Slashdot over IPv6

fuzzel writes "Even though Slashdot has run a number of articles about IPv6 (1|2|3) it apparently isn't reachable over IPv6 directly. But for the people that do already have IPv6 they can use http://slashdot.org.sixxs.org and they will be automaticaly gatewayed. This trick works for most sites by simply appending .sixxs.org to the domain part of a url, eg http://www.google.com.sixxs.org, the gateway will the rewrite url's to have it appended automatically so that everything goes over IPv6. Full information is available on http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net. Oh and yes if you don't have IPv6, those domains under sixxs.org won't work :)"

Comments

the rewrite url's what?

[tamnir]

the gateway will the rewrite url's to have it appended automatically so that everything goes over IPv6.

I think I get the general idea, but it took me some time. Funny how a couple of spelling mistakes can lead to a quite obfuscated sentence. Anyway, here is what I now think (after checking the site: boggled at that sentence in vain! :) ) that it meant:

the gateway will then rewrite URLs on the pages sent back to your browser, appending automatically the ".sixxs.org". This way, all the links will still go through the IPv6 gateway, letting you transparently surf the web over IPv6!

IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no!

[SilverSun]

This whole discussion and the support of IPv6 is completely pointless. There are 101 ways to bridge your IPv6 to IPv4 and the other way round. There is no chicke and egg problem. The real reason why IPv6 is not widely deployed is that nobody really needs it.

This is just like HDTV, yes, it's better, cooler, has nifty features, but the old thing does most of the job for much less money/effort.

With IP this situation 'might' (not necessarily 'will') change with the vanishing IP address space, but I am convinved it's perfectly safe to wait till we get there.

If any ISP really thinks he needs v6 he will just install it. Why should I (as a user) try to convince any ISP to use v6. It's just nothing that matters to me. (Multicast?? ha!) I can tell you, that I (as an ISP) don't even know why I should convince anybody. This whole discussion is probably sponsored by cisco's PR department.

Cheers.

Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no!

[TheRaven64]

but I am convinved it's perfectly safe to wait till we get there.
Good point. Also, I see no reason why we should bother researching renewable forms of energy until we actually run out of oil. After all, the perfect time to solve a problem is when our infrastructure depends on the solution - solving a problem before it's a catastrophe is just wasted effort.

'Have' IPv6???

[jez9999]

But for the people that do already have IPv6 they can use

What exactly does it take to 'have' IPv6? What stuff neds to be upgraded? Application software? OS? Router? Does your ISP need to 'have' or 'support' it? It also seems a hell of a lot more complex to type in an IPv6 address than an IPv4 one, but I guess that only matters if you're not using a domain. Then again, with so many IP addresses available with IPv6 this may be the case, as there won't be nearly enough domains to hold everyone's IP!

I'm sorry that this will sound ignorant, but if I'm asking the question and I'm not exactly dumb, it's no wonder all the AOLers aren't using IPv6! I don't even know how you use it, and there are barely any servers using it either, no?

Gateways/caches should _NOT_ change the user agent

[ClarkEvans]

SixXS-IPv6Gate/1.0 (IPv6 Gateway; http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net; info@sixxs.net)


Bad! Many sites go through painstaking effort to be compable with all sorts of user agents, giving plain HTML when one is not recognized. By re-writing the user agent these people prevent this magic. Not good. Instead it should add it's own key/value pair, much like SQUID or other cache/gateway.