Should you include IPv6 support on an internet connected consumer device?

[LeonV]

Another thread started some interesting discussion about the importance of having IPv6 support on consumer products and it looked like it was getting a little off topic and thought this was a good question to put out there.

I personally think its important to build in internet connected IPv6 into consumer devices because i have been watching IPv4 addresses run out, and you don't know what environment the user will be plugging the device into.

Or is IPv4 NAT OK to rely on being available ?
What is safe to assume about a users Ethernet environment?

Anyone else have a question?

Original thread here : https://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/complexity-of-usb-stack-vs-tcpip-stack/

[arekm]

IPv6 is the future (some like it, some don't - IPv6 is not perfect). Any other solution like NAT is only a workaround for lack of proper IPv6 support.

So go dual stack (IPv4 and IPv6) if you can. Not easy if you want to do that properly (security issues, configuration interface and more to consider).

[Monkeh]

What is safe to assume about a users Ethernet environment?

Absolutely nothing.

[nctnico]

Another thread started some interesting discussion about the importance of having IPv6 support on consumer products and it looked like it was getting a little off topic and thought this was a good question to put out there.

I personally think its important to build in internet connected IPv6 into consumer devices because i have been watching IPv4 addresses run out, and you don't know what environment the user will be plugging the device into.

Or is IPv4 NAT OK to rely on being available ?
What is safe to assume about a users Ethernet environment?

I think you need to take a step back and think of how your IoT device will work without the user needing to configure anything in his/her network.

[LeonV]

Another thread started some interesting discussion about the importance of having IPv6 support on consumer products and it looked like it was getting a little off topic and thought this was a good question to put out there.

I personally think its important to build in internet connected IPv6 into consumer devices because i have been watching IPv4 addresses run out, and you don't know what environment the user will be plugging the device into.

Or is IPv4 NAT OK to rely on being available ?
What is safe to assume about a users Ethernet environment?

I think you need to take a step back and think of how your IoT device will work without the user needing to configure anything in his/her network.

DHCP ?
Then UDP Broadcast for local, Or phone home over internet.

[timb]

There is an IoT sensor standard that's been gaining a lot of traction: 6LoWPAN

Basically, each tiny, coin cell powered wireless sensor device runs a cutdown IPv6 stack, which can be run on top of various wireless protocols, such as BTLE and generic 2.4GHz and Sub-1GHz ISM bands. Each device picks up its own IPv6 address and they all talk to a gateway, which is essentially just an IPv6 router that has a BTLE/ISM radio and a WiFi/Ethernet interface.

I've been playing with it for about a year now, using about a dozen SensorTag2 units running Contiki with the 6LoWPAN stack scattered around the house. I've got an RPi2 setup as the gateway. Each sensor has been running off a coin cell for 11 months now, with still well over 60% battery left!

I've got a web app running on a server hosted in a remote data center that queries each device individually using its public IPv6 address to collect data.

I've been really happy with it so far!

[nctnico]

There are many players in the IoT (wireless) communication field and it is hard to determine which standard is going to win. For example: In the NL there is nation wide LORA coverage provided by one of the larger telecom operators.