Perhaps We Missed Something?
It seems that parties who promote or support going to the IPv6 platform have only focused on the exhaustion of IPv4 pool without questioning how each address has been used. On the other hand, had IPv6 been designed with compatibility to IPv4 in mind, it probably would have avoided the fundamental hurdle in rolling out the IPv6. Allow me to share a bit of our experience.
A few years ago, we accidentally ventured into studying the IPv4 address pool exhaustion challenge, perhaps due to the curiosity from our telephony background. We now have submitted a proposal, called EzIP (phonetic for Easy IPv4) to IETF:
EzIP will not only resolve IPv4 address shortage issues, but also largely mitigate cyber security vulnerabilities, plus open up new possibilities for the Internet. These should relieve the urgency to move onto the IPv6. Originally, our efforts were inspired by two regularly updated worldwide statistics:
So, we thought that the initial EzIP targets would be emerging regions and rural areas of developed countries where assignable IPv4 addresses are in short supply. A recent article about the Internet activities provided a surprising new perspective:
It concluded that the IPv6 adoption even at US Federal Agencies was moving at "a glacial pace". This seems to imply that the entire market for alternatives to the IPv6 approach, such as the EzIP, is now open. The general public should be equally informed of this kind of choices, instead of being led by the existing industrial interests. Hopefully, these provide you some updated references to your analysis.
Feedback and comments are very much appreciated.
Abe (2018-06-24 12:48)