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

Re:Another "IPv6 won't be here soon" article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a way to block articles from this faggot Timothy? I hate that bitch.

One word: Trollmania

[Anonymous Coward]

No more annoying "Due to excessive bad posting from this ip or subnet...". The GNAA will reign supreme!

Anyway, if you would like to learn to troll, visit the troll community at Anti slash

Copyright should be abolished anyway.

[Thinkit3]

If IPv6 makes copyright harder to enforce, that's a good thing, right?

TROLLCRAP DECLARED DEAD, SAD WANNABES LIVE ON

[Mod Me God]

'``sword` ` ```.-"`````"-. '' ' 8'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
|``skull` ` ``/```sword```\ ' ' 7'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
'``sword` ` `|````skull````| ' '6'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
|``skull` ` `|,``.-. .-.``,| ' '5'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
'``sword` ` `| )(__/ \__)( | ' '4'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
|``skull` ` `|/````/ \````\| ' '3'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
'````(@_` ` `(_````^ ^````_) ' '2'` GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
|' .... )`\___\__|IIIII|__/___ ____ ____ _____ blood of trollkore
' ( )@8@{ {____|-\IIIII/-|____ ____ ____ _____> and CLIT and GNAA
| ````` )_/````\``GNAA```/ ' ' ' ' 'GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass
' clit `` kore ``---`---`` ` ' ' ' 'GNAA & trollkore suck gay ass

Re:MIT is one to talk

[Anonymous Coward]

America didn't invent roads, so why the fuck are you assholes using roads?!

Can't stand you fucking white niggers.

Idiot

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:Another "IPv6 won't be here soon" article...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are NUTS.

IPv6 will never happen. The internet is not the same as it was years ago so we can dismiss that part of your post completely.

640x480 resolution? Doesn't even compare. It's more like switching from a monitor that works in the visible spectrum to one that works with x-rays, and claiming the switch will be an easy one because of the possibility of translating from one to the other.

This is the "????" step in every IPv6 switchover plan:

Likewise, when IPV6 starts to take over, people will gradually switch over until a critical mass develops, after which the rest of the world will follow very quickly.

Why will people gradually switch? What's the incentive? Why should I switch? All my computers speak IPv4. Some speak IPv6. What's my incentive to use IPv6 at all?

My ISP only speaks IPv4, because all their customers support IPv4, but only a few support IPv6.

All the useful web sites are reachable via IPv4. Shutting off IPv4 is suicide for any company. (And please don't tell me about how IPv4 is reachable via IPv6. That kinda defeats the purposes of the changeover.)

The mistake is that IPv6 is not an extension of IPv4, just a complete replacement. Therefore, no way to have them "at the same time" (again, I don't mean gatewaying or tunnelling, I mean complete compatbility). Therefore, expensive to switch. No incentive to switch.

If IPv6 is so great, how come you're posting here on IPv4 slashdot?

IPv6 won't happen unless 1) the government mandates it or 2) Microsoft drops IPv4 from all their products.

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