You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do.
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.
My ISP offers a plan without IPv4 at a lower price. v4 websites only are served through their NAT64/DNS64 infrastructure and it works really well except for some dumb applications that hardcode the IPv4 instead of using domain names (yeah, and also the ones that rewrite the entire stack in C and only support AF_INET...)
I am dual stack at home. While my xbox will happily display its ipv6 address my traffic logs still show it heavily preferring ipv4 when actually doing anything.
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.
Not to invalidate your feelings, but that seems quite normal. I feel the same.
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.
Setting up IPv6 on my home network was fun and exciting now it's just boring. The only time I've noticed it was was once when IPv4 broke (dhcp server issue) and another time when IPv6 itself broke (radvd issue).
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.
Anecdote: a company I used to work for was growing rapidly by acquisition, which ended up being the motivation to go ipv6 internally. With IPv4 every new company was basically guaranteed to have an internal network that conflicted with one of our existing subnets, so we either had to re-ip them, which was brutal or put crazy NATs on our VPNs alongside dns insanity. Going IPv6 meant that getting them on our mesh was simple. Just enable IPv6 on their network (which was far easier than most network admins fear it will be), then join their IPv6 network to the mesh, let their IPv4 be whatever it was. Update all DNS servers to have AAAA records. No more conflicts!
And even then they can just have a small number of IPv6 terminate on some load balancers and small SNAT groups. Almost everything inside the data-centers will likely remain IPv4 for quite a while.
It doesn't matter. IPv6 is happening, its way past the point of no return. Nobody is entertaining the idea of dropping ipv6 and doing something else. Any remaining problems that IPv6 has are more realistic to deal with within ipv6 than scrap the whole thing and start again from scratch.
Definitely not a failed technology in my personal experience. As mentioned in the report Arcep mandates IPv6 for 5G licensees. Turns out they put out the work and 4G has IPv6 retrofitted basically everywhere as well as a side effect.
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.
I recently moved, and was mildly annoyed to find that my ISP didn’t assign me an IPv6 address. Then I remembered that, in order to get one at my previous location (same ISP), I had to call and specifically request it. That was six years ago. If they haven’t defaulted to giving out IPv6 addresses by now, it’s never gonna happen.
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.
I will be calling to complain if I am not assigned an ipv4 address by default. Very first thing I do whenever I move or get a new router is disable all ipv6. All of my client devices have ipv6 disabled. ipv6 takes a very simple addressing schema and unnecessarily turns it into an entire beeping protocol for no reason.
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.
Comments
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.
You're not supposed to care about it. IPv6 really has two motivating factors: the first is to simplify the IP stack, the second is to increase the scale of the address space. It's not supposed to be exciting, it's supposed to be a change we make because it obviously makes sense to do.
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.
Most phone companies now provide IPv6 natively over their 4G/5G service, and IPv4 goes through carrier-grade NAT.
My ISP offers a plan without IPv4 at a lower price. v4 websites only are served through their NAT64/DNS64 infrastructure and it works really well except for some dumb applications that hardcode the IPv4 instead of using domain names (yeah, and also the ones that rewrite the entire stack in C and only support AF_INET...)
If possible, can you share the ISPs name?
Pretty sure all xbox services use v6 where possible as well.
I am dual stack at home. While my xbox will happily display its ipv6 address my traffic logs still show it heavily preferring ipv4 when actually doing anything.
This is also the reality for many DSL connections these days.
I mean it's literally not a failed technology.
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.
Not to invalidate your feelings, but that seems quite normal. I feel the same.
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.
It's not being deployed more widely because peering is always broken and nobody cares to fix it because nobody is using it. It's a horrible catch-22.
Meanwhile 45% of Google's worldwide traffic is IPv6, 53% in the US:
* https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
A failed state using a failed technology, how befitting!
Setting up IPv6 on my home network was fun and exciting now it's just boring. The only time I've noticed it was was once when IPv4 broke (dhcp server issue) and another time when IPv6 itself broke (radvd issue).
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.
I can't imagine too many businesses will be switching to it internally unless forced to. ISP's and mobile carriers are one thing.
Anecdote: a company I used to work for was growing rapidly by acquisition, which ended up being the motivation to go ipv6 internally. With IPv4 every new company was basically guaranteed to have an internal network that conflicted with one of our existing subnets, so we either had to re-ip them, which was brutal or put crazy NATs on our VPNs alongside dns insanity. Going IPv6 meant that getting them on our mesh was simple. Just enable IPv6 on their network (which was far easier than most network admins fear it will be), then join their IPv6 network to the mesh, let their IPv4 be whatever it was. Update all DNS servers to have AAAA records. No more conflicts!
And even then they can just have a small number of IPv6 terminate on some load balancers and small SNAT groups. Almost everything inside the data-centers will likely remain IPv4 for quite a while.
It doesn't matter. IPv6 is happening, its way past the point of no return. Nobody is entertaining the idea of dropping ipv6 and doing something else. Any remaining problems that IPv6 has are more realistic to deal with within ipv6 than scrap the whole thing and start again from scratch.
Definitely not a failed technology in my personal experience. As mentioned in the report Arcep mandates IPv6 for 5G licensees. Turns out they put out the work and 4G has IPv6 retrofitted basically everywhere as well as a side effect.
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 recently moved, and was mildly annoyed to find that my ISP didn’t assign me an IPv6 address. Then I remembered that, in order to get one at my previous location (same ISP), I had to call and specifically request it. That was six years ago. If they haven’t defaulted to giving out IPv6 addresses by now, it’s never gonna happen.
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.
90% of people just care that google.com works. 90% of the rest want their office vpn to work.
The number of people asking for an ipv6 address on the average ISP can be approximated to zero.
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.
I will be calling to complain if I am not assigned an ipv4 address by default. Very first thing I do whenever I move or get a new router is disable all ipv6. All of my client devices have ipv6 disabled. ipv6 takes a very simple addressing schema and unnecessarily turns it into an entire beeping protocol for no reason.
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.
You've never needed to set up DHCP to use IPv4.
IPv6 is a successful deployed technology. Its failure is that IPv4 is still widespread/dominant.
I've been using IPv6 at home and at work for years now - without noticing it much.
Not sure if you agree, but I think ipv6 is fine, the transition is a disaster.