Jump to content

Talk:IPv6 deployment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jargon

[edit]

"...indicated that penetration was still less than one percent of Internet traffic..."

This page uses terms like penetration, deployment, usage, etc, whose meaning is not obvious to a lay-reader. Does this refer to entities whose machines are capable of IPv6? Are we discussing traffic that is actually transmitting IPv4 even if the OS is capable of IPv6, etc?

This is particularly significant because, as I understand, there is no compelling reason for end users to route IPv6 requests unless there are internet resources that are only accessible via IPv6. It may not be a gradual usage increase, but a big bang graph with legacy systems playing catchup. Anyway, it's important to be clear what these terms mean, capability, usage, ability to upgrade, backward/forward compatibility, etc.

I came to this wiki article because I don't know the answers to these questions and the article makes me no wiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect the 1% would be those who are actually on ISP connections with any sort of native IPv6 support. The OS is capable, unless one is still running Win9x/Win2000 or earlier. Linux is IPv6 built-in, so is WinXP and anything newer. The ISP and the router are the bottleneck. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article purpose

[edit]

I created this article with the intent of clearing the deployment details out of the IPv6 article. Deployment of IPv6 may be expected to increase rapidly in the next few years. This material has poor organization in the main IPv6 article. That article should be kept for technical discussions of IPv6. The material in this article is taken from the IPv6 article and is currently still in rather raw format. Kbrose (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What governments "should" do

[edit]

I added a "pov-statement" tag to this sentence: "Official governmental decisions should further encourage the private sector and other countries to migrate to IPv6 as well". I'm not sure if this is the right tag? This appears to be a normative statement, which seems completely out of place. If, on the other hand, it was intended to mean "official government decisions are likely to encourage...", then as-written that seems to not describe most government decisions. --jholman (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct. "Should" doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bunch of bull

[edit]

There is no genuine demand for this address space. It is promoted by lobbyists. There is a huge address block still available in ARIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The block is huge, but so is demand. See IPv4 address exhaustion and IPv6. The block is small relative to how much space IPv6 provides.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have deployed BGP running nodes in telcos for donkey's years and done enough on address space management. Most people prefer to sit behind a NAT/Firewall and leave things there. The sudden shortage is again motivated as DNS names were hijacked in 1990s-2000 mid to promote a demand for something that is not needed. No one needs a public IP, you can literally say public IP is googles space. (judging by killer apps). The block size isnt the problem, RSVP-TE is prefered over connectionless mode and there is no demand for that connection less mode anymore except for say showing your web page to google etc. -Alok 05:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)

NAT can only go so far. It cannot have more computers than the # of TCP/IP ports, and, end-to-end connectivity is a principle of the designers of the internet. People prefer sitting behind NAT/Firewall because ISPs make it the cheapest option. We cannot however, continue this discussion here per WP:NOTAFORUM unforutunately.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing key points

[edit]

There are key points in IPv6#Deployment that are simply not present here. Wouldn't it be good to include / copy between those two pages? How is this usually done? --TheAnarcat (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

[edit]

It seems that there is a lot of good stuff in the deployment section of the main article that should be here, i have refactored this a little. --TheAnarcat (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 usage

[edit]

Do we have any real data on IPv6 usage? Or more precisely, would it be possible to collect data on anonymous Wikipedia edits and create a graph showing the proportion coming from IPv6 addresses. Seems that there are not many of them around, I just bumped into the first IPv6 edit I have ever seen on Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the inclusion of Wikimedia statistics - the usage share of web browsers article once had a huge, close, RfC on that. [1] has a few measurements (yes, Wikimedia did participate in that event).--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the wikipedia.org domain is not ipv6 enabled, wikipedia might not be the best data source. Belorn (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is, with address 2620:0:860:ed1a::1.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. The domain server for wikipedia.org (ns0.wikimedia.org, ns1.wikimedia.org, and ns2.wikimedia.org) does not have ipv6. Thus, ipv6 only users can not resolve the site domain name. People with both ipv4 and ipv6 can access the site through ipv6. Belorn (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, the statistics are probably OR that can't be included. However, the latest stats are quite old or not comprehensive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be using the one Google "availability" statistic as an indicator for global adoption. Eradicator (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on IPv6 deployment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a couple of things for update or correction

[edit]

First, the Wikiproject link now links to a defunct project (closed 6 months ago). The fact that the project has concluded is actually somewhat interesting, might be considered worthwhile as a milestone in the table of IPv6 milestones, but at the same time it was a bit of a letdown to follow the link to a defunct project.

Second, I happened to choose a link to what I thought was a Microsoft blog post about moving to IPv6 internally (reference #60 when I write this), but turned out to be to some completely different, legitimate-but-not-as-relevant site (https://www.idgconnect.com/opinion/1501342/ipv4-shortage-timebomb-ctos). The site that should be referenced is a Microsoft blog post (easily found be Googling interesting terms referenced) https://blog.apnic.net/2017/01/19/ipv6-only-at-microsoft/.

And a random "thank you" to all the contributors... I could maybe fix these things myself but not sure of the relevant policies (especially the "cite|web" stuff, which seem new but probably isn't), etc, and rather than simply grumble, I wish to acknowledge how much work is involved. Curtbeckmann (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium first to reach 50%

[edit]

A claim in the lead by @Jasper Deng: stated that Belgium is the first country to achieve 50% saturation. I put in a cit request because the only source on the page does not say that Belgium was first. This was reverted by the same user, so I removed the unsourced claim. This was also reverted by the same user again. WP:BRD pertains. Before putting the claim back we now need to reach consensus. To be clear, I have no problem with the claim if properly sourced, but it is not sourced. All you need to do is source it and it will be fine. There is, however, also another issue. You are placing the claim in the lead but the lead summarises the article. The claim should be in the Belgium section, sourced and discussed there and then, if consensus is that it is notable enough for the lead, it can go there too. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with using Google stats as a source. Today it may be possible to look at the stats and say only Belgium appears to be over 50%, but this is an article that can be read today, tomorrow and any other day. If tomorrow Germany is over 50% too then it no longer sources the claim. Also, not convinced it is a reliable source as it fluctuates because it tracks usage and not necessarily deployment. — Sirfurboy (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones after 2012

[edit]

The article says that the last milestone in IPv6 deployment occurred in 2012. I think that the article should be updated to include further milestones that happened after 2012. Problem with that is: As far as I understand IPv6 deployment, a lot of heavy lifting has been done, yet it looks like it's difficult to identify any event that can be considered an important milestone. Even the media has stopped reporting on IPv6 because it looks like there are no major IPv6 events to report on. So I would like to throw out the following question for debate: Which IPv6 event that occurred since 2012 can be considered a milestone in IPv6 deployment? Would it be appropriate to define artificial milestones? Possible milestones that I could think of are:

  • Summer 2017: Worldwide growth of IPv6 among end-users switches from exponential to linear (according to Google statistics)
  • 2025: China withdraws from IPv4 address trading
  • End of 2025: Worldwide IPv6 deployment passes 50% (Google)
  • unknown: First country passes 50%
  • 2024: First country passes 75%

-- Dynam1te3 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic: Czech state administration will stop providing its services over IPv4 on 6 June 2032

[edit]

As per https://konecipv4.cz/en/, there will be IPv6-only government services available since 2032-06-06. How is it better to add into the article? Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any news articles relating to this? Jdee4 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't find. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPv6_deployment&oldid=1220286909"