The problem with predictions
About fifteen months ago, I boldly predicted that half of all Internet communications would consist of IPv6 traffic by the second half of 2020. My post also posited that IPv6 penetration could hit 25% by the end of 2017; a mark it seems we're only just now about to hit according to google's IPv6 statistics. Alas, my irrational exuberance has been tempered by the reality of a seeming asymptotic plateauing at 25%. Based on these latest measurements and quadratic curve-fitting, it seems that we would be pressed to get to 40% of Internet users using IPv6 by the end of 2020.
While many in the Internet community had eagerly desired to turn the corner on IPv4 and proclaim IPv6 "the" Internet protocol, it seems the Internet will remain dual protocol for quite some time. While most had accepted this reality, albeit grudgingly, the common belief held that the proportion of IPv4 users would vastly diminish throughout this decade, into the next, and eventually fade into obscurity. While this may indeed still happen, it would seem that the long tail of IPv4's demise may well extend into the next several decades.
The reasons for this sudden tapping of the brakes on IPv6 growth are eluding most Internet prognosticators. Even the venerable Dr. Geoff Huston struggled to explain the stagnation. His most recent post on the topic concludes that the current client/server Internet communications model enables the efficient sharing of IPv4 addresses for use only while communicating, without assigning IPv4 addresses statically to devices. However, he also poses the dire question of how much this address sharing model can grow to support an ever-increasing Internet population without breaking the Internet.
It would seem the prevailing attitude among enterprise IT groups reverberates the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra. Amid the myriad IT projects going on, like security, cloud, dev/ops, AI, etc., the notion of prioritizing IPv6 deployment fails to inspire an equivalence of company (or personal) heroics in terms of technology leadership, cost-savings, and in turn, return on investment.
IPv6 advocates including myself have so far failed to identify compelling motivations for implementing IPv6. Technically, the protocol is marginally improved over IPv4, but my reasoning has centered on retaining a "universal Internet" web/email presence. Google is seeing nearly 25% of its visitors using IPv6. If your web presence is critical to your business, and whose isn't, then you should really consider implementing IPv6 so you're not serving merely 75% of your target audience. One quarter of the Internet is about one billion users today. Even if IPv6 does plateau at 25% forever, you'll likely want make your site accessible to those 25%.
If you have not yet deployed or even considered IPv6 implementation, I invite you to access our free online tools to help you familiarize yourself with business drivers for IPv6, your return on investment (ROI) for deploying IPv6, as well as IPv6 addressing and subnetting. These tools can help you understand the implications both of deploying IPv6 and of not deploying in terms of upside opportunity versus cost.
While many in the Internet community had eagerly desired to turn the corner on IPv4 and proclaim IPv6 "the" Internet protocol, it seems the Internet will remain dual protocol for quite some time. While most had accepted this reality, albeit grudgingly, the common belief held that the proportion of IPv4 users would vastly diminish throughout this decade, into the next, and eventually fade into obscurity. While this may indeed still happen, it would seem that the long tail of IPv4's demise may well extend into the next several decades.
The reasons for this sudden tapping of the brakes on IPv6 growth are eluding most Internet prognosticators. Even the venerable Dr. Geoff Huston struggled to explain the stagnation. His most recent post on the topic concludes that the current client/server Internet communications model enables the efficient sharing of IPv4 addresses for use only while communicating, without assigning IPv4 addresses statically to devices. However, he also poses the dire question of how much this address sharing model can grow to support an ever-increasing Internet population without breaking the Internet.
It would seem the prevailing attitude among enterprise IT groups reverberates the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mantra. Amid the myriad IT projects going on, like security, cloud, dev/ops, AI, etc., the notion of prioritizing IPv6 deployment fails to inspire an equivalence of company (or personal) heroics in terms of technology leadership, cost-savings, and in turn, return on investment.
IPv6 advocates including myself have so far failed to identify compelling motivations for implementing IPv6. Technically, the protocol is marginally improved over IPv4, but my reasoning has centered on retaining a "universal Internet" web/email presence. Google is seeing nearly 25% of its visitors using IPv6. If your web presence is critical to your business, and whose isn't, then you should really consider implementing IPv6 so you're not serving merely 75% of your target audience. One quarter of the Internet is about one billion users today. Even if IPv6 does plateau at 25% forever, you'll likely want make your site accessible to those 25%.
If you have not yet deployed or even considered IPv6 implementation, I invite you to access our free online tools to help you familiarize yourself with business drivers for IPv6, your return on investment (ROI) for deploying IPv6, as well as IPv6 addressing and subnetting. These tools can help you understand the implications both of deploying IPv6 and of not deploying in terms of upside opportunity versus cost.
Comments
Post a Comment