Talk:IPv6 deployment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


"...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 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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. -- (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 05:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)
Since the domain is not ipv6 enabled, wikipedia might not be the best data source. Belorn (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it is, with address 2620:0:860:ed1a::1.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear. The domain server for (,, and 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)
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)