What a terrible logo design, and semingly no real buy-in from any major organization. I'm not surprised this doesn't have any traction.<p>I think an IPv6-compliance logo scheme would be a good idea, but it should be driven by major commercial vendors like Apple, Microsoft, Google etc on the software side, and supported by industry forums like the WiFi Alliance and the GSM Association on the hardware side. I would love to be able to ditch IPv4 entirely for running large production networks.<p>I think Apple have already started to enforce IPv6 support on iOS apps. It would also be interesting to audit open source projects for IPv6 support; just the presence of the appropriate API calls would probably be sufficient for a first hack to tell the difference between IPv6-compliant and non-IPv6 compliant applications. This would allow influential distros like Debian to start the process of deprecating old software which is incapable of working properly with modern networks.
An absolutely comically bad logo design. I mean, that is worse than atrocious. If you're going to attempt to design something, at least possess the intellect to know that you must be good at what you're spearheading.<p>Just looking at the horrible logo mashed into the header that is 100% illegible because its like 50px wide is all you need to know.
Isn't this ancient? I saw a logo like this many, many years ago, and the ipv6 support was still really really shitty (eg. firewall for ipv4 being full-featured while one checkmark existed for ipv6 - pass through everythong or nothing).<p>EU has some financing rules, where in many cases, you cannot buy any equipment with public money if it doesn't support IPv6, and RIPE-554 (now 722 - <a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-772" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-772</a> ) was written just to avoid the "ipv6 ready" devices... so many tenders had a ripe 554/722 requirement written in back then (now it doesn't really matter, since most of equipment adequately supports ipv6, at least the stuff from "big vendors".<p>edit: yeah, right from the ripe772 : "While the Logo certification was devised around 20 years ago..."
That logo is not only ugly, but functionally deficient when it comes to hardware.<p>This design can only be applied to equipments as a sticker as it is impossible to directly imprint into the mold.<p>Not only this increases the cost (negligible, I know), but for devices that are meant to be used for years, it will just degrade and won't be as visible.
Since we're already talking about IPv6, I'll take the opportunity to bring up a topic I've been thinking about recently. If they were already redesigning the IP protocol, why didn't the creators of IPv6 ensure good support for multiple/changing IP addresses? For example, couldn't they have extended port numbers to 128 or 256 bits and recommended that IP flows be identified just by the pair (source port, destination port) instead of the current (source IP, source port, destination IP, destination port)? That would make it possible, for instance, to start a HTTP upload via an LTE modem but finish it on WiFi without interrupting the connection.
I think the reason this never gains any user mindshare while other technologies like 802.11<x> or 5G do is because ipv6 doesn’t actually change anything about the user experience. So why would they bother putting it on the marketing material?<p>I think that’s the chief reason it’s failed to catch on at any meaningful rate. It may be good overall or have long-term effects, but if any one typical use asked you, “what will be different for me if I buy this?” there’s no answer.
<a href="https://old.reddit.com/domain/ipv6forum.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://old.reddit.com/domain/ipv6forum.com/</a><p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/search?q=ipv6+forum" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://old.reddit.com/search?q=ipv6+forum</a><p>And nothing on HN.<p>Seems just as focused on cryptocurrency as is focused on IPv6
This program has existed since past decade and not many router manufacturers cared about it. Customers wouldn’t pay extra for this logo and there is not value for this cert.