At this point I'm personally convinced that ipv6 is a failed technology.
It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.
It used to be interesting to see the news about new ipv6 deployments, adoption ratings etc. Now I basically don't care.
I also don't think IPv6 is a "failed technology" at all. If you've used almost any zeroconf service on an Apple product recently (AirPlay, AirDrop, AirPrint, HomeKit, so on) then you've been almost certainly using link-local IPv6. If you've used Spotify Connect or Sonos, there's a very good chance that's been over link-local IPv6. If you have any Thread or Matter smart home appliances, they generally communicate using IPv6 too. Most devices connect to Chromecasts over link-local IPv6. You've quite likely been connected to IPv6-capable Wi-Fi networks before and you probably never noticed. IPv6 is actually pervasive in all sorts of places.
1. It works 2. The internet today would not function without it 3. There are several IPv6 only deployments (primarily mobile carriers)
It being "interesting" has nothing to do with it being successful. I'm not interested in any new 120v electrical deployments or any new 4g LTE deployments but both of those technologies are very successful.
IPv6 has been mature for over 15 years and is slowly making its way. Most major LTE carriers have deployed it, most home broadband providers have the infra in place, they're just waiting to flip the switch. We're in the boring, uneventful, slow deployment phase.
Meanwhile 45% of Google's worldwide traffic is IPv6, 53% in the US:
All that said I do sort of wonder when or if we'll ever move off dual stack. I think there's a strong argument that running two protocols at once is riskier then the combined risks of the two.
ISPs have deployed IPv6 quite successfully now. Barring some legacy connections (DOCSYS 2 or something mostly) that still get no IPv6, basically all new connections have IPv6 as a default, and old ones have either already been migrated (including DSL) or are in the (sometimes long) rollout process. Some tied the IPv6 migration with an IPv4 CGNAT move, which makes IPv6 very attractive: hobbyists have to ride on IPv6 for external reachability, while casual uses like gaming, voip, conferencing, and whatnot benefit from relay-less p2p connections by preferring IPv6.
For the four major ISPs, this report from 2021 shows 89, 71 and 49% active IPv6 on mobile (not just 5G), with a 1% outlier that should have gotten its act together by now, and 99, 89, 53 and 22% for landlines, and projects 99, 93, 80 and 40% deployment in 2023 (which sounds about right for today in my experience), and 99, 97, 95 and 85% deployment for landlines in 2025, at which point CGNAT won't be an issue for most and IPv4 basically becomes legacy technology provided things also move forward server side.
https://www.arcep.fr/cartes-et-donnees/nos-publications-chif...
I honestly can’t figure out why they don’t, as it has to be cheaper to just do it than make customers call and speak to a representative, given that the technology is clearly in place already. Honestly, though, it’s been over three months and I still haven’t called, as there has been absolutely no reason for me to bother doing so. Like you, I also used to be interested in the rollout of IPv6, but now I just don’t care.
The number of people asking for an ipv6 address on the average ISP can be approximated to zero.
I don't care if I have to write angry letters to senators to pass laws forbidding the sunsetting of ipv4, this is 100% an issue I will go down fighting tooth and nail until I die or ipv6 dies, whichever first.
IPv6 is simpler than IPv4 in that you don't need to setup infrastructure (e.g., DHCP) to get going.
Never is long time. I bet you that they will be providing ipv6 as default in 20 years from now if they are still in business.