There are indeed interoperability
issues between IPv6 and IPv4 which is leading to the creation, essentially of parallel, independent networks.
Exchanging traffic between the two networks requires special translator gateways, but modern computer operating
systems implement dual-protocol software for transparent access to both networks either natively, or using a
tunneling protocol such as 6to4, 6in4, or Teredo. [Also see: "IPv6 tunnel basics"]
Early adopters positioned to have greatest impact
Even early adopters of IPv6 as a network service understand that demand doesn't exist across the board today,
but will soon. Akhil Verma, director of global product management for Inteliquent (formerly Neutral Tandem/Tinet),
says, "IPv6 service providers lack the content, infrastructure and applications to make a good business case today
and have contributed significantly to the lack of IPv6 adoption." This coming from Inteliquent, one of the world's
leading providers and facilitators of IPv6 network-enabled solutions. Once the inevitable IPv6 levy breaks, an
overwhelming number of network and content providers will be scrambling (and likely overpaying) to get IPv6
equipped and compliant -- a potential boon for those few IPv6 veteran IPv6 enablers.
"We have been doing IPv6 for over a decade now, and have been enabling it for our customers on demand as a
complimentary component of the services we offer," Verma says. "In turn, this means any IP Transit customer can get
IPv6 service enabled on existing ports so they can have dual stack access at any time. We continue to enable
services for new IP transit customers, but we see a very low demand. It could be an education issue, financial
justification issue or some other factor. Whatever it is, it is stopping customers from making the move."
According to Dr. Kate Lance, communications manager, IPv6Now, an Australian based company specializing in IPv6
assistance, training and consulting, in future years we will look back on this IPv6 debate with astonishment and
ask, How could anyone conceivably argue against a technology that offers secure communication to people and devices
on a breathtaking scale? How could anyone not want a technology that offers an incremental leap in Internet
capability and capacity that may be as significant as the development of the Internet