IPv6 Adoption Grows by 1,900%, Says Internet Census

While it may appear that the Internet is evolving at a snail's pace, an IPv6 Census conducted by the Measurement Factory claims otherwise. In fact, it seems that Go Daddy is the sole registrar behind a 1,900-percent surge in support for IPv6 in zones under .com, .net and .org over the last 12 months. Go Daddy is an Internet domain registrar and Web hosting company that also sells e-business related software and services.

"Go Daddy’s adoption of IPv6 illustrates how a single large registrar can have substantial influence on global IPv6 adoption," census sponsor Infoblox said in a press release.

IPv6 is the successor of IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4), the latter of which allows only 32 bits for an IP address, thus is limited to just 4,294,967,296 possible addresses. The rapid growth rate of the expanding Internet has exhausted IPv4's supply and is now pushing for the use of IPv6 which uses 128-bit addresses, allowing for a theoretical 340 undecillion Internet addresses. In other words, we may reach a dead end on the Internet if everyone doesn't jump on board the IPv6 bandwagon.

"If your external presence only supports IPv4, then the only devices that can communicate with you will be those with IPv4 addresses," says Cricket Liu, General Manager of the Infoblox IPv6 Center of Excellence. "To the growing population of pure IPv6 devices, you’re invisible. We can’t ignore the emerging competitive advantages of IPv6, but we also don’t need to adopt IPv6 in one great, costly leap. Focus first on providing IPv6 to the outside world and then work inward in stages. Do this and IPv6 deployment will be relatively painless and prove to be a valuable long-term investment for business growth."

According to the census, the percentage of zones under .com, .net and .org that support IPv6 jumped from 1.27-percent in 2010 to 25.4-percent in 2011. Besides Go Daddy's huge contribution, the percentage of zones that support IPv6 increased "organically" more than two-fold over the previous year to over 3-percent. The census also reports that the three countries in IPv6 adoption are France, the U.S. and the Czech Republic.

"A significant percentage of businesses run on the registrars’ networks, relying on the registrars’ systems for email and a web presence, which don’t predominantly support IPv6 yet," Infoblox reports. "If the registrars added IPv6 support for email and web servers, a significant impediment to those businesses’ enabling IPv6 would be removed and adoption gains could jump. If a registrar isn’t supporting IPv6, it creates a serious obstacle to any business wanting to implement IPv6 for its external content."

To learn more about IPv6 enablement, myths and best practices, the Infoblox IPv6 Center of Excellence offers video tutorials, free trial software, white papers and transition tools. Infoblox also will be hosting a "Best Practices for IPv6" webinar for enterprise IT professionals on Dec. 1, 2011.

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • memadmax
    I just wish that IPv6 was more user-friendly.
    IPv4 was pretty good in terms of human understanding, if you knew what the groupings stood for.
  • Other Comments
  • memadmax
    I just wish that IPv6 was more user-friendly.
    IPv4 was pretty good in terms of human understanding, if you knew what the groupings stood for.
  • Stardude82
    Go Daddy is the biggest internet registrar by far. I think it's like half the market. It should be able single candidly force IPv6 adoption.
  • LuckyDucky7
    One question: Why are we promoting such a flawed system?

    There's a couple reasons why people haven't adopted IPv6 and why we should really just be pushing for a better standard.
    The people who made IPv6 have refused time and time again to change the protocol- which is flawed for the following reasons:

    -No NAT and different networking
    Consider every computer having a unique IP address. With the advent of IPv6, this is now possible.

    Now, let's think about the implications for security here. Sure, there aren't any NAT concerns to worry about, but the computers in any area are at the mercy not of a company's numbering system but of a system outside of their control.

    You can't "wall off" a section of IP addresses like you could in IPv4- for private use this was great, as you could guarantee that any computer inside your network would get a uniform address. But IPv6 changes that.

    And what if you want to bring a device into the network with a different hardware set? Its IP address will be completely different than the ones your network uses itself.

    Now that that's gone, it's impossible to communicate easily with specific machines on your own network and your neatly organized network becomes one big cluster****. IT nightmare.

    -Too-complex numbering system
    IPv4 has human-memorizable addresses. IPv6, stupidly, does not. 12 numbers were enough to memorize (especially since the first few were usually common). But 128 numbers and letters is just too much. Even if the first 78 are zeros, that's still a large address to chew on.

    64 bits is enough. Even 48 will be fine for the forseeable future (just look at MAC addresses). Just double the size of the address (or make it so that the current IPv4 naming convention is followed but double the size of the registrar- so the highest you'd get is 511.511.511.511. Or something like that).

    Know why China's been a forefront adopter of IPv6? Because here's the secret: all IPv6 addresses are tied to the computer's MAC address. Which, as you know, is unique.

    So now, a malefactor would be easily able to pick out what machines do which things. So if you want to track down someone questioning human rights in your country, you can "van" people with greater efficiency than before.

    SOPA/E-Parasite would just be the beginning if this were to gain widespread adoption. Why? Because you can't tie an IP address to a person but you CAN tie a device to a person.

    With these concerns in mind, can't we just build a better protocol? One that guarantees the ease of use and openness that the Internet today currently enjoys?