People love this graph and regularly tout it as if it explains full internet usage. Especially when they dont bother to add any explanation or comment alongside it.
This graph is mainly due to the fact that telcos use IPv6 for mobile devices, nothing more. Over time you will see that graph flatline and peter out as mobile device uage reaches critical mass.
It seems more the other end of the stick: the IPv4 side of the graph is mainly held up due to corporations. The consumer internet continues to switch, but corporate VPNs are going to continue to drag down the numbers until corporations get charged enough for IPv4 address space that bottom lines start to notice.
Yes good point, I agree that IPv4 addresses are going to become a commodity in the future and their value will start to increase dramatically to the point where it is only corporations which can afford to use them. IPv6 use may well start to spike again if that happens.
Yep, and even with all those countries with their billions of mobile devices IPv6 use still hasnt even reached 50%.
Pretty much all ISPs hand out both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to their clients, this is nothing new. When they start only issueing IPv6 IPs is when it would start truly taking off, but it will never get to that point and it will never happen.
It feels like you are constantly moving goal posts here. Your original statement was it will die a slow and quiet death. Are you now saying that this mobile use case will start to switch back to IPv4? It may not kill IPv4, like was initially planned, but it's not going away.
Apologies maybe slow death was the wrong phrase. I did mean that, but only in the non-mobile space. Obviously mobile device networks have made good use of IPv6 and will continue to.
However In another thread it was argued that when IPv4 addresses become very expensive, that could trigger a big shift to IPv6. I agree with this statement and so IMO it is possible that IPv6 may well become ubiquitous in the future.
Usage is in no way 'rapidly increasing', in fact the google graph everyone is touting around shows that it has taken over 10 years to not even get to 50%. It also shows it is slowing down, the curve is starting to become less steep.
When Maximum possible IPv6 usage is not even at 50% after over a decade and the usage curve is slowing, how can you possibly say that IPv4 is dying and IPv6 usage is rapidly increasing?
Oh, now it’s a problem because it’s been about a decade?
So what, another decade and we should be mostly done?
What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to redo the entire world’s networking infrastructure across 200+ countries and 8 something billion people, exactly?
> Oh, now it’s a problem because it’s been about a decade?
No, but taking over a decade to not even be half adopted does not count as rapid in my opinion.
> So what, another decade and we should be mostly done?
No, as I have said many many times, the graph is slowing.
> What do you think is a reasonable amount of time to redo the entire world’s networking infrastructure
We dont need to, thats the point. All networking equipment in the world already supports IPv6, so why isnt it at 100% usage and IPv4 is turned off already?
>This is an absurd argument, you know that right?
Who is the fool, the person saying what they think or the person continuing to participate in an argument they consider absurd?
You dont need to make everybody in the world agree with what you are saying, it is ok to have differing opinions. You know that right?
I am done now. I accept that you disagree with me and thats fine. Can you afford the same decency or will you continue to tell me I'm wrong?
Jealousy? I think you may need to expand your vocabulary a bit!
I have an opinion on something, I assume thats ok? You seem to be here trying to prove me wrong, and also commenting on my tone of reply.
Im not trying to tell you that you are wrong, only stating what I think. If you dont like my opinion, feel free to ignore it. You are not forced to comment.
Devices maybe, software won't :-\ (We're going to see ever-diminishing pockets of IPv4 around for a loooong time, much like we still see pockets of Cobol.)
> Over time you will see that graph flatline and peter out as mobile device uage reaches critical mass.
...what? The majority of people access the Internet from their phone, and not only since yesterday either. Are you arguing that this is temporary fad somehow?
I am arguing that at some point there wont be any more people without phones, meaning it has reached critical mass and so IPv6 adoption will stall. The number of smartphones in the world will not keep on going up forever.
That would only happen if all of v6's growth is coming from mobile users, no mobile networks are growing/deployed without v6, and also no users are dropping their wired connections.
You can look at the AS breakdowns on APNIC's stats and see that ASs that serve non-mobile customers are getting v6, and that some ASs for mobile users aren't. So no, it won't stall.
Slow down perhaps, but it has to slow down at some point or it'll go above 100%.
How is the argument much different than any current arguments? You can already get significant benefits from the state as a citizen (in European countries, at least).
The difference is magnitude, the benefits that European countries provide has made them a very attractive destination for immigration, so it stands to reason that something like UBI would make them even more so. No matter which side of that debate you're on theres a point where the math breaks down and some difficult choices need to be made, either you provide these generous benefits to your citizens or you have a generous immigration policy, but both of them together may prove unsustainable
Which is why unchecked immigration is already a problem. Increasing the benefits without dealing with unchecked immigration is going to make things worse.
reply