<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.30.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
A handful of links for IPv6 deployment information<BR>
<BR>
Article<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092412-next-gen-internet-262671.html">http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092412-next-gen-internet-262671.html</A><BR>
<BR>
Hodge podge of variour reports<BR>
<A HREF="http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi">http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi</A><BR>
<BR>
Akamai provides tons of hosting for companies, including a big chunk of the government mandated IPv6 support for various US government agencies.<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.akamai.com/ipv6">http://www.akamai.com/ipv6</A><BR>
<BR>
Summary + Statistics Report (left side navigation link)<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/index.html">http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/index.html</A><BR>
<BR>
If you play with the google statistics report you can see, though still in the 1% range, the recent spike in growth rate in 2012, it grew ~ 0.5% in the year.... and the rate of growth is likely to accelerate with the advancement of many ISPs/companies becoming fully IPv6 enabled on their networks (as noted in my first link) and sites like Youtube, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Netflix, etc all advertising IPv6 records for their sites.<BR>
<BR>
IPv6 is not going away, IPv4 will be (sometime many years in the future). You don't want to ignore IPv6.<BR>
The reason for changing to 128-bit addressing instead of something like 64-bit addressing is to simplify networking and routing efficiency. With IPv4 we're so worried about host address utilization which forces network operators to subnet and de-aggregate networks. This means there are more subnets to route and more subnetting. With IPv6 there is effectively no limit to the number of hosts you can put onto a LAN subnet (assuming a standard of /64 mask size).<BR>
And as Erik so succinctly pointed out, we don't want to have to re-do this mammoth overhaul of our Internet (operating systems, appliances, network routers and switches, legacy applications, etc) again.<BR>
<BR>
Of course there is the ever informative XKCD's take on the limitation of 128-bit addressing...<BR>
<A HREF="http://xkcd.com/865/">http://xkcd.com/865/</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 22:00 -0500, Brian Wood wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
What do you think of ipv6? I've read that less than 1% <BR>
of the traffic on the internet is ipv6 traffic. <BR>
<BR>
What baffles me about ipv6 is why they decided to go <BR>
from 4 byte addresses to 16 bytes. Wouldn't 8 byte <BR>
addresses make more sense?<BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
Brian Wood<BR>
Ebenezer Enterprises<BR>
<A HREF="http://webEbenezer.net">http://webEbenezer.net</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
<A HREF="mailto:tclug-list@mn-linux.org">tclug-list@mn-linux.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list">http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>