An international research team has proposed using bacteria to bind Martian soil into concrete-like structures, offering a lower-energy and more sustainable way to build future habitats on Mars.

What The New Research Is Proposing

A new perspective paper published in Frontiers in Microbiology examines whether biomineralisation, a natural process driven by microorganisms, could be adapted for construction on Mars using local materials rather than imported building supplies. The research is led by Shiva Khoshtinat at Politecnico di Milano with collaborators from the University of Central Florida and Jiangsu University.

The researchers (the research is ongoing) are focusing on biocementation, a specific form of biomineralisation in which microbes trigger the formation of calcium carbonate minerals that can bind loose particles together. On Earth, similar processes have been explored for soil stabilisation and experimental low-carbon construction. The paper argues that a carefully engineered version of this approach could be viable on Mars, where energy, materials, and human labour will all be severely constrained.

As the researchers write, “Given the high cost and logistical complexity of transporting construction materials to Mars, the development of autonomous in situ resource utilisation technologies is imperative.”

Why Mars Construction Demands New Thinking

Building on Mars is likely to be fundamentally different from building on Earth. For example, the planet’s atmosphere is extremely thin, surface pressure is less than one percent of Earth’s, and temperatures fluctuate sharply between day and night and across seasons. Radiation exposure is also far higher due to the lack of a global magnetic field.

For future human missions, these conditions will mean habitats must be robust, well-shielded, and ideally constructed using local materials. Transporting large quantities of steel, concrete, or prefabricated components from Earth would simply be prohibitively expensive and energy intensive.

This is why space agencies increasingly focus on in situ resource utilisation, commonly referred to as ISRU, which aims to use local materials such as regolith, ice, and atmospheric gases to support life and infrastructure. The new paper positions biocementation as a potential addition to that toolkit.

Why Conventional Cement Falls Short On Mars

One of the key technical drivers behind the proposal is the chemical mismatch between Martian soil and conventional cement production. For example, Martian regolith contains many familiar oxides, including silica, alumina, iron oxides, and magnesium oxide. Calcium oxide, however, is present at much lower levels than those required to produce Portland cement, which relies heavily on calcium-based compounds.

The researchers have noted that this is likely to make producing a true Portland cement analogue on Mars very difficult without importing large amounts of calcium from Earth, which would undermine both cost efficiency and sustainability. Instead, they argue that calcium carbonate-based binding, supported by microbial activity, may be more compatible with Martian geochemistry.

Biocementation, therefore, appears to offer a way to work with what Mars naturally provides, rather than forcing local materials into Earth-based industrial processes.

How Biocementation Works

Biocementation relies on microorganisms that alter their chemical environment in ways that cause minerals to precipitate, i.e., it is a process where microorganisms form calcium carbonate that binds particles together. In this case, the target mineral is calcium carbonate, the same compound found in limestone and chalk.

When calcium carbonate forms between grains of soil or regolith, it acts as a natural binder. Over time, this process can transform loose material into a solid mass with meaningful compressive strength, without the need for high temperatures or large energy inputs.

The researchers describe this as a potentially low-energy alternative to regolith sintering, which requires heating material to extremely high temperatures to fuse it together.

As their paper explains, “Unlike thermal or microwave-based sintering of regolith reliant on solar, stored electrical, or nuclear energy, biocementation operates at low temperatures with low energy demands, making it suitable for Mars’ limited power systems.”

The Two Micro-organisms At The Heart Of The System

The proposed system centres on a co-culture of two micro-organisms, each chosen for complementary capabilities, which are:

A bacterium that produces the enzyme urease, which breaks down urea into ammonia and carbonate ions. In the presence of calcium, this leads to the formation of calcium carbonate crystals, effectively cementing surrounding particles together. This organism has been widely studied on Earth for biocementation applications.

A cyanobacterium, a photosynthetic microorganism capable of surviving in extreme environments. Certain strains have demonstrated resistance to desiccation, intense radiation, and prolonged exposure to Mars-like conditions, including experiments conducted outside the International Space Station.

In the proposed system, the cyanobacterium plays several roles. For example, through photosynthesis, it consumes carbon dioxide and releases oxygen, helping create a more hospitable micro-environment for its bacterial partner. It also produces extracellular polymeric substances, sticky biological materials that help microbes adhere to surfaces and provide nucleation sites for mineral formation.

Describing this relationship, the researchers write, “Chroococcidiopsis breathes life into its surroundings by releasing oxygen, creating a welcoming microenvironment for Sporosarcina pasteurii. In turn, Sporosarcina secretes natural polymers that nurture mineral growth and strengthen regolith, turning loose soil into solid, concrete-like material.”

From Microbes To 3D Printed Structures

The authors envision this microbial system being integrated with robotic additive manufacturing, essentially large-scale 3D printing adapted for Mars.

In practice, regolith would be mixed with microbial cultures and nutrients inside a controlled, pressurised environment. The resulting slurry could then be extruded layer by layer to form walls, arches, or domed structures designed to withstand internal pressurisation and external dust storms.

Advanced robotic systems would manage mixing, extrusion, and curing, using sensors to monitor moisture levels, pH, temperature, and ion concentrations. Multi-channel nozzles could keep components separate until the final stage of printing, reducing the risk of clogging caused by premature mineral formation.

This approach aligns with broader trends in off-Earth construction, where automation is seen as essential for safety, consistency, and scalability.

Energy Use And Sustainability Considerations

A major sustainability advantage highlighted in the paper is reduced energy demand.

For example, heating regolith to the point where it melts or sinters requires large amounts of power, which early Mars settlements are unlikely to have in abundance. Biological processes, by contrast, operate at ambient or moderately controlled temperatures.

The researchers cite comparative figures suggesting that producing calcium carbonate through biocementation requires far less energy per tonne than thermal sintering, even when compared with lower-energy microwave approaches. While they stress that these numbers are indicative rather than definitive, the contrast underlines why low-temperature chemistry is attractive in a resource-constrained environment.

This energy efficiency also resonates with current challenges on Earth, where cement production now accounts for a significant share (around 8 per cent) of global carbon dioxide emissions and alternatives are actively being explored.

Turning Waste Into Useful Inputs

The proposed system also fits into a wider vision of closed-loop resource use. For example, the urea required for the biocementation process could potentially be sourced from human waste, such as urine. Also, carbon dioxide is abundant in the Martian atmosphere and could feed photosynthesis. Oxygen released by the cyanobacterium could support life support systems, while ammonia produced during urea breakdown may eventually play a role in agriculture.

In their research paper, the authors summarise this integrated approach clearly, stating that biocementation “holds promise not only for infrastructure construction but also for integrated resource cycles, producing oxygen and ammonia as byproducts.”

Key Challenges And Questions

Despite its promise, the paper is careful to emphasise how early-stage the concept remains. Water availability and purification are major concerns, particularly due to the presence of perchlorates in Martian soil and ice, i.e., highly reactive salts that can be toxic to living organisms and interfere with biological processes.

Also, long-term microbial behaviour under reduced gravity is largely unknown, and the combined effects of radiation, temperature swings, and low pressure on co-cultured organisms have not been fully explored.

The lack of returned Martian soil samples also limits experimental validation, forcing researchers to rely on simulants that may not capture all relevant properties.

The researchers acknowledge these uncertainties directly, writing that “without integrated, long-duration testing in analog or space environments, the pathway from concept to application remains highly speculative.”

Other Groups Exploring Biological And Regolith Based Construction

The idea of using biology or low energy chemistry to support off Earth construction is not limited to this one research team. In fact, several space agencies and universities are investigating related approaches, often with a similar sustainability motivation. For example, these include:

– The European Space Agency, which has previously supported the BioRock experiment, led by researchers at the University of Edinburgh, which studied how bacteria interact with basalt under microgravity conditions aboard the International Space Station. While BioRock focused on biomining rather than construction, it demonstrated that microbial processes can still function in reduced gravity environments, a key prerequisite for any biological ISRU strategy.

– NASA has also funded multiple studies into microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation for soil stabilisation on Earth, including work exploring whether similar processes could one day be adapted for lunar or Martian regolith. These projects have largely remained at the laboratory and modelling stage, yet they provide a growing body of data on how biocementation affects strength, porosity, and durability.

Also, alongside biological approaches, engineering-led programmes are exploring alternative low energy construction routes. For example, NASA’s collaboration with ICON and academic partners has tested large scale 3D printing using simulated Martian and lunar regolith, focusing on structural geometry, automation, and radiation shielding rather than biology. These projects highlight how additive manufacturing and ISRU are increasingly converging across different disciplines.

Together, these parallel efforts suggest that future off Earth construction is unlikely to rely on a single solution. Instead, biological systems like biocementation may sit alongside robotic printing, chemical processing, and regolith based shielding as part of a broader toolkit aimed at reducing energy use, imported materials, and environmental impact during long duration space missions.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

What this research makes clear is that biology is starting to be taken seriously as a practical engineering tool for space, not just a scientific curiosity. The proposal doesn’t promise quick wins or near-term deployment, and the researchers are explicit about the technical and environmental hurdles that remain. Even so, it shows how future Mars infrastructure could be built around low energy chemistry, local materials, and closed-loop systems rather than brute-force industrial processes transplanted from Earth.

That shift matters beyond space exploration. For example, many of the same pressures apply on Earth, where construction faces rising energy costs, tighter carbon targets, and growing scrutiny of cement and concrete. Research into biocementation, low temperature mineral binding, and waste-derived inputs is already influencing experimental construction methods here. For UK businesses working in construction, materials science, robotics, or environmental engineering, this kind of work points to where longer-term innovation and funding interest may head, especially in areas linked to low carbon building materials and automated construction.

For other stakeholders, including space agencies, regulators, and sustainability researchers, the study reinforces the need for interdisciplinary thinking. Mars construction will not be solved by materials science alone, or biology alone, or robotics alone. It will most likely require systems that combine all three in ways that are reliable, scalable, and demonstrably safe.

This research does not claim to have solved that challenge, but it does set out a credible path forward, one where sustainability constraints shape engineering choices from the very start rather than being treated as an afterthought.

This video shows how you can do away with paying for packages like Canva if you want to create visual storyboards, simply by asking Copilot to create your visual storyboards for you … it’s easier than ever!

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

Streamline meeting planning in Outlook by creating a poll to find the perfect meeting time, boost attendee turnout, and save hours of back-and-forth emails. Here’s how:

How to do it

– Create a new meeting in Outlook.
– Click ‘New Meeting’, then select ‘Scheduling Poll’ in the toolbar.
– Enter meeting details and select 2 to 5 time slots for attendees to choose from.
– Send the poll; attendees’ responses will help you pick the best time.

Why it helps: Minimise back-and-forth emails, save time, and ensure more people can attend.

People using cryptocurrency services in the UK are now required to provide personal and tax identifying details to cryptoasset platforms, following new reporting rules that came into force on 1 January 2026.

What Are The Rules?

From the start of 2026, anyone buying, selling, transferring, or exchanging cryptoassets through a cryptoasset service provider must provide specific identifying information, or risk penalties. The change forms part of the UK’s implementation of the Cryptoasset Reporting Framework, commonly known as CARF, an international standard developed to improve tax transparency around cryptoassets.

Will Link Crypto Activities To Tax Record

According to guidance published by HM Revenue & Customs, the information collected by crypto platforms is to be used to link a person’s crypto activity to their tax record. HMRC says this “makes it easier for us to find out what tax you need to pay”, emphasising that the measure is designed to support enforcement of existing tax rules rather than introduce a new form of crypto taxation.

Applies Whether The Crypto Service Is In The UK Or Not

HMRC says the reporting obligation applies regardless of whether the cryptoasset service provider is based in the UK or overseas. For example, as HMRC’s guidance states on its website, users must provide the required information “to every cryptoasset service provider you use, even if they’re not based in the UK”.

What Information Is Needed?

The details required depend on whether the user is an individual or an organisation. For example, individual users must provide their full name, date of birth, and the address and country where they normally live. They must also supply a tax identification number. For UK residents, this will usually be a National Insurance number or a Unique Taxpayer Reference.

Where a person is not eligible for a tax identification number, for example because their country of residence does not issue one, HMRC says it is not required.

Entity users, such as companies, partnerships, trusts, or charities, must provide their legal business name, main business address, and company registration number if they are a UK company. Non-UK entities must provide a tax identification number and the country that issued it. Some entities are also required to provide details of their controlling person.

Incorrect Details Could Result In A Fine

HMRC is making it clear that users must provide accurate information. It says that giving incorrect details, or failing to provide them at all to a UK cryptoasset service provider, can lead to a penalty of up to £300. Where a non-UK provider is involved, the penalty could be higher.

How Penalties And Tax Enforcement Fit Together

The £300 penalty relates specifically to failures to provide accurate identifying information to cryptoasset service providers. It sits alongside, rather than replaces, HMRC’s existing powers to penalise unpaid tax.

HMRC’s guidance warns that if someone has not paid tax they owe on cryptoassets and the tax authority later identifies this, penalties can be far more significant. For example, in such cases, HMRC says penalties can be “up to 100 per cent of the tax due plus interest”. For offshore matters or offshore transfers, penalties can be higher still.

Voluntary Disclosure Facility (For Previous Years) Available

The department is also operating a disclosure facility for people who have underpaid tax on cryptoassets in earlier years, which allows individuals to correct their tax affairs voluntarily for undeclared gains or unpaid tax prior to April 2024.

Why The Focus On Crypto For Tax Authorities?

Cryptoassets have long posed challenges for tax authorities because of their decentralised and cross-border nature. For example, transactions can take place across multiple platforms, wallets, and jurisdictions, often without the kind of centralised reporting that applies to traditional bank accounts.

CARF

Government policy documents describe cryptoassets as a rapidly expanding area where tax authorities have historically had limited visibility. The Cryptoasset Reporting Framework (CARF) was, therefore, developed to address gaps that remained even after the introduction of the Common Reporting Standard. In simple terms, CARF is designed to prevent people from avoiding tax reporting by shifting assets into crypto. It creates a framework under which cryptoasset service providers collect standardised information about users and their transactions, which can then be shared automatically between tax authorities in participating countries.

How International Data Sharing Will Work

CARF is a multinational framework, meaning its impact goes beyond the UK alone. For example, where a UK resident uses a UK cryptoasset service provider, HMRC will use the reported information to link crypto activity to the individual’s UK tax record. Where a UK resident uses a non-UK provider based in a country that has also implemented CARF, the tax authority in that country will share the information with HMRC.

Similarly, if a non-UK resident uses a UK cryptoasset service provider, HMRC will share the relevant information with the tax authority in the user’s country of residence, provided that country also follows the CARF rules.

The UK government has said that the first international exchanges of data under CARF are expected to take place from 2027, reflecting the time required for jurisdictions and businesses to build reporting systems.

How Crypto Is Taxed In The UK

The new reporting rules do not change how cryptoassets are taxed, but they are expected to make enforcement more effective.

In the UK, cryptoassets are generally subject to Capital Gains Tax when they are disposed of. Disposal can include selling crypto for traditional currency, exchanging one cryptoasset for another, spending crypto on goods or services, or gifting it to someone other than a spouse, civil partner, or charity.

If total gains across all disposals exceed the annual Capital Gains Tax allowance, the gains must be reported to HMRC and tax paid. Losses can be offset against gains, and in some cases carried forward to future tax years.

Where cryptoassets are received through employment, mining, or other income-generating activities, Income Tax and National Insurance contributions may also apply.

With this in mind, HMRC has now updated its Self Assessment tax return to include a dedicated section for cryptoassets, reflecting the growing expectation that taxpayers accurately report crypto-related income and gains.

How Widespread Is Crypto Use In The UK?

The changes come at a time when crypto awareness and usage remain significant in the UK. For example, research published by the Financial Conduct Authority shows that public awareness of cryptoassets remains high. Its most recent consumer research found that more than 90 per cent of adults had heard of cryptoassets, while around 8 per cent of respondents reported owning or using them.

The same research indicates that most users rely on centralised exchanges as their main way of accessing crypto, rather than decentralised protocols or peer-to-peer transactions. This is significant because CARF reporting obligations apply primarily to cryptoasset service providers that act as intermediaries.

For many consumers, the impact of the new rules is likely to be experienced through additional identity checks, requests to confirm tax residency, and prompts to supply or update tax identification details.

What The Rules Mean For Crypto Businesses

The change in the rules essentially sees the burden of compliance falling heavily on cryptoasset service providers, which must collect, verify, and report user information and transaction data.

Government impact assessments suggest that businesses already preparing for international CARF obligations may face relatively modest additional costs to extend reporting to UK resident users. Even so, firms may need to update systems, data validation processes, and reporting workflows to ensure information is accurate and submitted in the required format.

Around 50 UK businesses are estimated to be affected by the domestic reporting extension, though overseas platforms serving UK users are also brought into scope where their home jurisdictions implement CARF.

For example, a crypto exchange that already collects customer data for anti-money laundering purposes may still need to restructure how that data is stored and reported so it aligns with CARF requirements around tax residency and transaction reporting.

The Wider Regulatory Context

The introduction of CARF reporting coincides with broader efforts to regulate the UK crypto sector, although those initiatives are progressing on a separate track. The Financial Conduct Authority is currently consulting on proposals for a comprehensive regulatory regime for cryptoassets, covering areas such as exchange standards, conduct requirements, and crypto lending and borrowing. The consultation is due to close in February 2026.

The FCA has been clear that its goal is not to eliminate risk from crypto markets, but to ensure consumers understand those risks and that firms operate to clear standards. David Geale, the FCA’s executive director for payments and digital finance, has said regulation is coming and that the authority wants a regime that “protects consumers, supports innovation and promotes trust”.

For UK crypto users and businesses, the key distinction is that CARF focuses on tax transparency and data sharing, while the FCA’s work addresses how crypto markets operate and how consumers are protected within them.

Challenges and Criticisms

While HMRC says the new reporting framework is about enforcing existing tax law, the changes have prompted some concerns from parts of the crypto industry and from privacy advocates.

For example, one criticism centres on data protection and security. The rules require cryptoasset service providers to collect and store sensitive personal and tax information, sometimes across multiple jurisdictions. Critics argue this increases the risk of data breaches, particularly where smaller or overseas platforms may not have the same security standards as large UK financial institutions.

There are also questions about proportionality. For example, some industry voices argue the rules apply broadly to all users, including those with relatively small holdings or minimal trading activity, potentially increasing compliance friction for people who do not owe any tax. The requirement to provide tax identifiers to every platform used, even where no taxable gain has been realised, has been cited as a source of unnecessary complexity.

From a business perspective, crypto platforms face operational and cost pressures. Although many already collect customer information for anti-money laundering purposes, aligning systems with CARF reporting standards adds technical and administrative overhead, particularly for firms operating across multiple countries with different implementation timelines.

Others point out that CARF does not fully address decentralised finance. Transactions carried out directly on decentralised protocols, without an intermediary acting as a service provider, may remain harder for tax authorities to observe, raising questions about how evenly the rules will apply across the crypto ecosystem.

HMRC has acknowledged that regulation cannot eliminate all non-compliance, but maintains that broader data collection and international information sharing will significantly narrow the gaps that have historically made cryptoassets difficult to tax.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The new reporting rules mark a clear change in how crypto activity is treated by the UK tax system, moving it closer to the level of visibility long associated with traditional financial accounts. For individual users, the message is pretty straightforward. Crypto transactions are no longer operating in a grey area, and HMRC now expects crypto activity to be linked clearly and consistently to a person’s tax record, regardless of where the platform they use is based.

For UK businesses operating in the crypto sector, the changes reinforce the idea that compliance and data governance are now central operational requirements rather than secondary considerations. Firms offering exchange, wallet, or portfolio services are being drawn more firmly into the UK’s tax reporting infrastructure, with real implications for system design, data accuracy, and cross-border coordination. Even businesses that already meet anti-money laundering standards may need to rethink how customer data is structured, verified, and reported over time.

More broadly, the rules reflect a wider change in how governments, regulators, and tax authorities view cryptoassets. For example, what was once treated as a niche or experimental asset class is now being integrated into mainstream regulatory frameworks, with greater expectations placed on platforms, investors, and advisers alike. While concerns remain around privacy, proportionality, and coverage of decentralised activity, HMRC’s position is clear that increased transparency is necessary to close long-standing enforcement gaps.

As CARF data sharing begins to scale internationally from 2027, the practical impact of these rules is likely to become more visible across markets. For users, businesses, and regulators, things are clearly moving towards a tighter alignment between crypto activity and existing tax and compliance systems, with fewer opportunities for crypto to sit outside the scope of routine financial oversight.

In this Tech Insight, we look at why IPv6 is now 30 years old, what it was designed to solve, how it works in practice, and why it continues to matter to the modern internet despite never fully replacing IPv4.

What Is IPv6?

IPv6, or Internet Protocol version 6, is the system used to identify devices on the internet and route data between them. Every device connected to the public internet needs an IP address so information can be sent to the correct destination.

IPv6 is the successor to IPv4 and uses a much larger 128 bit address format, allowing vastly more unique addresses. This expansion was designed to ensure the internet could continue to grow as more people, devices, and services came online.

Why Was A New Internet Addressing System Needed?

The origins of IPv6 lie in a problem identified more than three decades ago. Internet Protocol version 4, introduced in the early 1980s, used 32 bit addresses, allowing for around 4.3 billion unique IP addresses. At a time when the internet was largely confined to universities, research institutions, and government networks, that seemed more than sufficient.

By the early 1990s, however, growth was accelerating much faster than expected. Commercial internet service providers were emerging, personal computers were becoming commonplace, and policymakers and engineers began to worry that the available supply of IPv4 addresses would eventually run out. Without addresses, new devices could not connect to the public internet, creating a real risk of slowing innovation and economic growth.

The responsibility for solving this problem fell to the Internet Engineering Task Force, the open standards organisation that develops the technical foundations of the internet. After several years of debate and experimentation, the IETF published RFC 1883 in December 1995, formally defining Internet Protocol version 6.

What Was Different About IPv6?

The most significant change introduced by IPv6 was the expansion of the address space. For example, IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses, increasing the number of possible addresses to approximately 340 undecillion (36 zeros!). In practical terms, this removed address scarcity as a constraint on future internet growth.

IPv6 also introduced a simplified packet header (the addressing and delivery instructions for data) to improve routing efficiency, removed some legacy features that had accumulated in IPv4, and standardised support for multicast traffic. Address assignment was redesigned through stateless address autoconfiguration, which allowed devices to generate their own addresses automatically when connecting to a network, without relying on manual configuration.

Security

Security considerations were part of the design from the outset. For example, support for IPsec was specified within IPv6, reflecting the growing importance of encryption and authentication on the public internet. Even so, IPv6 was deliberately conservative in that it was designed to change as little as possible beyond what was required to address scaling limits.

Not Backward Compatible

However, it’s worth noting here that IPv6 was not designed to be backward compatible with IPv4, i.e., IPv6 cannot directly communicate with IPv4, a decision that proved controversial because devices using one protocol could not directly communicate with devices using the other without translation mechanisms or running both protocols in parallel.

Why IPv6 Did Not Replace IPv4

At the time IPv6 was standardised, many assumed the internet would gradually migrate from IPv4 to IPv6. However, that transition never occurred in a clean or coordinated way.

Instead, network operators adopted Network Address Translation, known as NAT. NAT allows many devices to share a single public IPv4 address by using private address ranges internally. Homes, offices, and even entire mobile networks could connect large numbers of devices while consuming very few public IPv4 addresses.

This workaround fundamentally changed the incentives around IPv6 adoption. NAT was popular because it was relatively easy to deploy, worked with existing equipment, and avoided the need for large scale network redesign. Over time, IPv4 addresses became scarce but still usable, with regional internet registries overseeing address transfers between organisations.

As a result, IPv6 deployment slowed. Vendors had limited motivation to prioritise IPv6 support, and many organisations saw little short term benefit in migrating. Dual stack operation, where IPv4 and IPv6 run side by side, increased complexity and operational cost.

Where IPv6 Has Actually Been Successful

Judging IPv6 purely by whether it replaced IPv4 misses how the protocol is used today. In fact, IPv6 has carried much of the internet’s growth over the past decade, particularly in environments where scaling pressures are highest.

Mobile networks are a clear example. Many operators now deploy IPv6 as the default protocol for smartphones, using translation technologies only when IPv4 connectivity is required. This approach allows mobile providers to connect millions of devices without relying entirely on increasingly complex NAT systems.

Cloud infrastructure also shows a similar pattern. For example, large providers support IPv6 extensively within their internal networks and data centres. New virtual machines and services are often IPv6 capable by default, even if they still need to interoperate with IPv4 clients.

Data from Google, the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, and Cloudflare shows that IPv6 adoption remains uneven worldwide, with global usage hovering in the mid 40 per cent range, some countries exceeding 50 per cent adoption, and others still relying heavily on IPv4.

What IPv6 Means for Modern Internet Architecture

Over the past 30 years, the internet has evolved in ways few engineers anticipated in the 1990s. For example, applications increasingly rely on domain names rather than fixed IP addresses, encryption is now the default for web traffic, and protocols such as QUIC reduce reliance on long lived client addressing by operating at higher layers.

These changes have led some to question whether IP addressing matters as much as it once did. In reality, scalable addressing still underpins everything. Data must still be routed efficiently across global networks, and infrastructure still needs predictable, manageable address allocation.

Simplifies Large Scale Network Design

In fact, IPv6 allows networks to be designed more simply at scale because large address blocks can be allocated hierarchically, which reduces routing complexity and makes networks easier to manage, particularly in data centres, content delivery networks, and emerging Internet of Things deployments where device counts can grow rapidly.

Ongoing Challenges

Despite its advantages, IPv6 is not without its drawbacks. For example, running IPv4 and IPv6 side by side increases operational overhead because security teams must monitor and protect two protocols at once, and misconfigured IPv6 can create unexpected exposure if administrators focus only on IPv4 controls.

Also, some older hardware and software either lacks IPv6 support or implements it poorly, which leads organisations in those environments to disable IPv6 entirely to avoid instability, even though doing so can create long term technical debt.

IPv6 migration also requires planning, testing, and staff training, and analysts at Gartner have repeatedly noted that many organisations struggle to justify IPv6 projects without external pressure such as address exhaustion, cloud pricing models, or regulatory expectations.

Why IPv6 Still Matters in 2026

As the global pool of unused IPv4 addresses has become effectively exhausted, supporting new services, devices, and networks increasingly depends on complex translation layers, which are harder to scale and manage over time, while IPv6 provides a way to support continued growth without compounding that complexity indefinitely.

IPv6 was designed as underlying infrastructure rather than a visible end user technology, with its value lying in the capacity and flexibility it provides to support internet expansion as higher level protocols, encryption, and application architectures continue to evolve.

Viewed in that context, IPv6 has not failed, but has quietly fulfilled its original purpose by allowing the internet to keep growing without breaking under the strain of address scarcity and architectural workarounds.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

IPv6’s 30 year history shows that it was never meant to be a dramatic switchover moment, but a long term safety valve for internet growth, and that role is now clearer than ever. IPv4 continues to function through layers of workarounds, trading markets, and translation systems, while IPv6 quietly carries much of the internet’s newest traffic, particularly where scale and automation matter most. The result is an internet that runs on both protocols at once, not because that was the ideal outcome, but because it proved to be the most practical one.

For UK businesses, this creates a more immediate and pragmatic challenge than a theoretical one. For example, organisations planning cloud migrations, rolling out new digital services, or deploying large numbers of connected devices increasingly need to understand how IPv6 fits into their infrastructure, even if customers never notice it directly. Ignoring IPv6 entirely can introduce hidden risks, from security blind spots to unexpected compatibility issues with cloud platforms and mobile networks that already assume IPv6 support by default.

For network operators, regulators, vendors, and standards bodies, IPv6 remains a reminder that core internet technologies evolve slowly and unevenly, shaped as much by economics and operational reality as by technical design. Thirty years on, IPv6 has neither transformed the internet nor been left behind by it. Instead, it seems to have become part of the underlying fabric that allows the internet to keep expanding, quietly doing the job it was built to do while the debate about its future continues.

The European Commission has renewed its decisions allowing personal data to flow freely between the EU and the UK, confirming that the UK’s data protection framework continues to meet EU standards despite recent legal changes.

Applies To Two Frameworks

The decision, announced on 19 December 2025, extends the EU’s existing data adequacy arrangements with the UK for a further six years, until December 2031. It applies to two parallel frameworks, one under the General Data Protection Regulation and another covering law enforcement data under the Law Enforcement Directive. Together, these decisions determine whether personal data can be transferred from the European Economic Area to the UK without additional safeguards or legal mechanisms.

What Data Adequacy Means In Practice

Under EU law, personal data can only be transferred outside the EU and EEA if the receiving country provides an “adequate” level of protection. Adequacy decisions are adopted by the European Commission and confirm that a third country’s legal and regulatory framework offers protections that are essentially equivalent to those guaranteed under EU law.

For example, when an adequacy decision is in place, organisations can transfer personal data without needing to rely on alternative tools such as standard contractual clauses, binding corporate rules, or case by case risk assessments. For businesses, public bodies, and digital services, this significantly reduces legal complexity, compliance costs, and operational friction.

The UK first received adequacy decisions in 2021, following its departure from the EU. Those decisions were time limited and included a sunset clause, reflecting concerns about future regulatory divergence after Brexit.

Why The Renewal Was Not Automatic

The original UK adequacy decisions were due to expire on 27 December 2025 but, in June 2025, the Commission adopted a technical six month extension to avoid a legal cliff edge while it reassessed the UK’s legal framework. This review was triggered by the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act, which amended aspects of UK data protection law.

The Act introduced targeted changes, including adjustments to how personal data can be used for research and charitable fundraising, alongside new requirements for organisations to operate clearer data protection complaints procedures. The UK government described the reforms as limited and pragmatic rather than a wholesale departure from GDPR, but they nonetheless required close scrutiny by EU regulators.

During the extension period, the Commission assessed whether the amended UK framework continued to meet the threshold of essential equivalence required under EU law. This assessment covered both general data protection under GDPR and the handling of personal data for policing and criminal justice purposes under the Law Enforcement Directive.

The Role Of EU Oversight Bodies

The renewal decision followed a formal process involving EU institutions and Member States. The European Data Protection Board, which brings together national data protection authorities across the EU, issued an opinion on the UK’s legal framework. Member States then gave their approval through the so-called comitology procedure, which allows national representatives to scrutinise and endorse Commission implementing decisions.

Sufficiently Aligned

The Commission concluded that the UK’s safeguards remain sufficiently aligned with EU standards, including in areas such as individual rights, oversight mechanisms, and restrictions on onward transfers of data to other third countries.

As with the original decisions, the renewed adequacy determinations include safeguards designed to monitor future developments. A review of how the arrangements are functioning is scheduled after four years, with the option to amend, suspend, or revoke adequacy if the UK diverges in ways that undermine data protection.

A Six Year Extension With Built In Limits

The renewed adequacy decisions will now run until 27 December 2031 and include a fresh sunset clause. This essentially means adequacy is not permanent and must be actively reassessed in light of legal, political, and technological changes.

From the Commission’s perspective, this structure balances continuity with control. It provides long-term legal certainty for organisations that depend on EU UK data transfers, while preserving the EU’s ability to intervene if standards fall.

For UK businesses, the extension avoids what many had warned would be a serious disruption. The UK is one of the EU’s largest data partners, with personal data flowing daily for purposes including trade, financial services, health research, cloud computing, advertising, and human resources management.

Economic And Operational Significance

Industry groups and legal experts have repeatedly warned that losing adequacy would impose substantial compliance burdens. Organisations would need to put alternative transfer mechanisms in place, reassess international data flows, and potentially redesign systems and contracts at short notice.

Previous estimates from UK industry bodies have suggested that the administrative cost of relying on standard contractual clauses and transfer risk assessments could run into billions of pounds across the economy. Also, smaller organisations, charities, and public sector bodies would likely be hit hardest.

The Commission explicitly highlighted these practical implications in its announcement. Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, said the renewal “benefits businesses and citizens alike on both sides of the Channel”. She added that it “ensures the free flow of personal data between the EEA and the UK in full compliance with data protection rules while reducing costs and administrative burdens”.

Virkkunen also emphasised continuity for European organisations, stating that the decision allows companies to keep sharing data seamlessly with UK partners, supporting innovation, competitiveness, and trusted digital cooperation.

Law Enforcement And Justice Cooperation

The adequacy decision covering law enforcement data is particularly significant because it underpins data sharing between EU Member States and UK authorities for policing, criminal investigations, and judicial cooperation.

Michael McGrath, Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, described the United Kingdom as “an important strategic partner for the European Union”. He said the adequacy decisions “form a central pillar of this partnership” by enabling both commercial exchanges and cooperation in the fields of justice and law enforcement.

McGrath added that the renewal reflects the Commission’s assessment that the UK’s legal framework continues to provide robust safeguards for personal data that remain closely aligned with EU standards, including in the context of recent legislative developments.

Ongoing Concerns And Future Scrutiny

It should be noted here, however, that while the renewal provides stability, it does not remove all uncertainty. Privacy advocates and some EU lawmakers have previously raised concerns about the UK’s approach to surveillance, data sharing with third countries, and the potential for future divergence from GDPR principles.

The four year review mechanism is intended to address these risks by allowing the Commission and the European Data Protection Board to reassess adequacy in light of concrete evidence rather than hypothetical concerns. Any significant weakening of protections could still result in suspension or revocation of the decisions.

For now though, it looks as though the Commission’s renewal signals confidence that the UK remains closely aligned with EU data protection standards, while retaining the ability to revisit that judgement if circumstances change.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The renewal confirms that the EU continues to see the UK as a trusted destination for personal data, despite political separation and limited legal divergence since Brexit. It removes the immediate risk of disruption to data flows that underpin everyday commercial activity, public services, and cross border cooperation. For now, the legal foundations that allow organisations to move personal data between the EU and UK without additional safeguards remain intact.

For UK businesses, this brings practical certainty. For example, companies operating across borders can continue to rely on existing systems, contracts, and data driven services without having to introduce costly transfer mechanisms or redesign operations at short notice. That stability is particularly important for sectors such as finance, technology, healthcare, research, and professional services, where routine access to EU personal data is fundamental rather than optional.

The decision also has wider implications beyond commerce. Continued adequacy supports cooperation between regulators, law enforcement agencies, and public authorities, ensuring that data sharing for policing, justice, and safeguarding purposes can continue without new legal barriers. At the same time, the inclusion of a sunset clause and a four year review reflects the EU’s ongoing caution, making clear that adequacy depends on sustained alignment rather than historical precedent.

Taken together, the renewal appears to strike a careful balance. In essence, it signals confidence in the UK’s current data protection framework while reinforcing that future reforms will be judged against EU standards. For businesses and other stakeholders, the takeaway message is that the current framework offers breathing space and legal certainty, but long-term stability will depend on how closely the UK continues to track core principles of EU data protection law.