I work for a major open source network software company, we support IPv6 natively and in the past 2 years I've been asked about IPv6 by my customers exactly...zero times.
My hunch is that AWS charging for v4 addresses will start applying pressure across a broad cross-section of businesses as they start asking why don’t they just use the free thing
Quasi related; how does one find out if your ISP is using CGNAT?
I'm rather lucky in that my ISP recently started offering IPv6 (and somehow my workstation appears to be using it by as the default), but none of the other PC's on my network do. (Win11 change perhaps?)
One of my pet hot takes is that IPv6 will never exceed ~60% adoption. NAT and SNI routing (aka virtual hosts at the TLS layer) solve most problems for most users fairly well.
My ISP no longer allows port-forwarding of ipv4 addresses as 1 public ip is shared amongst many ISP customers. This is due to a migration to MAP-E.
IPV6 is pretty much my only choice for hosting stuff in offices and at home.
Is MAP-E becoming prevalent?
Every post about IPv6 and its failure is about friction. Friction for the inevitable march towards adoption.
As usual with English, the British master it, and they have a term for bureaucratic friction: "The Blob"
IPv6 have some issues, but the main reasons it's ignored is that big&powerful do not want a global per device, so they do not want people buying a domain name and then host easily their own stuff, call easily P2P anyone else and so on.
That IMVHO the real reason who stop the adoption.
Here’s the real reason we won’t move to IPv6: NAT is used as a security feature in IPv4. World isn’t willing to do the work to make that transition.
I am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM.
These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
Not a great writeup. The IPv6 Cat thing is tortured and the article feels meandering and mostly pointless. Is the intended audience policy makers?
> One key reason for this uneven progress is the extension of IPv4’s lifespan through interim technologies like Network Address Translation (NAT) and IPv4 address transfers.
they completely ignore the actual problem with IPv6 which is that they didn't just extend IPv4 in a straightforward manner. they could have made the address fields 64 bits and been done with it. but, oh no, they had to make it the protocol for the ages.
it's completely analogous to the failed Intel Itanium vs. AMD x64.
[flagged]
Shown in the article, but not linked:
Google's IPv6 adoption statistics: <https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html>
Facebook's IPv6 adoption statistics: <https://www.facebook.com/ipv6/?tab=ipv6_total_adoption>