A handful of links for IPv6 deployment information

Article
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092412-next-gen-internet-262671.html

Hodge podge of variour reports
http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi

Akamai provides tons of hosting for companies, including a big chunk of
the government mandated IPv6 support for various US government agencies.
http://www.akamai.com/ipv6

Summary + Statistics Report (left side navigation link)
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/index.html

If you play with the google statistics report you can see, though still
in the 1% range, the recent spike in growth rate in 2012, it grew ~ 0.5%
in the year.... and the rate of growth is likely to accelerate with the
advancement of many ISPs/companies becoming fully IPv6 enabled on their
networks (as noted in my first link) and sites like Youtube, Facebook,
Google, Yahoo, Netflix, etc all advertising IPv6 records for their
sites.

IPv6 is not going away, IPv4 will be (sometime many years in the
future). You don't want to ignore IPv6.
The reason for changing to 128-bit addressing instead of something like
64-bit addressing is to simplify networking and routing efficiency. With
IPv4 we're so worried about host address utilization which forces
network operators to subnet and de-aggregate networks. This means there
are more subnets to route and more subnetting. With IPv6 there is
effectively no limit to the number of hosts you can put onto a LAN
subnet (assuming a standard of /64 mask size).
And as Erik so succinctly pointed out, we don't want to have to re-do
this mammoth overhaul of our Internet (operating systems, appliances,
network routers and switches, legacy applications, etc) again.

Of course there is the ever informative XKCD's take on the limitation of
128-bit addressing...
http://xkcd.com/865/




On Sun, 2012-10-14 at 22:00 -0500, Brian Wood wrote:

> 
> What do you think of ipv6?  I've read that less than 1% 
> of the traffic on the internet is ipv6 traffic.  
> 
> What baffles me about ipv6 is why they decided to go 
> from 4 byte addresses to 16 bytes.  Wouldn't 8 byte  
> addresses make more sense?
> 
> -- 
> Brian Wood
> Ebenezer Enterprises
> http://webEbenezer.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20121015/86bb452e/attachment.html>