why. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have great IPv6 deployments, too, maybe a couple more years for older handsets to age out. Still, >50% of VzW LTE devices use IPv6 now. > >Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own >systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is >IPv4 *only*. Well there's your problem. > Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my >Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only. And I'd suspect that >everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat. I think all of those companies offer IPv6 on their business-only services (e.g., fiber, ethernet, etc.). For access methods shared with residential users (i.e., DOCSIS, DSL), it's not rolled out yet. . . RSN. > >Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an >intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income >from leasing IPv4 addresses ISPs want to protect their income by continuing to turn up services. Lee >Andrew Fried >andrew.fr...@gmail.com > >On 6/17/14, 5:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: >> >> On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <j...@baylink.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Here's what the general public is hearing: >>> >>> But only while they still have IPv4 addresses: >>> ~$ dig AAAA arstechnica.com +short >>> ~$ >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas >>>>-ru >>>> nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/ >>> >>> >>> Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're spouting >>> end-of-IPv4 stories? >> >> <wishful thinking=on> >> >> I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as >>ARS, Twitter and a few others. After posting some links and being a log >>stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users on >>IPv6 enabled networks. >> >> It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when >>others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA >>records with no adverse public impact. Making IPv6 available by default >>for users would be an excellent step. People like AT&T who control the >>'attwifi' ssid could do NAT66 at their sites and provide similar service >>to the masses. With chains like Hilton, McDonalds, etc.. all having >>this available, it would push IPv6 very far almost immediately with no >>adverse impact compared to users IPv4 experience. >> >> - Jared >> >