[gsich]

>Maybe not in the strict sense, but it kind of has.

>In the enterprises I've worked in the past decade with IPv6 running, at least 75% of the Internet traffic is IPv6.

Nobody cares about those. What matters is if my device has an IPv6 address assigned.

[iknowstuff]

Ok then: most people in the US do. The rest of the world is looking increasingly ipv6 too: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-... India is 71% IPv6 (probably thanks to Jio), China has it in its 5 year plan, Europe is doing well, etc

[MBCook]

Wasn’t it mandated for 4G? Or at least 5G?

[MBCook]

> at least 75% of the Internet traffic is IPv6.

> Nobody cares about [that]. What matters is if my device has an IPv6 address assigned.

This seems to be the weird dichotomy in these comments. Some people are arguing from the position that is absolutely everywhere and is doing great.

Others are saying since their machine doesn’t show it it’s dead and no one cares.

Is there a term for this? A successful failure? A failed success?

Kind of odd.

[ianburrell]

It is why the Google IPv6 stats fluctuate between weekends/holidays and weekdays. IPv6 is much more prevalent on home and mobile networks so increase on non-work dyas. Companies have IPv4 networks that they don't want to upgrade. We have dichotomy where 50% of clients have IPv6, but most of the small sites do not.

The other thing I have seen is that engineers make things complicated. Normal person has IPv6 enabled by default or enables it in router, and it just works and they never notice. Engineers want to configure things manually, but IPv6 is hard if fight against the dynamic defaults.

[ryoshoe]

Maybe the False Consensus Effect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

[natebc]

Anecdotal stalemate.

[gsich]

I use this argument, because HN also tries to do the reverse when someone suggests a protocol/addition/replacement to either TCP or HTTP. Then suddenly it's important what shitty company networks do. It's still not.