MIT Technology Review Slams IPv6

PCM2 writes "In the MIT Technology Review, Simson Garfinkel, noted author of Internet security books, writes that "the next version of the Internet Protocol, IPv6, will supply the world with addresses by the trillions. Too bad it will also make the Net slower and less secure." His article goes on to explain that all IPv6 code is untested and therefore insecure; that IPv6 makes encourages 'peer-to-peer based copyright violation systems'; and of course, that the switch is never going to happen anyway (and yet, somehow, the United States is 'falling behind')."

Comments

IPv6: Not Ready for Prime Time

[egg troll]

These articles are designed to incite responses and are written by people who don't really know what they are talking about.

This is not to say that there are not problems with IPv6. While IPv6 fixes many problems in IPv4, the developed world will not embrace IPv6 until many shortcomings in the protocol are addressed. As a Brown University grad student, the subject of IPv6 is what my disseration is upon. Allow me to include a few "talking-points" on what I've learned.

1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before. While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.

I disagree that IPv6 is all about file trading and insecurity. Having said that, the above points have to be addressed by the IPv6 community before it will be deployed outside of research networks, and what better place is there than slashdot to address these points?

Re:Is this technical or political?

[tftp]

IPv6 enables citizens to freely connect to each other's computers. IPV4 allows companies and governments to compartmentalize networks and keep the consumers in their little pens out of which they can't get out. Guess where the preferences of the establishment are...

Re:Meh.

[Wonda]

Why does it matter if your cellphone is NAT'd

Well, one reason could be that he wants people to be able to call him?

seems nice for a phone