Slashdot Mirror
What About IPv6? How Long Until Widespread Deployment?
Christopher Blood asks: "Over at the register, they talk about the EU adopting IPv6. So what about the USA? When do we get it?
IPv6 would solve some and DOS problems and we will need the extra address space. What's the holdup?" While IPv6 may be the cure for all of our IPv4 ills, upgrading the whole internet to the new technology isn't going to happen over night. What has been done to prepare for the jump, and what still needs to happen before it can become a reality?
At my university, IPv6 has been deployed since last year, maybe longer. I've been running FreeBSD w/ IPV6 for at least that long. Honestly, it hasn't made that big a difference for me :)
Given that Lucent's CEO said today that he does not see the telecom equipment market turning around anytime soon, a government initiative to upgrade the core routers to IPv6 would help boost the battered sector of the economy. Granted, Lucent shot themselves in the foot last year (several times) and upgrade to IPv6 might just result in a higher volume of spam.....
Is IPv6 backwards compatible with IPv4?
slashdot!=valid HTML
I guess not in close future. When free IPV4 addresses run out, large address blocks reserved to big companies etc become very valuable. So, if you want addresses which work 100% of the time, you'll have to cough up money for the companies to get them. It will be that simple. Really.
I would like to know how close the backbone through the US is to being IPv6 ready. Anyone that knows care to respond?
I emailed RR a while back about their plans for IPv6, and despite several back-and-forth email exchanges, never did find anyone who had even HEARD of IPv6, much less get details on their rollout plans for it. Doesn't look too promising for cable-modem users.
good article here. not a goatse link. really.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
When corporate America determines they can make a profit from it.
sPh
For real development we have to wait for established companies to roll out .NET platform.
So do speak Microsoft has the last voice. When they say go, we go.
it might be a while...that is always the case with decentralized network systems...
It would cost mucho dinero to upgrade all the infrastructure to support it. But, IPv4 and IPv6 can coexist. The prob is that 50% of lan equipment isn't upgradable. Telcos wont want to float the bill, they'll pass the buck to you.
Woot, most common excuse for downtime.... "upgrading."
YAEUU: Yet Another Expensive Useless Upgrade
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
IPv6 will fix a lot of problems, but one nasty side effect is that we're going to end up with addresses that look like 3ffe:400:34:fd01::1, instead of the easily memorizable four octets. When that day comes, it's going to be a lot harder to shout down the IP of the game server you're playing on down the hall.
r o-one,not(?),one. What's taking you so long?!?"
"Oh, I'm on three-f-f-e-four,four-zero-zero,three-four,f-d-ze
And look what you do with it.
IPV6 is better. Autoconfiguration, neighbor discovery, big address space, compatability with IPV4, etc. However, the more hacks we put in to make IPV4 work the harder it is to change. For the most part we're educating people to do "Stupid IPV4 Tricks" rather than moving to IPV6. The more of that we do the harder it is to change. Also, the more ominous the prospect of change, the more people will dread it.
Frankly, I'm thinking we might see another round, like IPV7 (or IPV8 if they make a habit of skipping odd numbers), or it might come very late. Maybe we'll see it on phones and wireless devices before we see wide-spread adoption of IPV6 or general purpose networking.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
A reward system needs to be enacted to entice the ISP's to provide unencumbered access to the 6-bone. ISP's that handle dial-up users can tunnel the ip4 traffic on behalf of their customers.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Heheh
I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.
In my opinion, IPv6 should be started alongside of IPv4, allowing people to jump back and forth to either. I wouldn't be suprised if the bigger backbone providers did testing like this, and if they aren't already. Everyone will be dying to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon sure enough.
"i can never say no to anyone but you"
A while back everyone thought we would run out of IP addresses by now...that hasn't turned out to be the case. Conservative estimates place the date about 20 years out.
Not that that's the only reason to do it...but that's one that might get everyone off their butts to do something about it.
as soon as we USians switch to the metric system.
In seattle, a company started about a year and a half ago called Zama, they were poised to deliver the first world-class IPv6 Colo facility in the USA, and now, less than 12 months after they launch a completely state of the art facility, they are gone. Zama.net no longer points anywhere. The reason? Nobody needs IPv6 yet. I'm sorry, but we don't need 19 million or however many millions of IP addresses for each person on the planet just yet. I know, it's a shame, as I was just about to launch the new Gilette MachIPv6 Razor, with a full web interface to monitor individual blade sharpness, but alas, now I'll have to launch the plain old IPv4 version. How will I ever manage?
The main reason we aren't seeing widespread IPV6 is that it's not backwards compatable wiht IPv4. This being the case we would essentially have to replace every server in the US to get IPv6 to work.
Other solutions like tunneling,translation and dual stack do exist. However all of these technologies(except dual stack) have limited capabilities.
Having a Dual Stack(one that supports both IPv4 and IPv6) seems to be the most obious solution for the transition. However, this still requires the replacement of servers accross the World.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
As long as companies and institutions keep hiring IT managers whose only technical knowledge lies in the realm of the Redmond, new technology will be implemented slowly. Every company or institution I either work or consult for now with a pro Microsoft IT manager is well behind the curve. The Linux/Unix pro IT managers I deal with already have IPV6.
The problem could be solved very quickly for some time just by limiting the IP pools for some of the big U.S. universities. Some of them have more IP addresses than e.g. China.
Not a permanent sollution but...
Lars Bo Wassini
At the moment, IP VI is just a name to most network and systems administrators. My Linux boxes have VI support but I've never looked at it.
When there's available information about where to get addresses, configuring routes, netmasks, gateways, setting up name services etc. All the admin stuff that's done on a daily basis with IP IV.
At the moment nobody knows what they have to do in order to setup and use IP VI.
Deleted
I've thought about running v6 at home and connecting up to the 6bone. However, the list of instructions was long and complex, and it was unclear to me that my existing ipchains based firewall code would continue to protect me. It was also unclear that I could enhance the ipchains rules to protect myself.
I quite like the idea of being able to expose multiple devices on different IP addresses, but it is (still) a non-trivial exercise.
On a side note, I'd like to see more deployment of multicast -- this could help Internet Radio stations significantly in the future. Yes, there aren't good multicast clients at the moment, but that is because there is little multicast to listen to, and no way of getting multicast to the end user. Lobby your ISP for multicast!
p.s. In case you think that I'm an idiot for not being able to configure IPv6 on Linux -- I'll tell you that I was kernel contributer in the pre-1.0 kernels.
The biggest "What if?" is that if China's population keeps growing, we will definitely need IPv6 soon. But since everything in Red China runs through proxy servers, where's the problem? Just use NAT!
I can see telcos and corporations using it. For them, the advantages are great. But for consumers? The hassles would seem to outweigh the benefits.
I thought WindowsXP solved all our DOS problems...
ba-dum pshhhhhh
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
We are back to the old days of AT&T taking 20 years to roll out a new service... this will end up being like "Touch Tone" which we are all still paying for.
OS vendors just need to start supporting it and network/system administrators need to start implementing it. For instance Solaris comes with the option of enabling IPV6 but keeping continued functionality with IPV4, it allows for migration. Openbsd does this as well I believe and I've started to see some Linux distro's do the same. Now all we need to do is actually implement it. Alot of people seem to be afraid of IPV6 because of the hex but if you spend a month or two with it; it becomes easier. I recommend some solid reading on IPV4 as well as the IP in general.
But you can have 192.168.0.4
:o)
And 127.0.0.1
The speed of time is one second per second.
Some people have asked whether we can have both systems and 'switch' between them. Sure you can, but it's not worth it.
As far as I recall (been a long time since I studied this), IPv6 and IPv4 can actually live and work together on the same network.. without being independent.
That is, IPv6 can be used on the backbones and to connect the larger networks, but IPv4 can still be used at a more local level. Gateways can be established that will translate addresses and the benefits of having far more addresses available can be realized.
However, one problem with running both protocols and using a gateway is that the only benefit you get is having more addresses.. but since we're running out of IP addresses with v4, this is kinda important. A local v4 and backbone v6 solution wouldn't help solve local DOS problems, or allow us to use any of v6's advanced features.
But is an Internet wide upgrade to IPv6 really a viable thing to do? It'd be like converting the US to drive on the left side of the road overnight. Even if you did it state by state, you're gunna have major troubles at the state borders.. converting the Net over to IPv6 will be the same.
That said, there is a network called the 6Bone which you can join up to and actually play with IPv6 stuff from your existing IPv4 network. Go, and get your own IPv6 address today!
(Disclaimer: As I said, I studied IP way too long ago, so any updates, corrections or just plain disagreements with my post are welcomed, and indeed encouraged.)
mogorific carpentry experiments
&& 0.0.0.0
;)
Most of the people I know haven't even upgraded to IPv5 yet!
Come on people, it's 2002!
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Some exploits used to produce DOS attacks are not present in IPV6. I guess that is what he was getting at.
But I'm already using 192.168.0.4 ;-)
I'm gonna stake out one of those big 10. class A's and use it all over my network.
My experiences with IP6 and Debian woody:
- inetd is fucked up accepts only connections to
::1, no other addresses supported which makes the box practically unreachable from outside
- netstat/route etc don't support ip6, only ifconfig
- if ip6 is supported then no or only crippled documentation existd
These are only a few issus. Unless these thing get fixed fast then FreeBSD will replace Linux at most professional environments.Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Heck, you are the only first-world nation that doesn't use metric, and that's easy to figure out.
Yup, a ball and chain slowing down progress....
I doubt it'll really take off until the benefits of an upgrade outweigh the costs of new infrastructure and the loss of value of existing IPv4 address space.
look at it this way, 90% of the net traffic is porn. all of the protocols that porn is viewed over can be tunnelled over http. http proxies are everywhere, and a decent web proxy can send and receive both ipv4 and ipv6. poc.
With purchases of new hardware shrinking along with the economy, wouldn't these equipment makers be in a perfect position to benefit from adaptation of IPv6?
The problem is that shrinking sales has caused a huge amount of hardware to be stockpiled at Cisco warehouses. IIRC, last year they had over 5 Giga$ worth of accumulated unsold hardware. They need technology to stand still for a while, so they can sell part of that obsolete inventory.
The biggest roadblocks I see are technical issues:
Routing - We now have over 5 BILLION subnets to route on the backbone. Name one piece of Cisco hardware that can traverse a routing tables with 5,000,000,000 entries in less than 10ms.
DNS - The great debate of AAAA vs A6 vs somthing else. And while we're at it, is an extension on the exiting DNS system worth it, or should we go to somthing better.
Security - Do we trust Verisign enough to continue issuing all the certificates that make the internet more secure? Do we trust them enough to keep name resolution secure? Can we use crypto on the Internet without worring about severe criminal penalties?
And on top of that there are the political issues. IPv6 will solve problems, but it will cost money. The world likes "bug fixes" and "service packs" better than product replacment. Remeber, upgrades can be hidden in support costs while new products require management approval.
IPv6 is coming, but prob. not until the entire far-east (India, China, etc) are as on-line as the west. IPv6 will be implemented out of desparation, and not by any IETF mandate. Of course, I have been wrong before.
-Carl "No, we already thought of that one. 'Why?' '42' - It doesn't fit." -Hitchhiker'
OK, I am about to say something that will make many of you who are knowledgable about IPV6 cringe, so take a deep breath and get over it now.
When IPV6 is deployed, how do I prevent the machines on the inside of my firewall from being routable?
Right now, my personal computer is on the inside of a NAT firewall. There is no way you can route a packet to it - go ahead, try to telnet to 10.200.120.4, I dare you.
Now, I know there are those who say NAT CONSIDERED HARMFUL, and I agree in the general case it does break the essential peer to peer nature of TCP/IP.
But what if I want to break it?
How well tested are the Linux kernel modules for firewalling IPv6? Can I still protect my internal machines from the slings and arrows of outragous 5|<197 |<!66!3Z?
www.eFax.com are spammers
This long annoying sentence here to get around an annoying slashcode bug, because it can't count.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
They have tons of money invested in hardware they don't want to replace. Sticking to IPv4 makes it easy to keep user bases behind short-lease DHCP, which helps to keep the average user from mounting a public server that'll eat bandwidth the ISP doesn't want to provide.
Also a few Cisco points: 1) While some routers do support IPv6, the cheaper ones don't, and a decent percentage of older high end routers have routing algs implimented in semi-custom silicon - not software upgradable! 2) The enterprise network management software is lagging behind in IPv6 support last I heard (I used to work there), not much demand.
Another thought that occurred to me is that the predicted explosion of TCP/IP-enabled devices never really took off. It's interesting to see how many devices instead use USB, or serial, or some other means still to connect to eachother, instead of TCP/IP over Ethernet. This is something that I think was overlooked in earlier predictions.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
Personally I'm more farmilar with netBSD, there IPv6 package list can be viewed here.
Most of the BSD's also have great multicast support and mbone packages.. Jim
WeFunk
Suppose I take my home network (2 computers + 1 firewall), all running some form of highly modded Slackware, and switch the internal local net to IPv6 while leaving the connection from the firewall out as IPv4. Thus the 2 computers would be completely IPv6 while the firewall would have one IPv6 nic and one IPv4 nic. I have to change all dotted quad network addresses (such as in /etc/hosts); what else is there to do? Will existing software go along with the change without recompiling? Or even with a simple recompile?
I bet there's some FAQ somewhere that someone will find using Googole. AIA
Infuriate left and right
no it doesn't, its worse. its o'reilly creepy animals.....
Ummm, err, say what, now?
One thing I've noticed is that there's an awful lot of organizations (well, certainly a big handful) which have entire allocations of the old Class As. But virtually all their IP address space is hidden and non-public. People like the United States Postal Service (56.0.0.0 - 56.255.255.255), IBM (9.0.0.0 - 9.255.255.255). These organizations have barely a handful of publically-visible IP addresses, but these massive blocks in the IPv4 space. The USPS has 24 million IP addresses in their block, but probably less actually visible than a small Midwestern mom-and-pop ISP.
Why aren't these organizations told that they have, say, 2 years to move to a private 10.x.x.x network, thus freeing many millions of IPv4 addresses, instead of forcing small organizations to come up with huge justifications for a very small number of addresses?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
A major showstopper may be Windows.
.
.
Let's see. To be widely deployed on WAN networks, IPv6 should first be widely deployed on local LANs.
It works very well on Unix systems. My little personal network has a bunch of OpenBSD and Linux boxes, 100% IPv6, and everything works like a charm.
But what about Windows?
I tried it with Windows 2000. Because the OS doesn't support IPv6 natively, I had to download a patch (and it's not very easy to find, I can't remember the exact URL, the link was posted on a ML a while ago)
Before the patch applied I had a big fat warning "Disclaimer: this is very alpha software, your OS can become extremely unstable. Don't call the Microsoft technical support any more after that, we won't answer" (the words were different, but it was the meaning)
And indeed. The system went very unstable, even for IPv4 requests. IE worked. *some* command-line tools worked. But third party packages like Mirc, CuteFTP and Opera crashed with no further warning.
It looks like there's no effort in the Windows world to provide IPv6-enabled software. This is a major showstopper.
{{.sig}}
I think that it will be a while before you start seeing a lot of upgrades to support IPv6. Most ISP are still in a lot of debt from installing the first round of equipment. With the industry in such bad shape, it is hard to believe that any of them will be shelling out the bucks to upgrade to v6 until there is a major incentive to do so.
With all of the things that IPv6 provides, I don't see anything in the short term that is going to necessitate a move. As long as we can work around the existing problems, nobody is going to invest the money in an upgrade.
I'm a geek and would love to see it happen but you have to convince the guy with the MBA that he can make money by investing in the upgrades. I don't see the economic incentive right now.
HE has a point! "Hey, buddy, I'm on server bigfatpipe.edu, get into the frag frenzy!"
Originally people said "hey, these IP addresses, they're too long, and they're wierd. let's correlate them with real names." It's the same thing for MAC addresses (via ARP and RARP), it's the same thing for IPv4 addy's, and it'll be the same thing for IPv6 addys.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Last I heard, the USA will go IPv6 when we convert to metric.
...
So figure about 2132 at the rate we're going
-:(
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I don't think the problem is in the backbone. It's at the edge. Do all applications (emacs, gnus, mozilla, ssh, flash, real et al) and servers (apache, oracle, innd, sendmail et al) know how to deal with IPv6?
In my work, I've written a lot of IPv4 clients and servers, and none of them support IPv6 addresses.
Marko
Actually, IP version 5 was assigned to a protocol called STII, which tried to do resource reservation for IP (similar to RSVP) but was never adopted much (aside from some experiments in Germany).
So the next number really will be IPv7 -- it's just a question of who asks for it. Quick, go write an Internet Draft and then call for a BOF!
Cisco now has IPv6 in Cisco IOS 12.2T and higher:
v 6_techdoc.shtml
::1
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/ipv6/ip
At least in the kernel on Red Hat 7.1, they
do not enable IPv6 by default:
% ping6
socket: Address family not supported by protocol
Does Debian enable IPv6 support in their kernel
by default?
If there was a mainline Linux distro that
supported IPv6 out of the box, that would be
one way to stir up demand for it.
Most of the Linux IPv6 work is going on in Japan, not in the U.S.:
http://www.linux-ipv6.org
The Linux IPv6 work doesn't seem to be the major focus of the core Linux kernel developers these days.
Who the phuckamania cares what other freaks are running? My linux box can be running IPV4 or IPV6, doesn't help the adoption of IPV6 if I never run it in IPV6 mode. True for windows, apple, hpux and every other os. Sweet linus can you folks please not bring the devil into every conversation? Stare into the abyss long enough and you will find it staring back. Huckamania running wild!
Whatever Cisco decides, it will be the consensus in the networking world. What they know that we don't is that they are in deep financial trouble. Their worldwide employee layoff figures last year were in the five-figures range. Their troubles started when they implemented a sophisticated market analysis system that predicted increasing router sales throughout 2001. That software was so "advanced" that they refused to believe their sales people when they started telling management that they couldn't possibly sell so many routers.
How Long Until Widespread Deployment?
:)
About 15 years.
After the introduction of the SSSCA in 2003, Microsoft dominated the US OS market. While other countries switched to IPv6, America was forced to use the proprietary protocal built into windows (thanks to auto-updates) which included advanced DRM, IP tracking and P2P restrictions - as a standard client, your computer could only connect to a 'server' i.e a Windows machine running Windows Server Edition with a valid federal license. The internet was effectively split in 2 - USA, and the rest of the world (troll: this didn't matter as most US citizens didn't know about the 'rest of the world' lol
It wasn't until the great Microsoft witch hunt of 2017, when 4000 Microsoft employees where burnt at the stake after the SSSCA was lifted (well, not lifted per say, actually, someone just blew-up congress)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
IPV6 is better. Autoconfiguration, neighbor discovery, big address space, compatability with IPV4, etc
IPv6 is in NO way compatable with IPv4. Have you even looked at the specifications? I cann't believe you got modded up for this.
Frankly, I'm thinking we might see another round, like IPV7 (or IPV8 if they make a habit of skipping odd numbers), or it might come very late. Maybe we'll see it on phones and wireless devices before we see wide-spread adoption of IPV6 or general purpose networking.
You truly have no clue do you.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Anybody that insists in saying "GNU/Linux" has such a convoluted way of "thinking" that they must be totally unable to evoke the sharp and fast thinking IPv6 demands. BTW, I absolutely refuse to call my car a "GoodYear/Chevrolet"!
Only slightly off-topic.
...), and store the citizen's accounts. There would be no personal transit other than Segway (ha ha), bicycle, and sneakers. And it could all be run on IPv6. Every device in the home, every device on workplace, and every device in the 'big blue room' would be managed on a very fast, very stable, very redundant IPv6 network.
... no way man.
A friend of mine (ZettaMatrix) and I were in our usual "Wouldn't it be cool if..." mode the other night and came up with a rather interesting proposal.
If you could find roughly 35,000 volunteers who would be willing to spend no less than four years in something similar to a city wide 'Bio-Dome', we could learn a lot about our technology and where we need to go next. They would have to be willing to give up everything they've got to live in this place though.
A city the size of my town, powered by nuclear energy, and chalkful of all of today's coolest technologies. The only energy source would be nuclear electricity. Housing complexes (modern appartments only) would be wired with fiber, power, and plummed (water in, sewage out). There would be no copper or coax. The city would have a massive server to monitor all the automated mass transit systems (maglev, electic monorail, electric bus
Finding enough employement and generating an economy would be difficult, but I think it could be done. It could use the "Heaven's Gate" approach and use web design as its primary source of external income. Or technology consulting - because you know it'd be 75% geeks. "We're testing the future so you don't have to. Now give us some money!"
It would have to be a fully functioning city - almost completely independant of outside resources. It would have to supply the majority of its own food, and deal with the majority of its own waste. SimCity 3000 - full scale.
The issue would be getting it all started. I'd be one of the first to sign up, as long as it's not named after what I'm sure would be one of the biggest funding companies. "The Microsoft City"
~LoudMusic
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Even if your ISP doesn't support IPv6, you can use 6to4 to start using IPv6 today. It's much easier and more efficient than the 6bone. Since IPv6 allows a host to have multiple addresses, the eventual transition from 6to4 to native IPv6 will be seamless.
Cisco released IPv6 IOS images back in June with IOS 12.2(2)T. Note that this was the first commerical release, there was a earlier EFT release about for quite some time that served as a beta. The major features are there: IPv6 routing, support for stateless autoconfig, IPv6 address family support in MBGP, support for RIPng. No other routing protocols yet.
You can check out Cisco's IPv6 page for more information.
Juniper also has IPv6 available, here how to configure IPv6 on JUNOS 5.1.
Huh? IOS 12.2 does support IPv6, I recall a Cisco TAC newsletter from midway through *last* year stating that their TACs are willing and prepared to support IPv6.
12.2 hasn't reached a GD release yet, but it is pretty widely used anyway - especially if you want to run DSL.
get your free ipv6 tunnel many places, including www.freenet6.net. THe latest, official, IPv6 address policy is that everyone (you, too) will get a /48.
Yes, the official, IAB/IESG RFC 3177 recommendation!
Why are you waiting? ../Steven
has www.wraith.sf.ca.us on the 6bone
The USA is the only country in the whole world that doesn't use the International System. And, as the people at NASA have learned, to convert from inches to millimeters, you multiply by $250 million... It's often much cheaper to throw away your obsolete systems than to try to live with obsolescence.
Actually YOU don't know what you're talking about. I'm in the process of implementing IPV6 (part of Solaris 8) on a group of servers as a testbed. IPV6 can be tunnelled over IPV4, also IPV6 can co-exist on the same network. Some routers can also handle routing both IPV6 and IPV4 traffic. In fact, it's a simple translation between 6 and 4 addresses (If you assume the unused portion of the address are zeros.) In fact it's easy to distinguish 4/6 traffic becaue the protocol version number is in the ip packet header.
There was supposed to be an IPV5 but it got skipped. Given the investment in IPV4 and the time it will take to upgrade networks, educate network administrators, and for the hardware to become affordable even on low end routers/switches, we might never see IPV6 deployed. We might see the generation after that deployed, call it 6A, 7, or (as a little joke about the fact 5 was skipped) 8.
One area where we may see 6 deployed is for addressable devices, such as phones. In this case the wireless company controlls the network. My Verizon account offers a limitted and filterred version of WAP, for example.
If you're going to call me a moron, at least be right about it
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
From the point of view of any individual organization, there are no reasons to switch to IPv6 right now. First movers receive no benefits at all: in fact, it only makes communicating with the rest of the (currently IPv4) internet more difficult. Moreover, I imagine that many businesses large enough to have an impact already have a large IPv4 address block, and have a vested interest in discouraging others from making the switch:
The various hacks available for IPv4 do the job. I can easily imagine a scenario where Cisco doesn't push IPv6 routers hard enough in the future, and people invest more and more in NATs and so forth, making a global switch harder and harder as time goes on.
The fundamental problem is that IPv6 doesn't provide any short-term killer benefits, and that's what's necessary for an evolution to take place. My prediction (though predicting acceptance of technologies is always risky, so I may well turn out to be wrong) is that we will still be using an IPv4 internet in a decade.
So they can take a biometric of yours, like your retina scan or your dna and give you an ip address that's a hash of it. Whenever you use the internet anywehere you have to get a retina scan that creates your ip address that is mapped back to you.
All you geeks jump on board like you need this many IP addresses.
seems like belgium is way ahead of u guys, all our backbones (of belnet, the belgium backbone maintainer) are ipv6 with the ipv4 tunneled in the ipv6 seems like they where ahead of the heard and that the switch here should impose no significant problems
The article reminds me of the CLNP mandate that european and american goverments instituted back in the early 90s. CLNP was going to replace IPv4 mostly because of two reasons:
- It had longer addresses and pretty much the same
functionality
- It wasn't a DARPA project. Chauvinism is still a major factor and while the EU and Japan feel that they contributed to CLNP/IPv6 development. IPv4 was seen as an american defense project and thus politically unplesant.
If you review the american GOSIP, the IAB declaration of that CLNP was going to be the next-generation IP protocol and the european political efforts in the same direction, this seems a perfect carbon copy.
I guess than whenever clueless politicians get involved in chosing technology the results are always the same...
The economic cost of replacing IPv4 for the fashion of the moment (CLNP, IPv6) is astronomical and will not happen unless there are very significant benificts to those that pay the cost.
Fact of the matter is that most people couldn't care less than the chinese do not have enought IP addresses. The internet is still centered around the US in political topology and economic terms.
I do not see US network and information service providers switching to CLNP anytime soon because there are not enought IP addresses in China. There simply is no economic justification to do so.
My major beef with IPv6 is that while it is a research toy it isn't a very interesting one...
It is basically IPv4 with bigger addresses... for that we could have sticked with CLNP and TUBA the last time around.
I would say it is time the academic community stops wasting time on IPv6 and move on to research projects with real research value...
If you are interested in playing with IPv6, try to get a tunnel via www.freenet6.net.
They're supporting devices running *BSD, Linux, Win*, Solaris, HP-UX and Cisco IOS.
bash$
Duke has had IPv6 available on resnet since at least some time during the '99-'00 academic year, so at least two and nearly three years. You just had to know who to ask to get an IP address :)
IAAL,BIANLY
It's not north america thats going to drive IPv6, it's Europe and Asia where they're already starting to feel the address squeeze.
Ask your dialup isp for a static IP account, and they might tell you about another company who will give it to you for $80/month.
Maybe you aren't, but I am definatly feeling the lack of addresses.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
5 is an odd number, therefore it's a "development" version.
AOL has over 33 Million subscribers; MSN has over 7 (really! see: here ) Until they do it, no e-business site out there is going to want to have a non-IPv4 address, or risk not getting online business from all those customers who obviously are willing to pay way too much money (for an ISP, at least).
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
While it may sound neat to say, ``go ahead, try to telnet to 10.200.120.4,'' it doesn't exactly work that way.
/; etc...) and had it output the mail to me (couldn't see the output from the CGI). I figured out the web server user had a shell and a writable home directory, and the machine had ssh (client and server installed). I generated a private key and had it mail me the public version of that key, then I added it to my authorized_keys and installed my public key in the web server's authorized_keys. Then I had the web server user ssh to my host with remote port forwarding back into the web server's 22. ssh -p 2222 localhost and I'm sitting in a shell on the web server (192.168.something).
Does this machine on 10.200.120.4 have the ability to make direct outbound connections? Assuming yes, does you realize that the only difference between an inbound connection and an outbound connection is who sent the first packet?
Many people tend to believe that the *only* security risk they have to worry about is inbound SYN packets, so they base their entire security policy on stopping bad inbound packets. The last two sites I broke into, I did so by tricking a machine to come to me. Just for humor, here are the two scenarios:
The first one was quite a while ago, and I did it at contract. A co-worker found a potential hole in a CGI, but nobody took it seriously. By sending the right data through the CGI, I found that I could make it execute arbitrary commands. First, I did some basic stuff (id; ls -lR
The next time I saw something like this, it was out in the wild. There was a web server that was running a CGI that *seemed* like it was probably just handing the input over to a command, so I gave it a shot. This time, the web server didn't have a usable home directory, so the ssh thing was out, but it did have X installed, so I fired up a VNC server, opened it to the world and opened an xterm up in it. Before too long, I had an entire X desktop running on some guy's web server. I sent the local admin an E-mail (through pine) letting him know what was wrong and recommending he fix it before someone meaner than I am comes along.
Anyway, point of the story. Having an unroutable IP address is good internet security as long as you keep it unrouted. Once you give the thing direct internet access, the unroutability of it becomes much less relevant.
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
They did have the Global IPv6 Summit in Japan last december. They're also required by law to switch to IPv6. I forgot the year, but it should be within a decade.
Mobile IP-based networks, like GPRS and 3G. We're talking of hundreds of millions of roaming users. That's (one of) the reason why GPRS networks are based on IPv6.
That said, on the Internet it will take many more years, maybe up to two decades. As some have said in this thread already, there is no immediate benefit nor any pressing need that couldn't be solved using NAT or similar technologies.
And BTW, my experience with IPv6 and engineers shows that they hate IPv&, the more they get familiar with it. Yep, I dislike it myself.
Sigged!
I'll start using IPv6 when the backbones start using IPv6 and I can get IPv6 addresses from my ISP.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Point about "certified" but unknowledgeable network admins acknowledged. That isn't Microsoft's fault.
Microsoft actually saw this one coming and realized that without full implementation of IP6
they would be out of the QoS loop. That is, GUARANTEED CONTIGUOUS FAT BANDWIDTH across a judiciously determined fixed router path wouldn't be available to their customers. Not to mention how they'll benefit from the mitigating effect of much needed packet level security improvements.
There are many benefits to IP6 that will not be mentioned in this cliched opinion slinging forum. Having multiple UNBROKEN realtime (sic) camera feeds from any location on the Earth's surface is only ONE of the future benefits of IP6.
I'd love to hear other people's views about how the new protocol will actually change our use of the internet. For example, will ISPs continue to thrive when routers are measuring exact "mileage" per customer? Kinda replaces the watermelon seed effect of free flowing packet switching with supply and demand issues. "not your hose, my hose. use the other hose. wait, that's his hose now. but you can use it for double. too much? ok, try that chain of three hoses over there to get to the same grass. cheaper? nice."
--
OK, lot's of misinformation posted on this topic so far. The real problem is that the routing tables are the limit. As it stands now, even with tossing-out all of the announcements smaller than a /24, the routing table still takes almost 64 Mbytes. So, a switch to IPv6 would require 4x the RAM (addresses are longer), and cisco has enough trouble now with the current routing table size, so you think we're ready now? Even if we went to IPv6, the real problem, getting the addresses you need, won't happen, because ARIN will still have to be greedy with the blocks, because the routers just can't handle more routes.z
I think one of the problem's that will be faced when moving to IPv6 is troubleshooting connectivity between legacy IPv4 networks and newer IPv6 networks. As someone who works with firewalls daily, I can tell you troubleshooting applications (proxies, backup clients), network devices (routers, layer-4 switches) and firewalls is a nightmare with IPv4. I can't begin to imagine the horror of having to include IPv6 into the fray.
Until I see network engineers who know how to reliably debug traffic flowing across their routers and application implementors who actually know how their application's protocols work, I know that I'll be very very afraid to recommend IPv6 (simply from a troubleshooting perspective).
Since troubleshooting is often the majority of a network engineers/firewall admins role, I see this as a major impediment to moving to IPv6.
-h
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
s/on/one/
There are ISPs starting to deploy this stuff, primarily driven by the Voice-Over-IP market. For the most part, what matters isn't prioritization on their 10Gbps backbone, where there's plenty of room for everybody - it's prioritization on the T1 line to your building, or in the oversubscribed DSL network to your house. One of the real issues becomes policy at the interfaces between ISPs - Little Local ISPs care about this a lot, but most of the Tier 1 players have the view that "Why should I provide special support for the connection between me and my competitors - I'd rather sell you the prioritized connections on your whole network where I can manage it all (and get all the money, and provide realistic guarantees of service quality, and get all the money)."
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Most OS vendors (both free and $$$) are shipping IPv6 today in their latest versions - the biggest holdout being Apple (and I have heard that MacOS 10.2 will support it)
A technology called 6to4 lets any host with a single IPv4 address act as a router for up to 2**80 IPv6 hosts and use the existing IPv4 network to route the packets. When routing to other hosts using 6to4, the packets go directly to their destinations; when routing to other IPv6 hosts, the packets go to the nearest router that can relay between the two. (using an IPv4 anycast address). See RFCs 3056 and 3068 for details on how it works. 6to4 isn't as widely supported as native v6 (yet) but it already seems to work with NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and Win/XP, and M$ provides code you can download to use 6to4on some other M$ systems.
No additional support is needed from the network, though there is less overhead if the network is upgraded to support v6 natively.
I use IPv6 every day to communicate between my home and work machines, over an IPv4 network.
I imagine I'd have to upgrade the firmware again.
While my Linux box is configurable and my OS X box is probably configurable, I've got two OS9 boxes that I'll have to wait on Apple to convert.
But I agree, IPv6 is the way to go.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Or try to imagine an internet where every single computer is a gateway to an entirely different internet.
science is a religion
Like phone numbers that have the corresponding alphabet letters, this could be an opportunity to the #1 industry on the net. Since 8 characters can fit into the IP6 address, that means a lot more possibilities to spell 7072::6e7a.
There will be NATv6 whether you like it or not, and regardless of what the RFCs say about it. There are legitimate uses for it. I may want to have the same hostname for a variety of different services, but put those services on different machines behind the firewall. There's a form of NAT for that. I may want to load balance 1000 servers to one name (which DNS will limit to just a few IPs at most ... and don't forget that AAAA records take more space out of the response packet than A records do). I may want to hide my internal infrastructure and make everything appear to be right at the border. And perhaps I just don't want to upgrade some server to IPv6, preferring to leave it at IPv4, and let the NAT present IPv6 to the world while my intranet sees it as IPv4.
Since we already have mastered the logic needed in a variety of forms of network address translation, IPv6 is just a matter of some code changes to accomodate the larger IP address.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The number of domains registered peaked a while back, and I think the number of Internet users dropped a bit last quarter. Is the number of IP addresses in use still increasing, or has that peaked, too.
The way I see it, there's a four phase cycle keeping IPv4 the standard for the internet for a long time to come.
1.) ISPs want to charge more for sharing a connection and a smaller address space gives ISPs justification to charge more for corporate users than home users. They already heavily frown upon the use of NAT (unless you pay more for them to set up your LAN for you). So why don't the ISP's just separate the concepts of bandwitdth and addressing?
2.) The backbone is overtaxed as it is. Currently the home user's connection speed is limited more by intermediate links than by their connection, even if the user is just using a 33.6 modem. A small address space provides an easy method of limiting bandwidth use. So why don't they just upgrade the backbone?
3.) IP address space is the primary driving factor in connection costs, more so than bandwidth. Most tier 1's more or less own their address blocks and stand to make money hand over fist as the price of using a single address skyrockets. If a tier 1 wants to make more money, it makes better economic sense to buy more address space than to put in faster connections. So why not jump to IPv6 to increase the address space by an order of magnitude squared so the big guys can focus on the bandwidth trouble? Tier 1 folks will make money no matter what, right?
4.) A larger address space opens up the ISP industry to small competitors. While most ISPs are owned or operated by large corporations that can afford the pricey IPv4 addresses, IPv6 stands to give every man, woman and child on the planet a bigger address space than many tier 1's currently have in IPv4. The low-level ISP scene under IPv6 could very well look a lot like the BBS/internet scene of ten years ago. Not to mention all the private little portals that could end up competing with MSN and Yahoo (with or without a DNS name). But still, the little guys could probably make a stab at making that happen with IPv4, using NAT to drive down the cost of a small IP address block. Why don't they do that?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It's 128 Bit. You need to double your number a few more times. I get about 3.4*10^38 unique addresses. Which is quite a bit more.
[Bandwidth used up by bigger headers]
Actually, it doesn't really make that much difference.
An IPv4 header is actually quite difficult to process for hardware routers because it can have a length of anywhere between 20 and 60 bytes.
An IPv6 header on the other hand consists of a main header with a fixed length of 40 bytes and possible extension headers which do not need to be processed on all systems.
The 40 bytes of the IPv6 main header includes the 128 bit source and destination addresses.
The IPv6 headers are actually quite efficient and are designed in such a way that they can be easily processed by hardware.
So no, there will not be a BIG increase in bandwidth because of the headers.
OK, just because you gave the challenge - IPv5 was the development version of IPv6... moron :)
SIG: HUP
As other posters have pointed out, BSD has it...microsoft probably just has not come up with a proper 'embrace and extend' logistic for it... (yet)
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
The British hecklers in the audience may wish to remember that they are the only first-world nation without a written constitution.
And yet which country's people are currently more at risk of loosing their freedom (DMCA, terrorist pirates, etc)? You're acting like not having a constitution (assuming it's true) is equivalent to being lawless. It's still illegal to murder someone in Britain and, last time I checked, there was freedom of the presses by law. A constitution is just law that's hard to change. You could argue that Britain's system is more flexible and adaptable to our changing world.
Also, there's a reason most scientists in America use the metric system. Guess what it is.
IPv6 will never take off because it still has many of the drawbacks of IPv4
- requires configuration
- requires an allocated address
Neither of these are really necessary. For an example of how to do away with them, see the second last page of this pdf.
--
Paul Harrison
I'm curious, why did America decide to call the litre a liter? They seem to be the only country to have done this.
When 75% of active Microsoft Windows hosts fully support IP v6 out of the box, IPv6 will begin to appear.
Otherwise, forget about it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Actually, QoS and reserving bandwith actually has not got that much to do with IPv4 or IPv6.
Ipv6 facilitates QoS because it has a flow field in the header which should be used in an IntServe architecture.
It has another field that at some point should facilite a DiffServe architecture.
By the way - Intserve is where an application requests bandwidth reservation in some sort- Diffserve, it is done transparantly - the applications don't need to do a thing, but this means all traffic from a host is handled with priority. Basically "Diff-Serve" is a better best-effort service which works on the principle of service level agreements - I think will be the future of the internet. Flat fee payers will get best effort whereas people paying for bandwidth will get higher priority. I also forsee some way in which a SLA can be upgraded temporarily - this is already happening today with some satellite DSL providers.
The actual bandwidth reservation or SLA negotiation and the then needed traffic shaping have nothing whatsoever to do with IPv6, it works just as well with IPv4 - Ipv6 just makes it a LITTLE bit easier.
By the way, it is not defined anywhere yet on how the flow field is to be actually used.
The important differences between the OSI protocol stack people and the TCP/IP people weren't at the transport layer - they were mainly the application layer and the availability of working implementations on Unix. Multi-Protocol Routers were becoming available at the time, driven by the widespread use of IPX, the Not-Dead-Yet-ness of Appletalk and XNS, the Routing?-What's-That? bridginess of DEC LAT, and the Hadn't-Taken-Over-The-World-Quite-Yet-ness of IP, so there were routers with CLNP available at costs not substantially different from other multi-protocol routers that also did IP. While the TP4/CLNP stack wasn't much clumsier than TCP/IP, the set of application services was - X.400 was MUCH heavier-weight than SMTP, and FTAM was somewhat more bureaucratic than FTP, VT was more general than Telnet, and 4.2BSD UNIX came with TCP/IP and sockets and such, with well-written relatively-open code that was usable on Vaxen and ported to Suns and other popular computers. If you wanted to write stuff, you could just write stuff.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Try again. 5 was already alocated for another IP like protocol that was not IPv4.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
This may have been posted already...
. ht ml
but this is fairly newby friendly content and the comments i read were kinda clueless
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2002/02/22/ipv6
We could have a cntral database where everybody applies for a unique, easy to remember computer name.
Yes, I know about DynDNS, but that doesn't help if all your access provider offers under $1000/mo is 15-minute DHCP leases on IPv6 /128 (single) addresses.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Gah. You're not "first world". America is the "new world" (aka 2nd).
No. The first world was countries that fought on the U.S. side in the cold war (U.S., Canada, western Europe, etc). The second world was the Soviet Bloc (no relation to Soviet blocks). Countries too small for either superpower (USSA or USSR) to notice came to be known collectively as the third world; after the cold war ended, "third world" continued to refer to developing countries.
Poll: Which world will achieve 50% adoption of IPv6 first?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Please explain yourself. You big, fat, fucking dirty-douche-drinking son of a bitch.
Actually YOU don't know what you're talking about. I'm in the process of implementing IPV6 (part of Solaris 8) on a group of servers as a testbed. IPV6 can be tunnelled over IPV4, also IPV6 can co-exist on the same network. Some routers can also handle routing both IPV6 and IPV4 traffic. In fact, it's a simple translation between 6 and 4 addresses (If you assume the unused portion of the address are zeros.) In fact it's easy to distinguish 4/6 traffic becaue the protocol version number is in the ip packet header.
And in what way does this make IPv6 backwards compatable with IPv4? THe fact that you have to use tunneling and translation means that it's not backwards compatable. If it were backwards compatable the two could coexist without the added need for translation.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
I'm subscribed to receive the weekly routing table from an APNIC router in Japan. A new one is due tomorrow, but this is last Fridays':
Percentage of available address space announced: 31.7
Percentage of allocated address space announced: 60.0
Percentage of available address space allocated: 52.8
Basically, 52.8% of the total IPv4 space (I do not know if this includes RFC1918 space, Class D/Multicast space, etc, etc, but I think it does) has been allocated between the RIR's (Regional Internet Registrars), which are ARIN, APNIC and RIPE. 60% of THAT allocated space is space is being announced ("used" you could say, but not technically - this gets too confusing to explain here, read up on BGP4). Also it tells you that 31.7% of the total (allocated or not) IPv4 space is being announced.
I guess the "real" statistic is that 31.7% of the IPv4 space is being used. This does not count the space assigned to major providers that they have not assigned to their customers. It depends what you want to look at.
There was either an RFC or an IETF draft recently by someone that went over all of this. I think the authors estimate was in the 40's for percentage of address space being used. I'll be dammed if I can find it now! I wish I had it in my saved-messages box.
Anyways, I find it highly unlikely that IPv4 space will run out by 2005.
On the other hand, it seems to me that with the way ARIN has been assigning IPv6 space and how "easy" they are making it, we're going to run out just as fast. I have not read their requirements that much, only briefly, and I know they require you to participate in the 6bone project for atleast 3 months. I believe that was one of the 6bone's requirements as well before you are given your own "test space", you have to find someone to assign you space temproarily.
One RIR I do like is RIPE. Their current requirements for getting IPv4 space includes things such as having to prove that you cannot use RFC 1918 space and do NAT. I think ARIN is following in their footsteps. I'm pretty sure atleast most major providers are doing that. I'd say check out their forms if you are interested.
I am well too tired right now to go reference any of this stuff, so I'm probably wrong on some things. However:
- We will *should not* be out of IPv4 space by 2005 according to current trends.
- I think the RIR's (Regional Internet Registrar's) need to be as careful with IPv6 space as they are being with IPv4 space or else we will could be in the same boat in another 10-20 years.
Just my CDN$0.02
I wonder how hard it would be to get my cisco NAT router to run IPv6 for my LAN and configure my linux/winodws boxes to use it? I think it would be cool to start using it early. Anyone know of any other popular SOHO NAT routers supporting it or running a system like this at home?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Interesting that none of the major issues with IPv6 are addressed by an idiot moderator who doesn't know what to do with his/her moderation points. Guys, when you get moderation points, only moderate the stories you're an expert on. Even the people who go to the "universal adoption of IPv6" Scotch BOFs at the IETF would agree with many of these points. In particular, Steve Deering, the author of SIP, which later merged with a number of other things to become IPv6, would agree that 128 bit IP addresses is overkill, and SIP had only 64 bit addresses originally.
CmdrTaco: if you let moderators do stupid things like this (and yes, there are more stupid moderators than smart ones), you're going to alienate all your clueful posters.
Many of the tech savvey here will already be doing the firewall/proxy thing with highly customised internal networks.
I expect that leaving the internal network unchanged and converting or proxying to 6 at the gateway will be the most painless way of interfacing with 6 (if it ever gets here).
For China and India and in general the rest of the world, the choices are either to get on the stick and do IPv6, or else to use some other tiered-local-addresses-proxy-NAT system. By then it wouldn't be surprising if cheap mobile devices (phones or otherwise) were the big driver, and IPv6 means you just don't need to fix the addressing problem again.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This is getting old, but...
IPV6 is better. Autoconfiguration, neighbor discovery, big address space, compatability with IPV4, etc
IPv6 is in NO way compatable with IPv4. Have you even looked at the specifications? I cann't believe you got modded up for this.
And in what way does this make IPv6 backwards compatable with IPv4?
I never said backwards compatible. It will, however, coexist nicely on the same network. A number of the Unix configuration files are the same, such /etc/inetd.conf. A number of Unix services such as SSH, FTP and TELNET have IPV6 implementations. BIND already support IPV6.
Can you shoot IPV6 packets into an IPV4 only router and expect it to get delivered? Not really. Can you get two IPV6 networks to talk to each other over an IPV4 network. Sure. Works well. If a router understands both IPV4 and IPV6, works great. It's not like ATM, which has a much different packet layout and is a virtual switched network as opposed to packet switched. That suits my definition of compatible.
Now the real point I was trying to make was not to come to a definition of compatible. IPV6 will make life easier. However, the focus is on making IPV4 work. I just think it's unfortunate that people's time and money are being poured into IPV4 maintenance and not going toward IPV6 deployment.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
folks...you all are apparently not networking and security experts. the 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/24 networks are merely RFC1918 reserved blocks. as are a ton of other blocks. get Robert Zeigler's "Linux Firewalls" book from New Riders to see all of them. either v1 or v2 is acceptable.
these blocks are perfectly routable. try it. setup test networks. you can route them JUST fine. they are perfectly legal ip's too. you can use them for serial connections on point-to-point t1 or frame relay sync interfaces. you can use them for small isolated networks where you don't need hosted services [office networks, private lans behind VPN gateways].
these are merely RESERVED addresses. i get so irritated seeing and hearing everyone refer to these blocks as "Illegal" and "Unroutable". read the rfc for once! stop spreading misinformation! sheesh...
I can admit I don't use Netmeeting (yet) but can easily see the overhead increasing. So, as the other post suggests that this be responded to rather than moderated, I agree, and am responding. Bravo. I have many clients using NAT and it works just fine.
The smarter thing to do rather than IPv6 would (in the interim) be to re-allocate some of the address blocks assigned to .gov and .edu, as well as .mil for that matter.
Hell, even re-allocate a chode of network 10, as well as 192.168.x.x - who really needs that large of a block in a "private" network? And, while you're at it, take back the 169.(whatever - the autoconfig thingy) that I keep having to flush out of Windoze boxes having brain farts.;-)
There was a short-sighted assignment in the infancy of the web, IMHO. We should strive to remedy that, and leave IPv6 to the more distant future, while still planning for it in a more practical way.
And for the moderator that gave the parent a Troll rating, shame, shame, shame! (That's -3 Karma....hehe)
db
Cig:
ôô
The trick will be to get MS's marketing strategy to include IP6. Otherwise, if MS sits and does nothing, then incomplete IP6 support will be another convenient hammer to pound their wedge deeper and lock people into pay-per-packet Internet aka .NET.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Ya, and this is your choice but, : : ... But only a physic fact, and it's damn easy to convert from and to length/time.
What is this metric system ?
"One meter is the length of a pendular-clock which beats the second" (at normal/equatorial gravitational acceleration). This is a particuliar corollar of gravitation
L=Sq((Pi*T)^2/g)
Where
L length of pendular
T half the wavelength (the clock passes every second at the vertical, total wave is double)
Pi 3.14
g 9.81m/s2
That does L=1 with T=1, great !
Thus if you have a clock, you've got a meter. If you have a meter, you can obtain a clock, beating the second. So, you can compute a stable meter length, not depending on I-don't-know-what emperor inch, foot, cock
Phylosophically, time is constrained by distance, cute, no ?
:-)
How does email work: You have an account on a server with a REAL IP which is always on-line. Each time you get on the net you download your messages from this server.
People browsing the internet do not need static ip. As long as you have an account on a server with static ip you can have any service you want, www pages, "browsing your messages", telnet, etc.
The need for static ip servers is much fewer than the active number of netizens.
And yes, NAT is good, secure and helps in decentralization of network load.
YWBT?
The problem IPv6 has, confirmed by its enthusiastic reception by the EU, is that is
/O=...
the OSI of the 21st century (following on from
ATM, the OSI of the 1990s). IPv6 solves a
problem of 1992 --- proliferation of subnets,
exhaustion of v4 space --- while other, incremental, changes did the job just as well.
NAT and DHCP mean that huge ISPs don't need
huge blocks, and the falling price of RAM means
that large routing tables just aren't the problem
they were. The Internet simply isn't a bunch
of LSI-11s linked by 56K lines anymore, and I
recall ``look, doing that will mean every router
has to have a megabyte of RAM'' being used as
an argument-ender.
To compound things, IPv6 suffered from feature
creep (see also: ATM, X.400, Modula 2 standards)
and tried to solve a bunch of other problems as
well, such as QoS. But _those_ were being
solved in v4 land, too, with RSVP, and it's
compatible and interworking with existing
code. Those over 35 should compare the complex
``look, we need multi-part mail'' solution
proposed by the X.400 lobby, which requires MTA
support all the way, with MIME, which will pass
transparently through any MTA.
The final nail in v6's coffin is that, largely,
it's not had the attention of the A team inside
vendors, and has been seen as another add-on
protocol, like OSI, ATM, etc.
I think Vernon Shryver said a few years ago that
he didn't expect universal IPv6 in his working
lifetime. I don't (I'm 37), anymore than I ever
expected my email address to because
ian
IPv6 is not only a larger address space, it is also modified to provide a more solid networking fundament. IPv6 will ease life for routers (and yes, Cisco does have pretty nice IPv6 support), and it will allow hosts to be very different from todays clumsy computers.
:-)). I am confident that IPv6 will eventually provide a sane network fundament in a maybe not so sane world...
The portable nodes of the future will roam between different networks and network technologies, often be multihomed (although not always on the same interfaces, or the same addresses), support real-time data transfers (IPv6 might not support this very well at the current time, but it is coming!), multicasting etc.
I also expect the focus to change from IP addresses to "logical addresses". For example: Why can noone call me just because I left my cellular phone at home? I have a phone at work, I might have my laptop online, or I might even have another cellular somewhere. As long as I am me, and I can be reached, why should I need a specific client??? I hate having both my wireless ISDN telephone AND my GSM phone hanging around my person at home, as they are just two different "routes" to the same me...
So, IPv6 is not just about address space, it is also about usage. IPv4 is NOT dynamic, it does NOT handle multicasting well, it does NOT handle real-time data well and it was NEVER intended to be used as we use it today.
Ok, the specification of IPv6 is not yet perfect (data classes, multicast group lookups and IPsec), but the protocol has not yet been "tuned". This is currently beeing done in both Europe and Asia (and probably in some dark basements in the US
P.S: Linux is not at all bad at IPv6. Check out the USAGI patch and userland tools (they work quite ok with the normal kernel too), at http://www.linux-ipv6.org/. My Slackware Linux is running everything very nicely over IPv6.
Here's the thing,
Reguardless of whether or not Cisco, Nortel, Lucent or any other manufacturer had said "You should use IP6 cause it's better", we'd still be in the same predicament we are today. Which is to say, we'd still be using IP4. The reason is simple. Most people in the US and abroad that use the internet don't give a shit about IP6, and could care less about internet speeds or addressing problems. It's all magic and transparent to them.
AOL has 60 million pin head users. Ask them what IP6 is and they'll likely say "Some kind of urinary tract infection."
The companies that own the backbones (Worldcomm, AT&T, and unless I'm mistaken, Sprint) are the people that should be most concerned with maintaining their switching centers, the accessability of addresses, and so on. A lot of the problems that are going to arrive sooner than later might be averted by IP6. Do they care?
F*CK NO, because they don't have to. They figure "You're gonna pay whether you like it or not," and their profit margines aren't going to move one fricken inch.
And they're right.
No IP6 for you. Costs too much. No-one is demanding it loud enough, and the lemmings are still facinated with that "You've got mail!" bullshit.
God help us the day microsoft gets into internet switching.
Some info gleaned from a conference i attended recently:
- U.S. military is completely on IP V6
- Big japanese government funding for "pushing" IP V6
- 900 Trial customers in Japan, including 3 cars (all this for just ~$20 Million in Public money)
- The same body received approx $9 Million from European Comission to push IP V6
- Less that 20 commercial broadband IP V6 customers worldwide...
Two scenarios: Like with UMTS, governments pushing a standard they don't understand will result in failure. IP's success was based on market success, and theres nothing like 10^7 dollars for turning a good concept into a bloated Frankenstein monster
OR
The governments are pushing this because it will give them the infrastructure they need to come out with true "big brother" scenarios... Unified protocol with full control
Paradoxically, in this day of "global liberalization of markets", this major infrastructure development is not being driven by market forces, but by centralized government bodies like in the best days of Communism... weird
Just a note: As long as they were nationalized, not a single telegraph, telephone or telecoms company made any profit. Strangely, the same industries started blasting out profits almost immediately after privatization
Not confused enough? http://translate.google.com/translate?u=www.slashdot.jp&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=ja&tl=en
And I find it easier to remember that 1 kilogram is 1000 grams than that 1 ton is ?? hundredweight, each of which is XX stone, each of which is 14 pounds each of which is 16 ounces each of which is xx grains etc.
Ditto for miles, furlongs, rods, chains, yards = 3 feet, feet = 12 inches, 72 points to an inch, 20 twips to a point.
I don't know about you, but i've got 10 fingers (including thumbs) and I find the decimal system easier to use.
Point 2: To expand a bit upon the subject of IPv6/IPv4 compatibility, I quote here from the 2nd edition of "Computer Networks: A systems approach", (Peterson & Davie, 2000, Academic Press), on the subject of the IPv6 address space: Which is to say, while of course no IPv4 device is going to natively understand IPv6, there are easy mechanisms for incorporating IPv4 devices into an IPv6 network, as iPaul has observed.
And a way of getting proper addresses, not just test ones.
Deleted
The Windows Update feature would make installing IPv6 a fairly painless operation. You need it? Just go grab that Critical Updates package you've been neglecting for two years.
It's not a showstopper; I wouldn't even say it's a bump in the road, provided MS thought it was important enough to put in Critical Updates.
Not a single anti-MS statement.
As soon as some of the large ISPs realize that they can turn IPv6 into marketing drivel, they'll start upgrading their internal networks. The winds of change will first rustle in your television. Joe Sixpack doesn't know what Ipv6 is, but he doesn't want to get left behind.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
n/t
It made internal routing *far* easier.
Not always. A big problem with private adress space appear when two business (or dept, or whatever) bridge their LAN with a VPN and they are using the same private range. Most LAN use etheir 192.168.[0|1].0/24 or 10.0.0.0/8, so this happen often (it happen to me all the time). Hopefully one or the other use DHCP so they can be migrated to an other adress range (almost) painlessly.
:wq
I don't see why a properly set up NAT wouldn't handle this - as a matter of fact, my home network connected just fine with overlapping 192.168.x.x domains. Routing IPSec and ISAKMP packets is a much bigger issue with VPN, because NAT mauls the header and doesn't recompute the checksum used to identify the sender unless your firewall is set up to do this for you. Once the packet is outside your firewall, it has your (firewall's) static IP (or DHCP equivalent, since DHCP functions like a static IP as long as you're on a network) as an address to send back to, and your firewall machine needs to keep a table of all of these packets so it can re-route them on return.
Oh, and by the way, it's 192.168.x.x and I think 10.0.x.x as well (I don't use that set), where x can be between 0 and 255.
DHCP shouldn't affect anything, either, it just assigns any machine plugged in an internal static IP (as far as the firewall is concerned) until the timeout value is hit (if ever). Yes, it does make migration to another subnet relatively painless, but usually you won't need to do this. The whole purpose of DHCP was to share a fixed set of static IPs in the same way as a modem pool shares a fixed set of dialup lines. The protocol became popular because it is easy for an administrator to remove and add machines into a network because the administrator doesn't need to go to each individual machine and set up its IP.
I really don't know how Microsoft's PPTP protocol or L2TP are handled, but I would guess both of them has some support for being routed through firewalls.
The other IPSec protocol, AH (Authentication Header) can't be used over a firewall, so you don't see it used much in the real world.
I am not sure I get your point, and by the little I understand you don't get mine either. The type of scenario I was referring to is not a client connecting to a gateway, it's a gateway connecting to another gateway to make both LAN look like they are local to the client. In this scenario, the VPN connection never get NATed; it is initiated by each gateway on their outbound (Internet) interface. Routing become an issue in this scenario: how are gateway supposed to route if both side of the VPN have the same subnet ???
/etc/dhcpd.conf, wait for the lease to expire (at night, on the weekend, whatever) and bingo! all (or most) of your machine now use the subnet wich hopefully you can route thru the VPN link. Get it ?
Just to clarify my thought about DHCP: migrating adress that where statically assigned "by hand" is a lot of work since they must be changed on each workstation separately. If you use DHCP, you just have to edit
Right now, outbound PPTP connection are a real pain to NAT with iptables. There is an iptables connection tracking module but it has not yet been integrated in the base patch. Hopefully it will in iptables 1.2.6
:wq
Can ipv4 and ipv6 run together? Like could I hit a ipv4 network and a ipv6 network with the same internet connection?
Several asian countries (among them Japan) are so starved for IP-addresses that not even NAT can cut it (to be able to NAT then at least the gateway/router to the NATted net needs at least a temporary IP). They're switching over, whole sale.
... is whether this is meant to be funny or plain trolling....
I take that back. My intent is to nitpick.
RFC 1918 sets aside:
- 10.x.x.x (Class A)
- 172.16-32.x.x (Class B)
- 192.168.x.x (Class C)
as "private address space."For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
Nothing wrong with all the server and router hardware already in place. Just a small change to the software is required.
Network 10 is class A, because 10 = 127.
I.e., it's 10.x.x.x, where x is between 0 and 255. I'm pretty sure there's also a private class C, but nobody ever uses it and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
It gets even more fun when using SQLnet and NBT authentication etc if the two merged organisations each use a significant part of the 10.0.0.0/8 space and aren't prepared to DHCP everything.
Believe me the NAT rules are a joy to behold (as long as someone else is supporting them) and usually means having to use other (non-approved) class A ranges as transition addresses.