[Info-vax] implementing IPv6 on the internet

[Chris]

On 09/21/16 22:40, Dirk Munk wrote:

>
> Keep on dreaming :-)
>
> It's quite simple. Since Windows Vista IPv6 is the preferred IP stack
> for Windows. Mac OS and Linux have IPv6. Every CE router you can buy
> today has IPv6, or can get it by means of a firmware upgrade. Dual
> stacks or tunnels are standard for these routers. In Belgium 45% of the
> internet connections have IPv6.
>
> There is no IPv6 <> IPv4 translating CE router on the market.
>
> Not only that, but it can't work like that. Your PC will do an
> nsloookup, and will get a IPv4 and IPv6 address in return. If there is
> no IPv6 network present on your LAN, the PC will make an IPv4
> connection. Your router can only send that traffic to its IPv4
> destination. It will never know it can also translate it and send it to
> an IPv6 address.
>
> I have been using IPv6 for 7 or 8 years now without a glitch.
>
> So I'm sorry to say this, but your ideas are completely besides the
> reality.

I always find evangelical zeal a litle suspect, so did a bit more
digging :-).

There's a plethora of IPV6 sites on the web, but if you discard
all the arm waving and hype, the only two USP's are the
increased address space and simplification of routing. More or
less what we thought then.

Wiki has a good introduction here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

In the first paragraph:

"Exchanging traffic between the two networks requires translator
gateways"...

Then later:

"It is widely expected that the Internet will use IPv4 alongside
IPv6 for the foreseeable future"...

Digging a bit more re IPV6 uptake, we find:

https://www.google.com/
intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption&tab=ipv6-adoption

..and on other sites, seems over 95% of internet traffic is
still via IPV4, so despite your assertions, seems like my
assessment of the current state is far less "dreamlike" than
yours :-)...

Regards,

Chris