| ▲ | immibis 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
It kind of has. The majority of internet traffic is IPv6. The three biggest internet hub regions (USA, Europe, China) have IPv6 mandates. Most apps support IPv6. Google and Apple force them to, od they get kicked off the app store. Almost all mobile networks (which means almost all end devices) are IPv6-only, with slow inefficient tunneling for IPv4. The price of IPv4 addresses is declining. At what point will we be allowed to say IPv6 hasn't failed? When the IPv4 internet finally switches off for good? It feels like no achievement is high enough for those who don't like IPv6 to change their minds. I would've thought making up 50% of internet traffic and 50% of end devices being on IPv6-only networks would be good Schelling points, but evidently they're not! | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | krupan 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The majority of traffic might be IPv6, but the majority of people using and understanding IPv6 is not. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | simoncion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> At what point will we be allowed to say IPv6 hasn't failed? "IPv6 ... still hasn't taken over the world [after thirty years of deployment]." is a very different statement than "IPv6 has failed.". Noone who has successfully extracted their head from their ass says that IPv6 has failed. It's widely deployed on the Internet, and on who knows how many corporate intranets and SOHO/home LANs. IMO, it's stupid to ever consider turning off IPv4. There surely exist useful systems out there that will never be updated to work with IPv6. I see IPv6 as an "IPv4 address pressure relief system". In the future, SOHO/home LANs can run servers on IPv6, datacenters can run servers mostly on IPv6 but also v4 if they really want, and SOHO/home networks can be behind an IPv4 CGN because all of their unsolicited inbound traffic will come over IPv6. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||