Cisco is wrong. Other solutions running at the application level, not just the routing/network level will be needed. Notably HTTP proxies. And it will still not solve the problem. Other solutions will involve CDNs (notably because video on the Internet doubles each year, and wil represent more than 70% of the trafic in 2013, and today's volume of data (static contents) will represent the volume of today's videos.
With the advent of 4G (LTE), all the existing problems experienced on mobile 3G networks will be even worse...
Yes we need an emergency migration to dual stacks, but Cisco does not propose this dual stack before a long process that will emerge only in 4-5 years. It is currently selling the VERY TEMPORARY "CGv2" solution that will not last more than 1 year. Sold too expensive too !
ISPs must all realize that dual stack will be needed for a much faster transition, where IPv6 should become the major source of traffic worldwide. Forget all tunnels, NATs, and proxies. Only an end-to-end pure IPv6 connectivity will work.
We'll very soon have TWO separate internets: the Internet v2, accessible only to those users that have a pure end-to-end conectivity in IPV6, and the Internet v1 that will be fragmented very rapidly to to the impossibility to provide interoperability with IPv6-based Internet v2, but also with other parts of the IPv4-based Internet v1.
All that it means is that Internet v1 (on IPv4) will soon become a series of private islands. I can easily see these islands already forming in Asia, then in Europe in 2-3 years (about 2013-1014), then everywhere else (starting 2015).
The internet v1 is almost dead. Be prepared.
Some companies are still blind to that. A couple of weeks ago, I was shopping around for some network equipment for use at work, where we already run IPv6. Also, we're installing cell network equipment for a major Canadian carrier and all that stuff is IPv6 ready. When I asked an Adtran sales guy about IPv6, he said their equipment doesn't support it as there's no need for it. He seemed oblivious to what the networking world is doing. Even though companies like Cisco have supported IPv6 for quite some time, Adtran appears stuck in the dark ages. You can even buy consumer level gear now that supports IPv6!
BTW, I told that Adtran sales guy that any network gear that doesn't support IPv6 these days is obsolete.
Watchguard is introducing IPv6 to their devices.
Fireware XTM OS version 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 already supports link-local IPv6 and expect to have routable public IPv6 support by Q4 2011.
I have a Watchguard X700 loaded with pfsense 2.0. pfsense is getting ready to provide IPv6 support for it's (stable) OS.
Here is my idea to provide IPv6 to older non-IPv6 devices. Setup a proxy server on a dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 server. Let the IPv4 device point to the proxy server. Has anyone done this yet? And has been successful? This could be useful for older systems and/or while upgrading older systems and/or network equipment.
Actually, some ISPs are already interested in shorter prefixes. One of them in France uses a /19 prefix for its worldwide IPv6 backbone (OpenTransit): this is the current shortest prefix allocated (or aggregated) in IPv6, as seen in BGP.
But /32 prefixes are very common: most prefixes announced in BGP are /32 in fact, much more than /48 or /56; /64 are exceptions (being progressively phased out and withdrawn, due to current agressive aggregations, which I think are a real bonus of IPv6, for shorter AS Path lengths, much less AS in the core, simpler routing, no need for NAT or costly tunnels and proxies)...
What I really want to see now is the complete abandon of tunnels as a way to deploy IPv6 over IPv4. The actual work to prepare now, and urgently, is to think about solutions for interconnecting IPv6-only networks to reach IPv4 sites. Notably for the existing billion of smartphone users (even if they were using IPv4 only, they can't een have a routable IPv4 address, and they are forced to use tunnels or proxies, and this is a severe problem for the preservation of "net neutrality": we all want massive adoption of native IPv6, even if those tunnels or proxies will remain to reach IPv4 sites.
But the most popular IPv4 sites have already dedicated resources to be reachable directly in native IPv6 (think Google, Facebook, Youtube, iTunes, MegaUpload, and all CDNs used by TV and radios on the web; soon you'll have all the SIP users from mobile broadband users of tablets and smartphones).
In 2015, it will become very costly to have a IPv4 address for oneself (this is already the case since long now for Internet hosting: most websites are now hosted behind a shared frontal HTTP proxy, such as Squid, and servers are configured in a private LAN using private IPv4 addresses; not really a NAT, but the HTTP proxy does the same thing; proxies will soon integrate the SPDY technology to help solve another wellknown problem in IPV4: the STARVATION of PORT NUMBERS; because IPv4 hosting providers have now difficulties to manage the trafic coming to their frontal Squid proxies when they constnatly need larger IPv4 address blocks, just to reroute this trafic to their hosted servers...).