[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Dirk Munk]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2016-09-21 kl. 22:56, skrev Scott Dorsey:
>> In article <nruji2$366$1 at gioia.aioe.org>, Chris  <syseng at gfsys.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Look, i'm not arguing against V6 for it's own sake and it
>>> is obviously needed. But please, enough of the prosletisation,
>>> assumptions and arm waving about how good it is and what the
>>> rest of the world is using and their reasons for doing so :-).
>>
>> Well, it's there, and we have been running dual stack here on most
>> systems
>> for much of a decade and it's been just fine.
>>
>> It's not a matter of how good it is, it's a matter of the fact that
>> there are
>> a lot of people out there who use it, and if you want to connect to
>> their machines you may well need to use it too.
>
> If *they* want *me* to connect, they'd better use something that
> lets me connect to them.
>
> The fact is that Swedens largest ISP has IPv6 disabled by default
> in the routers they send to their customers. And very few of
> these customers even have the admin password to the router.

Of course it is disabled, Telia still doesn't have IPv6 enabled on their 
network, so there's no need to enable it on their routers. But don't 
despair, you will get it.

>
> I read about one site that published statistics about the IPv4
> and IPv6 traffic to their site. The IPv6 traffic showed a small
> increase but close to none of that traffic originated from Sweden.

Of course not, your ISP's were sleeping. But it is improving! Look at 
Belgium, 45% of all internet connections have IPv6 enabled.

>
> Users in general just don't have any issues with the current IPv4.
> They can access Facebook and are happy with that...
>
>
>
>>
>> This isn't 2005 any longer.
>> --scott
>>
>