Organisations failing to migrate to IPv6

Migration to the new Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) standard is virtually non-existent, according to a year-long study released this week by network security firm Arbor Networks. Experts and governments have been encouraging organisations to migrate to the new protocol because the current 20 year-old IPv4 is fast running out of available addresses.

IPv4 addresses could in fact run out as early as 2010, according to Scott Iekel-Johnson, principle software engineer at Arbor Networks. The firm used data from over 80 of its ISP partners and customers to determine the amount of IPv6 traffic on the internet. Arbor Networks found that the proportions of IPv6 and IPv4 traffic has stayed roughly the same over the past year. The report also found that IPv6 traffic is still a tiny percentage of overall internet traffic. There were 6Mbps of IPv6 traffic by the end of July compared to 4Tbps of IPv4 traffic.

View: The full story @ vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia admits major Series 40 security problems

Next Story

AMD (ATI) Catalyst 8.8


View more comments

Tunneling 1Pv6 over IPv4 is a very kludgey solution. Yes, it actualy does works, and yes Vista supports it; it's just that everything would be a lot better if everyone was running with native IPv6 throughout the whole infrastructure.

That's because not many ISPs are switching to assigning IPv6 addresses so no routers are being made that support IPv6 which means no NICS...

The big part of the problem is that there are no inexpensive edge devices that support routing IPv6. If you want to route IPv6 today, you have to set aside a computer to handle the task. Also, outside of Asia (where the demand for IP addresses is greatest), there's no real *push* for IPv6 outside of mandated conversions in governmental entities in Europe and North America. The support at the client level has been there for a few years (Linux, UNIX, Windows Vista, and OS X Leopard all directly support IPv6 today), but it's that vast middle area that still lacks IPv6 support (how inexpensive is the lowest-priced router from Cisco that supports IPv6, for example). In order for IPv6 deployment to fly, it

1. Has to be mandated, such as OMB is doing in the United States government


2. It has to be something that can be done without it becoming a capex monster (corporate boards do NOT want big capex expenses, even if there are large bennies down the road; they don't want to take the chance of being lynched by their bondholders)

Right now, converting to IPv6 is not mandated, and is largely still monstrously expensive to do. Natually, corporate world is avoiding doing so as long as is feasible.

I know; nobody likes a mandate (I like the idea about as much as root-canal surgery). However, how do you get over not just antipathy, but *understandable antipathy* towards spending a major pile of money where none of the benefits are obvious, short-term or long-term, without it?

ok silly question i know but how d you assign a static ipv6 address and how would you remember what ipv6 address belonged to what machine on an ipv6 network ? thing with ipv4 is i can memorize all the static ips on my network and if i want to ping a machine i know the ipv4 address as its easy to remember. Ipv6 really isnt needed for the average home user

(Ricky Smith said @ #8)
My router supports IPv6 and I didn't pay much for it 250.00

You can also get a WRT54GL for $50 and throw openwrt/dd-wrt/etc. on it.

(japroach said @ #8.2)

You can also get a WRT54GL for $50 and throw openwrt/dd-wrt/etc. on it.

That's for support via the tunnel-broker method (the most common way to deploy end-user IPv6 today). Both DD-WRT and OpenWRT support this method (however, Tomato, the most common non-Linksys/non-Cisco firmware for WRT-type routers, does not). IPv6 support via tunnel-broker in routers is a lot less than $100, as most WRT-type routers (all the way back to the version 2.x WRT-54G/GL/GS, which is still found on a lot of retail shelves) support it via firmware swap. The issue I was referring to is support via other means than the tunnel-broker method. Native IPv6 support in the US (in fact, in North America) severely trails that of Asia (however, in Asia, the government-mandate method is responsible for forcing a lot of IPv6 deployment). I'm not saying that the mandate-method is either right or wrong; however, that's the way the data reads.

Sounds like another Y2K in the making. It should be pretty easy to make the switch, and that's what everyone's thinking. "It's easy so we'll just do it when it at the last second".

Huh? Buy any router now and generally it will support IPv6 no problem. Enterprise gear has had it for years.

Plus most companies do hardware replacements every 3-5 years. Just brought a new Juniper firewall and a new SSL VPN device as well as replacing our Cisco router. All come with IPv6 support by default.

Would it be possible for ISP's to switch to IPv6 however keep LANs IPv4??

This would solve the problem of the "easy to remember" thing...

Windows Vista sets up IPv6 and IPv4 on all the network connections by default. I figure my home will be ready for whenever my ISP makes the switch. My ISP is Qwest, so probably the day before they have to do it. I anticipate a lot of people with Internet downtime on the horizon.

Modern OSs configure link-layer IPv6 addresses for interfaces, depending on the mac address.. but for "singling-out" purposes, I would say.

I think the router in home networks is often a weak point. But an even weaker point is on the ISP side, where the ISP usually provides a ipv4 gateway only.

The edge router on the ISP end is often a weaker point than the home router. Every Linksys home router sold within the past two years (at minimum) supports IPv6 via the tunnel-broker method either directly or via firmware-swap (the same is true of their clones as well). Not ten percent, twenty-five percent, or even fifty percent, but one HUNDRED percent. My own Linksys router (WRT54GS) is actually three years old; however, the design dates back to 2003, and I have three different series of IPv6-compliant firmware choices (none from Linksys or Cisco, oddly enough). However, the weakness is at my ISP's end (it's not just Comcast, my current ISP; Verizon is even further behind in IPv6 compliance for residential customers than Comcast, despite FIOS and the largest GPON deployment on the planet), not mine (all three of my OS clients - Vista Ultimate, openSuSE 11, and OS X Leopard, explicitly support link-local IPv6).

these "experts" have been saying that IPv4 addresses would run out years ago... now it's "as early as 2010." 2010 will come and go and then it'll be "as early as 2015."

Please remember that this is about mathmatical estimates. This is an issue that WILL happen! You are blowing this off like as if it's something that probably won't (or might not) happen. It will happen sooner or later as it's all about the numbers

Commenting is disabled on this article.