How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

Cryptographrix cryptographrix at
Fri Oct 2 15:40:04 UTC 2015

Why would they go "IPv6 only" if it costs them huge customer bases?

*** anecdote below ***

I hosted a discussion about IPv6 the other day to a room full of highly
technically-proficient millennials (being maybe in the older portion of
"millennial", myself - In spite of how I must sound, I'm actually really
excited about IPv6 for some of the reasons below).

About 1/3 of the way into the discussion - a discussion I was *specifically
avoiding* the "2^32 versus 2^128" reason for switching to IPv6 (due to
various reasons starting with the secondary IPv4 markets and continuing
with today's "/27 is the new /24" thread) - I realized that most of the
people in the room had not lived in the era where ports below 1024 were
open to the world.

Literally they'd almost all grown up in the stateful
NAT-as-a-security-model era.

The internet has not been much different from TV or radio for them, and it
occurred to me that this could be a huge brick on IPv6 adoption in places
where ISPs are happy to NAT away as much as possible (getting back to the
question of "what benefit do they get from providing/allowing IPv6 transit
to their customers?" from my prior post).

I don't know if this is actually the case, but it sure seems that way.

Re: IoT - Additionally, I am pretty up to date on IoT development
(Ubiquiti, Edison, TI meetups in the city, etc).

The products in development all have the *capability* to use IPv6 with some
hacking, but because of the callback cloud services that much of them
employ combined with most places not having IPv6, they all develop their
products for use with, and train developers on their platforms, expecting
IPv4 (at least the ones I've been to).

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM Stephen Satchell <list at> wrote:

> On 10/02/2015 07:48 AM, Cryptographrix wrote:
> > For ISPs that already exist, what benefit do they get from
> > providing/allowing IPv6 transit to their customers?
> >
> > Keep in mind that the net is now basically another broadcast medium.
> Interesting you should use that phrase.  IPv4 is the "AM band", while
> IPv6 is the "FM band".  (The more I think about it, the better I like
> this parallel.)  As more and more "broadcasters" offer IPv6
> connectivity, either "simulcast" or IPv6 only, the more customers will
> want to use IPv6.
> I think the "killer app" for IPv6 will be the Internet of Things (IoT).
>   I see the trend for people to have mixed IPv4/IPv6 on their inside
> network, particularly wireless, but less need to bridge IPv6 to the
> outside world.
> Need to get to your IoT stuff from the outside?  (Assuming you have a
> fixed or quasi-fixed IPv4 address, of course.)  Then you can use an
> appliance that will map IPv4 ports to IPv6 inside addresses.  So if you
> really, really want to control your lights from your office, you can.
> Without the ISP making the investment.
> The big question is, how many SERVICES will go IPv6 only?  I see Google,
> Netflix, Hulu, and similar broadcast sources being dual stack for a long
> time to come.  That reduces the pressure on ISPs to launch IPv6.

More information about the NANOG mailing list