It's mostly African and Asian countries with (very) low adoptions, and this translates to "screw all the countries too poor to adopt IPv6, and let's reduce their chances in the global economy even more". I'm putting it rather sharp here and I have no doubt that's not what your intent is, but that's absolutely an effect of forbidding IPv4.
Furthermore, the lowest adoption tends to be in developing countries (Africa, parts of Asia and South-America), and I bet simple financial reasons are a decent part of the reason for that, if not the primary reason. The Indian government has invested quite a lot in IPv6, so it's leading in adoption rates last time I checked. This is good long-term thinking IMO, since developing countries are also the worst affected due to less addresses being assigned to them, but not every (developing) country has the means for that, and there are often other, more pressing, matters to deal with too.
Carrier-grade NAT (multiple consumers sharing the same IPv4 address) mostly averted catastrophic problems though. It's not perfect, but it works.
IMHO we aren't seeing these developing countries as early adopters of mass IPv6 or having local-only services move to IPv6-only due to lack of IPv4 addresses.
Like, I fully understand that they would be feeling much more pressure to migrate, but I don't see that this pressure working; and if even they aren't pushed to IPv6 then why would the western world do so?
I heard somewhere that some developing countries as basically ipv6 only since there is no reasonable/economical way for them to get ipv4 connectivity, so maybe the problem will take care of itself as more and more people in the world come online. People have money and as long as it makes economical sense to serve more people, ipv6 will win in the end.
> US, China, Japan, India, Canada, Brazil, and most of the Europe
That's about half of the worlds population (and I bet more than half of the internet-connected population). If those countries start going exclusively IPv6, the rest of the world cannot afford to don't care much longer.
There's no IPv6 adoption problem in the consumer and developing world space. The remaining adoption hold-outs are corporate interests and the reasons for their hold-outs have generally nothing to do with BGP or other dissimilarities between v4 and v6, and everything to do with cargo culting "security best practices", sunk cost fallacy, and kind of generally wealth (massive ancient investments in IPv4 address space, including some ancient early windfalls when companies like Microsoft and GE got /8s just for asking in the right years; for now a lot of corporate America can easily afford to only support IPv4 for "business operations" so long as they don't have to deal with some major consumer networks).
There are major IPv6-only consumer networks (it's now quite common among the mobile carriers). IPv6 routing is starting to be generally faster and more reliable for consumers. Consumers have easily adopted v6 mostly without realizing it. ("Happy Eyeballs", indeed.)
There's no "adoption problem". It is adopted. It is working as intended. Will there be a day that we "turn off v4 for good"? Probably not, but every engineer who helped build v6 should have been well aware of Postel's Law and its many corollaries and the root "Internet law" that "no matter how many networks exist, they will always communicate and cooperate; there are many networks but only one Internet". IPv1 and IPv2 likely will always be the only IP versions to truly die and that will always be an historic accident of when IPv4 was devised while the Internet was still mostly young and "just" a research project among academics. Killing IPv4 was never the goal of IPv6, it had to live side-by-side, and everyone knew it. Is IPv6 a "success" at current adoption rates? Success is subjective. Obviously we disagree on how successful it is/has been. That may not change, because they are and always will be opinions.
I think your statement answers pretty well an observation made earlier: Why is IPv6 adoption so bad? I see little incentive for anyone as long as IPv4 is such a profitable business with IP addresses being traded as an asset. IPv6 and equality to the masses? Would be nice but economy took adifferent turn
Outside the US there is a serious shortage of ipv4 addresses. But there are chicken egg problems using ipv6 so everyone needs to support it to help resolve these. Think of it as a helping hand for app developers in the developing world.
I use it as a filter too. The people who have implemented ipv6 are ahead of the curve so I look on them more favourably.
That's nice for the US but that does not apply for many other countries. Case in point: Austria does not have a practical IPv4 shortage currently so motivation for deploying IPv6 is low and customers actively refuse it.
Yeah, that's been my theory for awhile: that IPv4 addresses are effectively a currency, and that a move to IPv6 would devalue that currency. A disproportionate amount of that currency is held by companies and institutions based in the United States, and in many cases they're the same companies and institutions that one might otherwise would expect to be responsible for much of the work of transitioning to IPv6.
Meanwhile, Asia has a relative scarcity of IPv4 addresses and so is (as far as I know) ahead of the curve because their incumbents have less to lose.
Meh, not major problems. Those will inevitably go away as more and more people adopt ipv6.
However, I feel as though maybe developing countries might stubbornly stay on ipv4. They're already double-NATing right now, and it's likely that developed countries will sell off their ipv4 ranges once they've made the switch.
It's funny, I would have expected the countries who got the lion's share of IPv4 addresses to lag behind in IPv6 adoption, but it's the other way around.
The whole issue surrounding IPv4 and 6 is a racism issue.
Why does India and China both have high implementations of IPv6? Because most of Europe and the US have all the big blocks, and either refuse to sell them or are actively hoarding them (like the real estate crisis right now).
Except... Racism?
Countries that US, UK, etc have invaded and camped on for decades or centuries are only beginning to recover. So, those countries got on the internet much later. And because of orgs grabbing every block they can, it leaves little to none for the countries who were late to the internet game.
Is there a good reason why the DOD is hoarding 5% of ALL IP4's? Or had Ford (vehicle company) pivoted to tech for their 16 million IP's? Why does Apple hold on to theirs - what are they doing with it?
The "first world" owns the primary means of the internet, which leaves the "third world" with scraps. And in this case, scraps are the few IP4's they can get, and have to make do with IP6, with its 2^128 IP space.
But, I think the worst insult, is all the 'first world' services as posted by quaintdev (google.co.in amazon.in paytm.com twitter.com flipkart.com hotstar.com primevideo.com) that plainly aren't accessable without using the 'first world internet' aka IPv4.
Theres only enough of these coincidences that line up, before I believe that there's something more sinister going on. And keeping 'those people' away from the IPv4 euro-centric network is I believe the primary intent... AWS/GCE/Azure here in the States has never had an IPv4 allocation problem with machines I build. Hmm.
Considering that APNIC was iirc the first to run out of IPv4 and certainly a growing market, it seems odd that most countries there (edit: in Asia) have basically no IPv6 adoption.
Well, if governments really care about IPv6 (and the previous campaigns to push it were not just about "look how progressive we are"), they'll do something similar to what they've done with digital TV broadcasting :
they would first ban the selling of new devices not compatible with IPv6, then forbid ISPs to advertise IPv4-only connections as "Internet", then ban the selling of new IPv4-compatible devices.
(In a few years we're going to reach anyway the point when IPv6-only connections (mostly in Asia) outnumber IPv4-only devices (mostly in Africa, which sucks because they're the least able to afford an upgrade, but then being forced behind CGNAT sucks too).)
It's all very well if you _have_ an IPv4 address range. But if you don't you're screwed. IPv6 fixes this, it should be adopted everywhere. Those against it seem to be the same ones who make money from the artificial scarcity of IPv4, funny that...
reply