When do you need IPV6?

As you may already know, the current implementation of the .NET Micro Framework supports IPV4.  I have heard one request for IPV6 support so I wanted to hear from other people how critical IPV6 support is for you. So if this is something critical for you, do post your thoughts.

Is this something you would like to see in the product this year?  Next Year?  Or sometime in the future?

Is it a must have, nice to have, or you don't care?


Colin Miller

Product Unit Manager

Comments (10)

  1. Jan Kučera says:

    Nice to have for me, sometime in future (in other words I think there are currently more important things to check out). The only IPv6 _requirement_ I’ve heard so far is the DirectAccess feature, which for some time is not of interest for .NET Micro Framework Devices I think.

    Also making raw packets available for both read and write as suggested couple of times already would eventually allow people to support IPv6 when they really need to.

    But this is just an opinion of hobbyist, looking for other comments too. Have a nice day!

  2. Sopheap Ly says:

    It’s nice to have right now. It’s probably much needed in the next five years or so.

  3. Nice to have at the moment. If it was there it would allow us to be prepared before there is a real need for it.

    Win 7 with its new IP V6 based features like easier networking might make us and the MF "look old" or disallow us beeing part of such networks, when IPV6 is not implemented early enough? And having it would again show that the MF is in the very first row on modern computing – like with DPWS.

    I would like to see it come in the next year.

  4. Cuno Pfister says:

    It seems very difficult to predict if, how and when IPv6 will become important. Some people think IPv6 is inevitable, others claim that no one invests in the necessary infrastructure upgrades (routers, switches etc.).

    I don’t know, except that at the moment it is irrelevant for our business. So for us it is "don’t care" for the time being.

  5. eternam84 says:

    I’m particulary interested in MF for home automation appliances development. IPv6 would be a great feature for home networking integration.

    NB : 2 French ISPs already offer free IPv6 adresses to customers : http://www.free.fr and http://www.nerim.net.

  6. Volker Goller says:

    Well, nice to have right now but I am concerned that the transition from "nice to have" to "must have today" will be a sudden one.

    Saying that, I think its time to start the effort.

  7. Roberto Becchini says:


    IPv6 it’s must. If I have to put Mf in lot of micro devices that needs to be connected to the Internet I expect to have IPv6 first and IPv4 secondly (for demonstration, experimental, proof of concept purposes).

    I expect my internet capable microdevice with MF to not fight against IP adresses lackness, configuration nightmares and so on.

    Please: IPv6 shall be in.

    Keep up the good job 🙂



  8. Rusty W says:

    The military is pushing to have every thing IPv6.  So if you are writing applications for military use.  It is a need now.

  9. Robb E says:

    We develop and manufacture cable TV and telecom test equipment, considering micro framework for new meters. Some cable operators are either considering or planning ipv6 and would not consider new equipment that didn’t support it. No ipv6 would likely be a deal breaker for mf adoption.

  10. CJ says:

    I'm working on a home automation framework and would love to have ipv6 anycast support!

Skip to main content