Forgot your password?

When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?

Displaying poll results.
Before 2020
  5357 votes / 30%
2020-2024
  3581 votes / 20%
2025-2029
  998 votes / 5%
2030-2034
  359 votes / 2%
2035-2039
108 votes / 0%
2040 or later
  709 votes / 4%
Never
  2062 votes / 11%
When we build a new internet
  4403 votes / 25%
17577 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @03:22PM (#47215671)

    DNS still works just fine and IPv6 has a built-in feature to use globally unique self-applied addresses. It is the EUI-64 standard. [ieee.org] Essentially all that happens is a system uses the network portion of whatever it is connected to and the rest is autogenerated by using the MAC address split in half with an FFFE inserted.

    That is how it is in all IPv6 deployments I have seen. There is no reason to do static addressing anymore, save for servers and the like.

  • Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:4, Informative)

    by almitydave (2452422) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @03:47PM (#47215947)

    Just use a different base.

    This problem was solved waaaay back in 1996 by the IETF in RFC 1924 [ietf.org].

  • Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @04:46PM (#47216685)

    Only one of those three are true.

  • Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @08:51PM (#47218545)

    Uh, you might want to look at the date on that RFC. The whole thing is a joke. Written by a guy who was involved with the IETF IPng working group, and was well aware of why the format was chosen to be what it is.

    More to the point: use DNS.

    More to the meta-point: IPv6 is already entering wide-scale deployment. I saw a Verizon report that something like 30% of their LTE traffic was over IPv6.

  • Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:3, Informative)

    by Travis Mansbridge (830557) on Wednesday June 11, 2014 @11:54PM (#47219465)
    Whether they realized it or not, adding four more 255-size fields (the same amount as signified by two hex digits, 0xFF = 255) would far more than double the number of addresses, it would square it. For example, if we're using 0.255.255.255.255 (~4.2 million) now, 1.255.255.255.255 would allow another 4.2 million, and 2.255.255.255.255 yet another 4.2 million. All together, 8 fields of values up to 255 would allow for a total of ~17,878,000,000,000,000,000 or nearly 18 quintillion addresses. IPv6 allows for the square of this value, up to ~319,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 319 undecillion addresses, clearly an overshot but with the bonus that all the :0000: ranges we are unlikely to fill for many years can be abbreviated as ::, such that FE80:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:3f57:FEFD can be abbreviated FE80::3f57:FEFD
  • by camperdave (969942) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @12:34AM (#47219613) Journal
    What do you mean by Large Scale Deployment? Every Apple computer, and most iPhones; Every Windows 7,8,8.1, Server 2008, Server 2012 machine; Every Linux box; all non end-of-life Cisco equipment, Juniper equipment; Every BSD, OpenVMS, HP-UX, and Solaris box; IBM big iron machines; lots of 4g cell phones, They all are IPv6 ready and capable.

    Sounds like a pretty large scale deployment to me.
  • Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)

    by compro01 (777531) on Thursday June 12, 2014 @12:44PM (#47223001)

    It's not a 4 set, that's just the human-readable formatting. The actual IPv4 address is an unsigned 32-bit integer. The human-readable format splits those into octets and displays them in decimal.

    Your "add an octet" would result in using 40-bit integers, which isn't a normally used size nowadays. A variant of your idea would be to use 64-bit integers and simply double the size of the existing addressing, but this would break things the same way (as everything is predicated on dealing with 32-bit addresses), and going to 128 bits allows more future proofing and allows for some convenient auto-configuration methods, as you can stick a almost-always-unique MAC address (64 bits) into half of the address, then you can just stick the 64 bit network prefix in front of that and you've got a full IPv6 address ready.

    You could conceivably write an IPv6 address in the same octets format as an IPv4, but it would be absurdly long i.e. 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255, hence why they standardized on the "4 sets of 4 hex digits" format.

This screen intentionally left blank.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...