IPv6 is dead, and I think pretty much everyone already knows it. I gave a presentation
about IPv6 at TelecomNEXT in Las Vegas last
week (full presentation archived
here) entitled "Realities of IPv6 as the Future Network Layer". I
regard it as a largely straightforward presentation of the facts: IPv6
is used by virtually no one, is not seeing significant adoption and
has lost in the marketplace of new ideas. Since we will, in fact, run
out of IPv4 address space eventually, and since IPv6 is obviously not
the solution that people want for this problem, let's start working on
a better one right away. Of course, the presentation contains juicy
quotes like:
- "The market has spoken: IPv6 is the wrong technology at the wrong
time and most organizations will profit from simply ignoring it"
- "NAT and IPv6 are both evil, but IPv6 is the more dangerous of the
two."
- "IPv6 was designed with no migration strategy
from the real Internet."
This perspective has been making a lot of people angry, since it
implies (or rather, bluntly states) that those who have made
significant investments in IPv6 have wasted their money, since we will
obviously have to replace it with something else. I think that this
conclusion is painfully obvious, but I guess lots of people are still
deluding themselves. So who will win and who will lose in the
ultimate failure of IPv6?
