Slashdot Mirror
IPv6 Rollout Japan, China in 2005
Killjoy_NL writes "The digitimes have a piece that is reporting that IPv6 will be rolled out in China and Japan in 2005. Makes me wonder when the rest of the world will follow suit" We had a good piece a couple months back about the state of IPv6. CowboyNeal is ready!
An IP address for every chinese citizen? Time to start working on IPv8!
(-1, I Like Chinese)
Banaaaana!
CowboyNeal is ready!
Yea, but is Slashdot?
Seems the idea site to have support for IPv6. Last time I checked (late last year) Slashdot didn't do IPv6.
Heck, they still use GIFs...
I've been waiting for IPv6 for years... I was still in HighSchool when they supposedly started the switch over... Man I feel old...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
throw a wrench in the spoke of the DoD's plan for a new, newer IP?
Seriously, I think it'll be good. Might throw some weight against the stone wall that's holding back the US and rollout of IPv6 in general. I'd imagine that with such largescale rollouts the hardware will get cheaper and will help drive adoption worldwide.
Another 945,478,233,526,156 IP addresses I need to blacklist from spamming me.
Dude, where's my packet?
Japan also rolled out 3G wireless before everyone else. Have we incorporated as much as Japan? No. Japan has always been ahead of the curve for this type of stuff. But only because they don't have all of the infrastructure flaws other countries do. Besides, how weird would it be to type ::1 instead of 127.0.0.1?
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
IPv4 has an address space of 256^4
IPv6 has an address space of 256^6?
Wouldn't it be true that these countries would have an easier time implementing IPV6 ? Their countrie's internet infrastructre can't be nearly as mature as the United States, therefore I'm sure it would be a lot cheaper/less complicated to implement the protocol. The United States would also have to contend with the the private sectors wants/needs which rely on this infrastructure heavily. I dont think that would be as prevalent in these Asian countries.
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
Present day...present time! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Check his post history. Check his name. Review the content. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Leave it alone. Thank you.
I've looked at his history and he does have some good things to say. I don't know much about IPv6 but these seem like legit concerns to me. Perhaps its you who is meta-trolling us?!
HAHAHA that was the funniest post ive read in months. That should be modded +10 funny. Actually no wait, That post should become an article main Slashdot.com for everyone to see.
+30 for you man, good one.
I would sure like to have -1, Wrong as a moderation option.
It has a score of zero for trolling.
Besides, with broadband access up in most countries, think of what the broadband will be in 10 years New broadband? who cares about 20 extra bytes?
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
Well... if anything though, this should give the rest of the world some time to adapt... China and Japan are undoubtedly two of the largest holders of IP's outside of the United States (maybe not China.. I don't understand how their nation-wide firewall works... could have the entire country under nat... but highly doubtful...)
Those subnets can be reallocated elsewhere to give other countries time to adapt, if they will adapt.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
1: And that is IPv6s fault in what way?
2: 4 billion addresses are too *few*. If you examine how the addresses in IPv4 are distributed you will quickly find out that there is or will be an shortage of addresses in the rest of the world (since US have a bigger share compared to population). And every address cannot be used since the space is divided into blocks which leads to some waste.
3: Yes, 640K must last forever...
4: There is a reason why it is that large. I won't elaborate. RTFRFC. On a related note: search for ROHC (robust header compression).
Hopefully you don't plan on your "disseration" being respected.
1. That is not a problem with the protocol. It is a problem with the hardware, which Cisco CAN fix in future revs.
2. VOIP. If every person on earth gets a VOIP cell phone in the future, you have now run out of addresses. And that doesn't even take into account non-consumer addresses, such as slashdot.org. NAT won't solve the problem, as VOIP isn't directly compatable with it. Are you now going to require that all these NAT gateways now be transparent proxies for protocols which are rather complex? Also, how would the transparent proxy handle encryption?
3. Routing tables don't list every network. Yes, there are 64 bits for networks/routing. These won't all be used immediately. They are there for the future. Given that in the past 20 years, the the amount of RAM you can get for a given price point has gone up by ~2000 times, by the time we need routing tables that have entries for all possibly networks the RAM will be cheap enough (and fast enough) to handle it.
4. Bandwidth is increasing When IPv4 was created, the expected speed of a connection for a HIGH END user (university) was ~64kb/sec. That is no longer true, as the same class of user would now be expected to have at least an OC12.
It sounds like you are trying to build a new highway that will last for 20 years, but you want to only plan on the current capacity requirements, not what will be needed in 20 (or even 10) years.
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.
Oh, you're right, Cisco doesn't support IPv6 well, lets just drop the whole thing. What a great point you have here.
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.
Oh, ofcourse having too-many addresses in itself is a huge problem (we might have to leave some addresses unallocated - the horror!). Yet another great point.
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.
If you're trying to say 128-bit is too large because routing tables become too large, that's simply ignorant. IPv4 addresses are so small that they cannot easily be geographically/connection-wise allocated. This means that routing tables became large because of the complexity of IPv4 addressing.
128-bit allow much simpler addressing schemes which will actually make routing tables much simpler, and probably smaller, even though each address is a few bytes longer.
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.
A) The fact that the minimum MTU required is 576 bytes is meaningless, real MTU's are much higher.
B) Few networks actually use all of the potential ether/link bandwidth all of the time, so a few percents of extra/lower usage don't matter much.
C) The overhead of IP packets is almost negligible anyway, and this does not change it considerably.
You are obviously a troll.
Okay, since there seem to be folks that are actually taking this guy seriously, I guess I really have to debunk him point by point:
/64 prefix that the end-user sees is quite nicely broken down into categories.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6.
One word: IOS 12.3.
Also, in 12.3T series, you get functionalities like stateful firewalls for IPv6. Check out Cisco's IPv6 status here.
2. There are too many addresses.
640 kB should be enough for everybody.
And yeah, I know Bill Gates never said that.
IPv6 addresses are too large. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive.
This has been addressed. Summary routes are there. The IPv6 addressing structure is quite hierarchical, so even that
4. The IPv6 header is too large
Minimum MTU for IPv6 is 1280 bytes, not 576. Also, IPv6 header structure is extendable, ie the last field in IPv6 header is a pointer to an optional field. This optional field can in addition to it's own information refer to even more fields, in daisy-chain fashion. There is much bloat in IPv4 headers and lots of bit-alignment problems when building hardware to forward IPv4. IPv6 addresses these details by daisy-chaining optional headers and keeping the stationary fields simple.
This is the exact same comment he posted to the last article about IPv6. That comment was modded 0, Troll. Check his post history at January 11th. Also notice that in the last 15 posts, three of them are sitting at -1 and another two are moderated troll.
If you want a decent rebuttal of his silly argument, just go back to his previous post.
He didn't make any posts on January 11th. Moron.
The US will adopt IPv6 as quickly as it's adopted the metric system.
Ahh, how I remember laughing extremely hard when I heard news that Cisco was recalling their releases of their new IOS that supported IPv6 when they discovered that they left off a whole octet of numbers. That was awhile ago though. Chalk that one up as a blunder. In a way, I do agree with most in saying that IPv6 is way too big for right now. However, in looking ahead at all of the new devices we are getting that have network connections and require IP Addresses.... IPv6 pretty much gives you an excuse to have an IP address for your toaster. Then again, unless you can break the theoretical 65k barrier of PAT by having over 65k things in your house that require an IP addy, there's really no need to go as far as IPv6 here in the US. NAT/PAT with IPv4 seems to be doing the job quite nicely here.
No it is not. Please do not think the future is easy to predict. Maybe I just have a pet peeve when people say "We will never need...".
Fast forward to nano-technology. You get cancer. :( You get an injection with millions of nano-bots that kill each cancer cell in your body, and you get better :) BUT! These little nano-bots all need to communicate. Well, there goes a couple million IP's for the square meter of space you are taking up.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6.
Cisco routers will get better when IPv6 is used by everyone
2. There are too many addresses.
you claim there are 4billion adresses in IPv4, there are 6billion and growing people, in a few years not only will a bigger percent of the population have a connection, but there will more population aswell, and you NAT solution isn't so great, since a computer on the outside has no idea what is in the network inside the NAT, if a program needs to connect to a port on a specific computer inside a NAT, the router would have to already be configured to route the connection, oh wait what if 2 computers need to accept unsolicted connections from the outside?
3.IPv6 addresses are too large
extreme amounts of memory to store routing tables? A few years ago I spent $300 on a 60GB hardrive, today I can probably find a 120GB one for under $200.
4.The IPv6 header is too large
3.4% longer downloads, so what? it's the price that must be paid, considering that 95% of my downloads take less than 10 seconds, I think a 3.4 second wait won't be that bad. what about my 12 hour long downloads? well I'll have to deal with it, it's sure alot better than running out of IP addresses
I hope you haven't passed your paper in yet, as you apparently have much research left to do.
Just some very basic responses, since I'm to tired right now to do much research myself (but then, I don't have a paper to work on...)
1. This is true and yet dumb at the same time. My 75 MHz laptop really sucks at running modern games. Does this mean the game designers should tailor their innovation for me?
Cisco will optimize their routers when they see a business case to do so. Oddly enough, two countries declaring support for IPv6 might be sufficient impetuous for them to do so. For now, it's good enough if they aren't an impedement.
2. Cellphones and PDAs, just off the top of my head. These are devices that by their very nature want to talk to each other. There are billions of these devices out there already. NAT is NOT a solution for them, since you can't be sure what direction the connection will be initiated. You can't just assign them RFC1913 space, because how then do you expect a Nokia to talk to a Motorola, and so on?
3. It remains to be seen how this will play out. The current flowers-and-sunshine scenario is that all IPv6 routing will be done in a very organized tree. Reality will likely differ. Regardless, this same argument of yours applied to IPv4 five years ago, and we're still here.
4. As much as I question the idea of anyone using MTUs like a mere 576 bytes anymore, it's irrelevant... the minimum MTU for IPv6 is 1280 bytes, not 576. Re-check your math, you'll find that this results in a very slight INCREASE in minimum transmission efficiency.
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Every Cisco router we have that will run IOS 12.2(2)T is capable of IPv6. This even includes most of the lowly 2500 series routers that we bought in '95.
IPv6: Not Ready for Prime Time.
I think that should be a 340 milliseconds wait.
You linked to the same post, doofus.
Quit trolling us.
WHAT? The nano-bots need to be connected to the Internet to communicate with each other? Shut up you dumbass.
The US won't be ready for IPv6 until large ISP's start changing over and providing easy ways for customers to change with them.
Sounds like a Troll, and I could just mod him down, but I feel more like argueing back.
Can my IPv4 network reach any IPv6 address? How can I do it?
hasn't Japan been on the 'verge' of an IPv6 deployment for at least 5 years. I'll believe it when I see it. This is just something crusty academics who've never seen a router, and are aesthetically offended by NAT tell undergrads to try and convince them that IPv6 is coming to America sometime soon, so learn it and implement it when you get your junior sysadmin job at MegaCorp Inc.
I am not racist. I am not even American, idiot. Maybe your own stupidity is holding a lot of things back.
I just MD5'ed both postings. The MD5s are SIGNIFICANTLY different. If only a word or two had been changed, the MD5s would be very similar. Thus we can conclude that they are different posts. We can also conclude that HopeOS is a total shitfuck who needs to take Taco's cock out of his ass once in a while.
Hahaha, ok. Whatever you say idiot. I'm heading out now. Gotta get some studying done. Nice talking to you.
So I'll assume they are beating the US so they can grab up all the addresses. US right now holds what - 80% of all IP's worldwide? After this, 0.5% of all IP's!
Duh! How else are the script kiddies gonna display goatse in scarification across people's chests?
Banaaaana!
Hello...
I have asked several transit providers here in the USA about providing IPv6. The answer, "Nobody is asking for it".
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 ISPs will not provide IPv6 until there is a market for it.
The solution? Ask for native IPv6 (not tunnels) from your ISP. If you switch ISPs ask for IPv6 in the RFP.
Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" chrismcc@gmail.com http://www.pricegrabber.com
That said your point is certainly valid, I agree that in most circumstances saying "We will never need..." is a bad idea. Personally, I am attached to several ip addresses from my cell phone, three of my computers. The future will come with more devices connected to the Internet and so we do need IPv6 especially when we start getting into VoIP and other technologies where natting becomes a problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Could someone please clarify what is meant by "roll-out" in the article? It wasn't clear to me what they were talking about. My observation is that demand for addresses comes from the leaf nodes, and there is little or no end user access equipment available that does IPv6, so does this mean that they expect some to be widely available by 2005?
That was a classic!
You ARE the master.
I admit ignorance, but I know that one of the reasons for converting to IPv6 is the shortage of IP addresses.
Every now and again we hear that we're just about to run out due to historically crazy giveaways of addresses, then we hear that this isn't the case.
Anyway, if an entire nation, or large group of people move over to IPv6 does this mean that the IPv4 addressed they previously held would become free, and available back in the pool for allocation?
So to gain lots of addresses all we need is say China to move to IPv6, or a country like Germany?
I maybe be misunderstanding, but I thought that this is how the IPv6 tunnels worked - all IPv6 stuff on a LAN gets tunnelled via one external x.x.x.x IP address.
With Chinas great firewall surely this means they could have a few external IPv4 addresses that are proxying things over to the internal IPv6 country?
Feel free to hit me with a cluestick if I'm confused...
Also news posted at the IPv6 Cluster.
By the way, a new tunnel broker is available here, also with Spanish instructions at 6SOS.
You are obviously a troll.
OMG YUO R SMART!!111
Take a look at his name, moron!
Seems like /. editors only have a problem with the shoutterm memory, explaning all the dupes. However remembering stories from months back is no problem. Interesting!
I only read slash. for the articles...
I think that should be a 340 milliseconds wait.
OMG I can't wait that long! I am the customer and I want my download NOW!
Want to jump in with IPv6 now? Your ISP doesn't offer it to you? Get a free tunnel like this one from HE. I'm sure there's others, but this is the only one I know off the top of my head.
this is my sig
OS-X. Go figure.
That's a terrible post. Hope you racist learn the really meaning of freedom. One piece of advice I'd offer you is to open your eyes and see the world. Open source movement is global and for the freedom of everyone. You don't see OSS developers of other colors != none of them are
If we all just switched to IPv6 *now*, we would not have to worry about spammers or zombie machines. Why? Because these assholes that fill up my mailbox would not be able to find the braindead people on "dial-up" or "always-on" connections.
:)
Futhermore, IPv6 is designed so that addresses can be rotated (new address every minute). This is a much nicer feature.
This is the only way to stop open relays - make the address space so big that nothing can find another computer, randomly at least
The blacklists would shrink as only people with screwed up servers with static ips would be the problem!
As we have to point out in every IPv6 thread, 6to4 is more efficient than tunnels.
the Kansas Research and Education Network has fully deployed it. Admittedly, that makes it a bit of an island, there aren't a load of applications for it now.
Nevertheless, every Regent's University in the state, and a few dozen public school district's have access to it Border to Border.
twenty extra bytes?
twenty extra bytes per packet you mean
that's a world of difference, unless you have header compression, like van jacobsen did for ipv4
How will the DNSBLs cope with the huge address space of IPv6? If IP addresses become so plentiful that they are essentially given away, spammers will have a much easier time jumping from one IP address to another.
Using a DNSBL is the most reliable and effective way I've found for blocking spam in a virtual hosting environment (where you want to block spam at the SMTP level). But I'm concerned that IPv6 will render the DNSBLs useless.
Anyone know the answer?
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.
Apparently you haven't learn from the mistakes of people like Bill Gates. Remember when he said you'll never need more than 640K of RAM?
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
Wow! I honestly didn't know that Kansas could say it was advance on anything. I live there and still have to deal with 33.6 dial up, a phone company that charges to use touch tone, and several computer users that think the PC is a "magical device."
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
how does IPv6 impact geographic identification for end-users
right now it depends on static databases of IP ranges - will IPv6 have some sort of addressing scheme that will allow end-users to easily identify the geographic location of visitors, to a website, for example?
Slashdot has no IPv6 address. It would be pretty trivial for you to set one up too. All of my systems are on IPv6.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
IPv6 will never happen unless all IPv4 sites are disconnected.
If you gateway or tunnel one protocol over the other, you haven't switched over, right?
Right now I have an IPv4 address, Google has one, eBay, etc. What the hell do I need an IPv6 address for? And what do I care if some other countries are "rolling it out" (I'll believe it when I see it)?
I don't get the excitement for IPv6 on slashdot.. maybe because it's shiny and new? There is NO incentive for IPv6, because all the good sites are on IPv4. There is nothing "holding back" IPv6, because IPv6 isn't going anywhere.
If IPv4 addresses are $500/mnth, then maybe we can revisit this issue. But ISP's will NAT their entire customer base before switching to IPv6, don't you think?
If slashdot.org thinks IPv6 is so great, why does it still have an IPv4 address?
1. A protocol that drastically increases the size and diversity of the routing table without providing a means for existing network providers to mitigate the ensuing explosion has a problem. The fact that Cisco "can" fix a problem in future "revs" doesn't mean that NSPs "can" deploy that fix.
2. If every person on Earth needs to use the Internet to communicate, they can be accomodated in IPv4 addresses using NAT. What is it about translating voices and telephone numbers over the Internet that requires direct addressing? The web works fine with billions of addressable elements and no direct routing support.
3. Regardless of whether routing tables can be made big enough to accomodate IPv6 addresses in the future, they aren't big enough now. What scheme are you referring to that mitigates that problem?
4. Bandwidth can increase independent of the size of an IP address. IPv6 doesn't make the network faster, or in any significant way make TCP any more scalable.
I don't really care too much about this argument (although I'm not an IPv6 believer), but I'd like to see you back your assertions up with logic and evidence.
A number of points:
1) Lots of pirated and unpatched MS Windows installs.
2) Most sysadmins are in their jobs because of who they know, not what they know (and they know nil - I taught English to a class of comp-sci under-grads last year. These comp-sci majors' total computer knowledge was punching in Java from a text book and that 'Bill Gates is very rich' - which is the only interest most of them have in computers: to get rich like Bill Gates. Set an assignment like 'hit Google and find out who Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Linus Torvolds, Richard Stallman, etc. is' and next week get blank stares of 'you wanted us to do homework? We have rich/powerful parents - we don't have to even come to class if we don't want to') I refused to assess the class as they had not done one single bit of work in six months. AFAIK, the uni passed them anyway).
3) A LOT of spam comes out of places like China, but is paid for by US sources who get corrupt ISPs here to do their dirty work. The Chinese govt's original attitude was 'it's foreign income for China and no-one will block-ban 1/3 of the world population' until the rest of the world started doing just that and now they are starting to crack down on it.
Glenalec - who's broadband connection into the Chinese Academic 'net is usually drowned under virus-chatter 8am to 2am - thank-heavens for cronjobs!
They are RIGHT NOW implementing the new infrastructure, causing multi-week-long rolling outages across large regions of the country and - so far - no sign of improved service. Viva China - at least the cost of living here is negligible.
The man with no surname and a silly hat
On the universe: It's bunk.
Even for nanobots 2^128 (divided into groups) is a bit much (127 bits would be better :).
If you compare it to 2^32 (divided into groups) of IPv4 though, it's a huge improvement indeed. So yes, 2^128 is overkill, but 2^64 in groups might not be and 2^32 is clearly too little. Those extra bytes will be well spend in my opinion.
Or shorter, your right. I'm not sure if the nanobots should be aware of the internet and use IPv6, but that's for future scientists to decide. Can't visualize a medical nanobot running a web server just yet. I will have some more booze and try again.
IPsec is often sold as one of the wonderful things coming with IPv6 (but also available with IPv4), but its complexity is likely to make the recent OpenSSL vulns appear as a little joke...
You can IPv6-enable your network(s) now, using the global 6to4 address space. With a 6to4 gateway you can talk to other 6to4 hosts using transparent tunneling over ipv4, without the ipv6 hosts being aware of it. Any recent Linux or BSD should have support for acting as a 6to4 gateway.
... IPv6 enable your networks now, so that we can get rid of this stupid chicken-and-egg 'no demand'/'no supply' argument. There _is_ supply, thanks to 6to4, so lets use it now and encourage upstream providers to adopt IPv6 so we can start seeing more of the benefits.
With a relatively recent setup, you should find that your default route to the 'real' ipv6 internet is 192.88.99.1, a multicast address that finds the nearest 6to4-to-native gateway. My IPv6 internal hosts can talk to the native IPv6 without my having to do any manual configuration of the gateway or client hosts. As closer sites are IPv6 enabled, the choice of relay router gets closer, with no configuration by you.
So
As it is, I no longer need to worry about NAT when talking to internal hosts on any of the networks I operate - it's transparent and easy:
internalhost_net1$ ssh -6 internalhost_net2
internalhost_net2$
I also love the lack of DHCP in IPv6 (addresses are calculated by hosts using data broadcast by IPv6 routers, + their MAC address) and it's general ability to intelligently auto-configure things.
U R TEH SM4RTEST. L00K U T3LL DEM DEVE BEN TORLOLED LOLOLOERZ. UR Gh3Y
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Yeah, it was a troll.
But IPv6 has some problems. They can be dealt with. We ultimately need IPv6, and the sooner we move on to there, the better (the sooner we can all roll out new things that make good use of it).
IPv6 will still be slow going. Those who do move to it early will have problems of lack of connectivity everywhere while using it. That's not as much of a problem in places like China because as it expands to less technical people, it will be reaching those for whom connecting to the rest of the world won't matter, anyway.
The design of IPv6 also failed to address the routing scalability problem. It's still impractical to give everyone their own static IP addresses. It's partially mitigated by a better dynamic assignment method, but not entirely.
IPv6 could be expedited more quickly by offering a limited number of permanently assigned static netblocks to early adoptors to deploy working IPv6 connectivity, with reduced qualification requirements.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The truth is that the percieved need for radically new IP version turned out to be false. The only problem that IPv6 really solves is the address shortage, and whether you think IPv4 address translation is great or not, it has already solved it, and we can live with it with no real problems. And many people will want NATs for security and for privately managed address spaces even with IPv6.
Smaller routing tables? It is very wel likely that IPv6 will not achive that and it doesn't matter anyhow, Moore's law and router optimizations (cache memory) already solved that.
Security? IPSec works exactly the same in IPv4 and IPv6.
Stateless autoconfiguration? Does not work satisfactorily. Where do you get DNS address? Own DNS name? Domain DNS search path? Besides, the network administrator wants to recognize your MAC address, get your DNS name and dynamically update internal DNS for management. DHCP is familiar and easy and does all that, so DHCPv6 will still dominate in the IPv6 world. Besides, most computers do IPv4 autoconfiguration with 254.192.*.* addresses by default already, but who usues it? Nobody!
QoS? There is the traffic class / type of service byte which is the same in both versions, but 99,9 % of Internet traffic does not use it. The new "flow label" does not even have a deployment plan, and can be considered failure.
The problem is, that the hyped IPv6 bandwagon probably can't be stopped, and we are stuck with the hopeless confusion, security hazards and wasted man-millenia of the long and horrible transition phase. Remember, that most applications have to be upgraded or at least recompiled. Inefficient tunnelling has to be used always if there is a single IPv6 challenged router between you and the other party. That is, if your software even can do it with Teredo (which is even a challenge to undertstand) or similar, and if your firewall permits it.
And note that there is very limited support for IPv6 in firewalls. And as long as that is missing and is unmature, no organization will allow IPv6.
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
You're white, arent you?
SRSLY.
What is the point of IPv6? I used to think it was shiney because my computer would have an IP on the internet without NAT, but now it seems kind of lame to be able to network every blade of grass, ant, fruit fly, and worm on the face of the planet and still have enough space for computers. The amount of IP addresses available for use in IPv6 is rather ludicrous. Isnt there some method of half-assing it that could be used? Or, since we're going to have to switch infrastructures anyway, maybe we could switch addressing schemes entirely?
SRSLY.
The increased number of potential IP addresses is the least interesting and least relevant reason, though it is the most often mentioned in the press. Such a disproportionate amount of words is wasted on the IP range non-issue that I some times wonder if there isn't an intention to draw attention away from the real issues above.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Imagine 100000 of these systems affected by an outlook bug and now have a trojan/virus attacking sites. Now image them constantly changing IP addresses. Now imagine trying to create a block list :/.
And very sensitive about it!