x
Optical/IP

Poll Shows Divisions Over IPv6

Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) support for IPv6 in its products is essential if the controversial protocol is to succeed. So say 78 percent of readers who responded to the Unstrung IPv6 poll.

However, this is just about the only thing that respondents to the poll agreed upon. IPv6 is one of those topics that splits the wireless community right down the middle.

Internet Protocol (IP) version 6 extends IP addresses from 32-bits to 128-bits. This -- the specification's supporters say -- will help to avoid an impending Internet address shortage, as millions of new Internet-capable wireless devices come on the air within the next few years.

However, there has always been a lively debate in the industry about when IPv6 will be needed, or even if it will be needed. Some say that IPv4 could be used -- with suitable workarounds -- for years to come.

43 percent of the readers agree that IPv6 is vital to connect millions of new wireless devices and enable new data services. Yet 40 percent say there is no immediate need for IPv6 in wireless, although it will become important in the future.

There is also clearly a hardcore of readers that see no need for IPv6 whatsoever. 16 percent say it doesn't offer much for wireless services "that can’t be achieved with IPv4 workarounds"; 14 percent say that with or without wireless ”IPv6 is a dead duck"; and 14 percent say that IPv4 will continue to be the dominant IP address protocol well into the future.

However, the majority of respondents believe that IPv6 is coming -- it's just not clear exactly when. 27 percent say it will be widely used within 5 years; 29 percent expect it to become dominant within 10; 29 percent say the protocol will gradually be adopted for key tasks.

So where does this leave equipment and software vendors looking to get in on the IPv6 market? 40 percent of the poll-takers believe that there are niches in the market that new vendors could thrive in. However, nearly as many -- 37 percent -- say that support is a non-issue, as "any good vendor already supports dualmode v4/v6." Only 24 percent believe IPv6 products represent "a great chance for new players to establish themselves."

However, it is pretty clear from the poll that new companies looking to make a name for themselves with IPv6 will need to look East. A whopping 69 percent of the poll's respondents say that the Asia/Pacific area will lead IPv6 adoption. Europe and North America score 17 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

You can see full results of the IPv6 poll here: Wireless IPv6.

And while you're in the zone, why not take the latest Unstrung poll? What's the Future for WLAN in the Enterprise?. — Dan Jones, Senior Editor, Unstrung
http://www.unstrung.com
standardsarefun 12/4/2012 | 9:43:10 PM
re: Poll Shows Divisions Over IPv6 IPv6 is coming. The poll seems to indicate this (56% say it will be widely used on either 5 or 10 years). Furthermore lots seem to say it will start in AsiaPac.

Fine.

But should this protocol arrive via dual stack or via its mandatory use in various system standards?

For example, what is the real benefit of mandating IPv6 in the 3GPP/IMS specs for release 5? Wouldn't it be better to support both IPv4 and IPv6 and so initial rollout could be made on a more stable platform and then we move over to IPv6 when the stacks are bugfree(ish) and the 3G market actually needs the address space.



Guglielmo 12/4/2012 | 9:42:16 PM
re: Poll Shows Divisions Over IPv6 Not to denigrate the Unstrung IPv6 poll, but a search of publications from years past would reveal polls that foretold the inevitable widespread adoption of OSI protocols to replace IP, CMIP management to replace SNMP, token ring to replace Ethernet, broadband ISDN to replace CATV, etc. etc. etc.

Participants in such polls are often too close to the fray to offer much objective insight.

Question: Why adopt IPv6?
Conventional Wisdom: Because it yields more address space.

Q: Why not just use IPv4 with network address translation to reclaim address space?
CW: Because translation is a kludge that breaks things.

Q: So the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will happen instantly, as a flash cut?
CW: Of course not, the transition will take months or years.

Q. Then how will IPv4 and IPv6 systems communicate?
CW: Through dual stacks, tunneling, and translation.

Q. But wait a second... You say IPv4 with NAT is unacceptable because translation is a kludge, yet you say IPv4 to IPv6 transition requires translation. Are you contradicting yourself?
CW: Stop asking questions, and go check out how the latest poll said IPv6 adoption was inevitable.

Maybe Unstrung could run a poll about 3G WCDMA deployment, so we can prove to ourselves that it will enjoy inevitable widespread adoption, too!
spc_King 12/4/2012 | 9:42:03 PM
re: Poll Shows Divisions Over IPv6 Guglio,

You are right to question IPv6, but your main argument that IPv6-to-IPv4 tunneling is a kludge as much as NAT is too simplified! The difference is that IPv6-to-IPv4 at least has the potential of being a TEMPORARY solution until IPv6 gets widespread enough and gradually that kludge/overhead will be reduced. Staying with NAT/IPv4 give you no hope of improvement!

However, one thing that should worry you is the bandwidth overhead and additional processing required for the increased IPv6 addresses and headers. Of course, that is a vendors' blessing since it would require HW upgrades :-) However, if the need is strong enough that is a penalty customer will have to pay

However, there are other benefits of IPv6, I don't know them all, but I understand improved operation (i.e. fewer of the unintended drawbacks of NAT) through firewalls is one (Don't ask me why/how).

I'd love to hear from some IPv6 diehards on what other nifty things there are (that would make sense to end-users/operators!)

/X-Eri
standardsarefun 12/4/2012 | 9:23:06 PM
re: Poll Shows Divisions Over IPv6 x-Eri >> I'd love to hear from some IPv6 diehards on what other nifty things there are (that would make sense to end-users/operators!)

Doesn't sound like there is anyone out there that will support IPv6!!

And what about my original point - If you are going to need dual stack etc. why do we mandate IPv6 only for 3GPP/IMS specifications? Why not start with IPv4 and then transistion later on??

P.S. And if anyone thinks IPv6 is "complete" go and read the huge list of 3GPP dependencies on IETF at http://www.3gpp.org/TB/Other/I...
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE