IPv6 is damage - the market will route around it
>> "I think IPV6 is destined to join OSI in the network junkyard."
> Aww don't talk about the OSI model like that or I will cry.
He's talking about the OSI protocol stack - i.e. CLNP - not the OSI 7-layer model, which is a useful way of thinking about any sort of network. The US government mandated OSI in all government network purchases (as it is mandating IPv6 today). Look what good that did.
Some people I know and respect in the Internet industry are resigned to a rollout of IPv6. A typical comment is:
"most of us are ipv6 haters, but we're also pragmatic. ipv6 may suck caterpillar snot, but we have no alternative. so get over it."
I am still in the camp which believes it won't happen. Right now we have two alternative universes ahead: one with massive amounts of NAT/PAT, and one with IPv6. The first works today and gives the user full connectivity to the whole Internet. The second gives the user nothing.
One problem is that deploying dual-stack IPv4 + IPv6 (whether it's in your own network, or in your ISP's network) doesn't deliver any incremental benefit to the deployer. "The Internet" is IPv4, and you could reach that already. Nothing worthwhile is IPv6 only. No major content provider is going to put up IPv6-only services; it would be commercial suicide. And if someone did put up a massive IPv6 free porn server, all that will happen is that people will build IPv4-to-IPv6 proxies, perhaps adding a few banner ads at the same time.
Even if your ISP's network is running IPv6, and your home network is running IPv6, a more insiduous problem is that all your *applications* need to be rewritten to use it too. You might argue "patched" rather than "rewritten", but there are substantial changes: (a) resolver APIs are different; (b) applications may get a choice of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and have to try one and fallback to the other; (c) IPv6 addresses contain colons, but many applications use "x.x.x.x:port" as a syntax; (d) user interfaces may need to display both forms of address. There are others.
Consider all that software you've bought. All those on-line games which communicate using IPv4. All those legacy Windows NT 3.51 servers still running out there. Until you can remove or update every single networked *application* you have, then you will need dual-stack IPv6/IPv4; and as long as you have IPv4 in your stack, you have no need for IPv6.
Of course, dual stack IPv4/IPv6 *does* open up lots of new possibilities for virus propagation and network intrusion, since you will have double the number of firewall policies which need to be checked.
(Maybe IPv6 will find a niche as an RFC1918 replacement in some organisations; IPv6 inside the firewall, IPv4 outside. But for most people, I think RFC1918 is good enough as it is)
P.S. The most ludicrous thing is, IPv6 doesn't really solve the address depletion problem either. Several ISPs have already obtained /19 allocations of IPv6 addresses, e.g. France Telecom. Since the first 3 bits of the address are fixed, this means that France Telecom by itself has already obtained 1/65536th of the total IPv6 address space.