IPv6 Rollout Japan, China in 2005

China? by Exiler · 2004-03-20 05:40 · Score: 5, Funny

An IP address for every chinese citizen? Time to start working on IPv8!

(-1, I Like Chinese)

--
Banaaaana!

Re:China? by myownkidney · 2004-03-20 05:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yeah considering a lot of people who use disposable IP addresses for spamming come from that area...

--
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
Re:China? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:03 · Score: -1, Flamebait

STFU you racist POS, the vast majority of spam is from the USA.
Re:China? by mark-t · 2004-03-20 06:50 · Score: 1

Because of the number of IP addresses in IPv6, every individual could receive over a million IP's and we'd still have tons left over. In fact, the number of people it would require in order to take up the IPv6 space is so large that this planet could not physically sustain them all...not merely due to a lack of resources, but it _physically_ couldn't sustain them.
340282366920938463463374607431768211456 is an awfully big number. Its over a quadrillion times the number of square millimeters on the surface of this planet!

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:China? by fyonn · 2004-03-20 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

340282366920938463463374607431768211456 is an awfully big number. Its over a quadrillion times the number of square millimeters on the surface of this planet!

it is a big number, but remember that ipv6 address space is very sparse in the 128bit address sense. as each customer is likely to receive a /48 network that makes the first 48 bits very dense in usage, but after that, it'll be almost empty.

in reality the address space that can be assigned is a /48. the 96 bits after that are for the customer to use themselevs. /16 for their own subnets and 64 bits for host portion of the ip address. so thats 281474976710656 assignments. still alot mind you but ipv6 isn't effectively as big as most people claim.

dave
Re:China? by pediddle · 2004-03-20 07:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, but there's enough room in those 96 bits that a single "customer" with a /48 could be a large company, school, or even a small country that would otherwise be using a /16 or /8.
Re:China? by fyonn · 2004-03-20 07:30 · Score: 1

oh yes, indeed. that 96 bits for the customer breaks down to 16 bits for subnet address (so thats 65536 networks) each with as many machines on the lan as you can stuff.

the sparcity of the networks gives the great autoconfig stuff, and as many ip aliases as you like.

what I wonder is what happpens when you've got mulitple sites with multiple connections. your single /48 might well be enough but can you split your network over multiple sites like that? or will you merely order a /48 per site?

dave
Re:China? by jack_csk · 2004-03-20 07:35 · Score: 1

Actually, it would be difficult to tell where the spammers were from these days. People (especially winblows users) generally don't have the sense of alertness toward those virus e-mails.
It won't be surprised that most of the spams were sent from those infected computers (aka "Zombie")

I do agree your points that blaming East Asian for major spamming source is biased and stereotype. Most of the spams I received these days are still in English, advertising those penis enlargement stuff and "Nigerian" opportunities...
Re:China? by pediddle · 2004-03-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure it would be possible to configure a /48 split over multiple sites, on the ISP level, but I can't imagine why you'd want to. There are still more /48s available to the world than the entire IPv4 address space.
Re:China? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:05 · Score: 1, Informative

except that a list was made and the US *IS* the no. 1 spammer. it was on /. a month ago or so.
Re:China? by perlchild · 2004-03-20 08:28 · Score: 1

did you know that giving even 10^5 ipv6 addresses every second, we might not run out before the heat death of the universe?
2^128 is a f###ing large number...
Re:China? by mark-t · 2004-03-20 08:37 · Score: 2, Informative

In actuality, each "customer" would be an entire ISP, corporation, or institution, not just one particular individual. ISP's could assign blocks of IP's to individual domestic subscribers as they see fit (I can't imagine that a domestic subscriber would need more than a few thousand IP's, and that's allowing for every device in his household, from his VCR and washing machine to his toaster and alarm clock radio, was connected to the internet with a unique IP, which I don't think would ever actually happen in practice (local subnets with private IP's behind a NAT are fine for certain types of restricted usage devices anyways).

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:China? by owlstead · 2004-03-20 12:30 · Score: 1

Sheesh, we will have this discussion again when get everyone one of those 281 address - spaces - have been given to a single human being shall we?

Even _counting_ to 2^128 is a daunting task. Actually, with current computers even counting to 2^64 takes practically forever if I'm not mistaken.

You could always put the entire galaxy into a public address space if it comes that far :)
Re:China? by ae · 2004-03-22 14:16 · Score: 1

Even _counting_ to 2^128 is a daunting task. Actually, with current computers even counting to 2^64 takes practically forever if I'm not mistaken.

If you count one billion numbers per second it would take over 500 years. If you count at one billion times that speed it would take over 500 times the age of the universe to reach 2^128.

--
Blog Ho

Slashdot IPv6 by FrostedWheat · 2004-03-20 05:40 · Score: 5, Funny

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...

Re:Slashdot IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:43 · Score: -1, Troll

CowboyNeal is ready, alright!
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by Joe+U · 2004-03-20 06:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Last time I checked (late last year) Slashdot didn't do IPv6

Last time I checked, Slashdot didn't do valid HTML either.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by jack_csk · 2004-03-20 07:38 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, IE still didn't do PNG transparency right.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:52 · Score: 0

IE does 1-bit PNG transparency. I.e., PNG transparency works at least as well as GIF transparency in IE.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by FrostedWheat · 2004-03-20 08:12 · Score: 1

They wouldn't have to use any transparency.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by jack_csk · 2004-03-20 08:17 · Score: 1

Oops... I should have clarify the partial transparency... My fault.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 10:17 · Score: 1, Funny

That's because Microsoft secretly manipulated W3C validation codebase to hurt the Open Source movement.
Re:Slashdot IPv6 by pHDNgell · 2004-03-20 10:23 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, IE still didn't do PNG transparency right.

This is so annoying to keep seeing.

IE has always handled GIF-quality transparency as well as it did with GIFs as far as I've seen.

IE *can* deal with deeper transparency with a little bit of javascript that disables the broken behavior.

IE users should expect broken behavior, anyway. It's stupid to discard advanced technology just because Microsoft isn't interested in having its users keep up.

--
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.

IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by egg+troll · 2004-03-20 05:40 · Score: -1, 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 feel that China and Japan are going to shoot themselves in the foot with IPv6. 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?

--

C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:45 · Score: -1, Troll

OMG 40 BYTES! OMG OMG IM GONA CRY.

Your MAC is in the header, thats whats adding to it, along with other "security" features.

OMG WE MAY HAVE MORE ADDRESSES BUT NOT USE THEM ALL OMG OMG, forward thinking is bad.

CISCO SUCKS OMG OMG, buy something else.

Fuckin whiner.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Zarhan · 2004-03-20 05:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I would sure like to have -1, Wrong as a moderation option.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by pholower · 2004-03-20 05:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes, but 10 years ago, we didn't know all of the devices that are online now with their own IP address were going to be online. Who's to know what is going to be online in 10, 20, or even 30 years. IPv4 has done great so far, but with the security flaws that weren't seen when v4 was created being exploited, we have to implement something that will handle more IP address with better security.
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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by ciroknight · 2004-03-20 05:55 · Score: 1

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
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:58 · Score: 0

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).
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Peaker · 2004-03-20 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Zarhan · 2004-03-20 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative

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:

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 /64 prefix that the end-user sees is quite nicely broken down into categories.

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Eric_Cartman_South_P · 2004-03-20 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill.
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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by ixplodestuff8 · 2004-03-20 06:09 · Score: 0

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
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Brandon+Hume · 2004-03-20 06:11 · Score: 1

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/
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:13 · Score: 0

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.
I think that should be a 340 milliseconds wait.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:17 · Score: 0

WHAT? The nano-bots need to be connected to the Internet to communicate with each other? Shut up you dumbass.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by temojen · 2004-03-20 06:19 · Score: 4, Informative
Sounds like a Troll, and I could just mod him down, but I feel more like argueing back.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Current models, perhaps. But cisco is not the only router manufacturer, and routers can easily be made from a commodity PC with 2 (or more) network interfaces and commercial or open-source software (Linux/OpenBSD/Solaris or whatever).
2. There are too many addresses. How can there be too many addresses? There may be more than is currently forseen as needed, but I don't see how there can be too many. NAT is no solution as it breaks a great many protocols including H.323. As IPv6 is intended to make it possible for devices like telephones to live on IP networks, not breaking H.323 is mandatory.
3. IPv6 addresses are too large. Bits are cheap, future re-specifying of protocols is not. A routing table does not need to have an entry for every possible address, just what ranges are reachable from each interface.
4. The IPv6 header is too large. MTU stands for Maximun Transfer Unit so with a physical layer with the smallest frame size will have 3.6% more overhead. These networks tend to be short-haul connections in noisy environments. Longer-haul networks (and/or) with less noise tend to have MTUs closer to 10,000, so with these networks you have closer to 0.2% more overhead. This doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Exiler · 2004-03-20 06:33 · Score: 1

Duh! How else are the script kiddies gonna display goatse in scarification across people's chests?

--
Banaaaana!
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Vancorps · 2004-03-20 06:47 · Score: 1

I understand your point, but shit, that would suck if all those nano bots were connected to the Internet directly! Imagine a script kiddie overloading them and telling to tickle your inner ear or something, that would suck royally.
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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:04 · Score: 0

That was a classic!

You ARE the master.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:20 · Score: 0

You are obviously a troll.

OMG YUO R SMART!!111

Take a look at his name, moron!
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:23 · Score: 0

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!
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by perlchild · 2004-03-20 09:03 · Score: 1

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
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by CycoChuck · 2004-03-20 09:18 · Score: 1

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by tqbf · 2004-03-20 11:21 · Score: 1

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by owlstead · 2004-03-20 13:15 · Score: 1

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.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time by Skapare · 2004-03-20 19:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

finally! by Quasar1999 · 2004-03-20 05:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Re:finally! by Saven+Marek · 2004-03-20 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

And at the rate the rollout is being dragged along your kids will be in highschool before anyone next hears of it. The entire world is able to change over to IPV6 within a short timespan as long as there's a concerted effort to do so. Humans don't ever expend effort, as a group, unless they're pushed to. Hopefully with a nation the size of China working towards it, it'll drag us and the rest of the world with them much quicker.

Then again we're still using Imperial measurements when the rest of the world is metric. Go figure that one

Adult Mac Desktops & Wallpapers
Re:finally! by Frank+White · 2004-03-20 06:25 · Score: -1

Really fucking insightful, moderators.

--
Custer's Revenge: The greatest video
Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:28 · Score: -1, Troll

So you hate yourself?

It's "real" measurements versus "made up" ones. "Imperial" measurements have gone through lots of empires, but we still use them in America without even an empire. Why? Because they actually measure something. They're thousands of years in the making. The metric "system" is just a couple of arbitrary marks on a ruler decided by a few unqualified individuals making an "imperial" decree. Unfortunately, like most "systems" imposed by "intellectuals" for "our own good", they're remarkably bad at measuring anything in the "real" world.
Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:35 · Score: 0

> they're remarkably bad at measuring anything in the "real"
> world.

More things in the real world are measured using Metric measurements than anything else. Unless you're obsessively clueless about the world and take "the world" to mean "bumfuck USA"

Which you're doing.
Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 09:28 · Score: 0

I've been waiting for IPv6 for years... I was still in HighSchool when they supposedly started the switch over... Man I feel old...
The fact of the matter is, nobody really needs IPv6 anymore. There are plenty of addresses and after the dot-com bomb it became all the more apparent. Most large companies only need a handful of IP addresses. We serve 4500 machines behind two IP addresses for everything from browsing the web, FTP, mail, etc. NAT is a beautiful thing. If your apps don't work with NAT then it's time to find apps that do and finally table all this silly IPv6 nonsense. 95% of the machines with Internet routable addresses today don't really need to be. All those cable modem customers should be behind a couple of IP addresses via NAT.
Re:finally! by mstefanus · 2004-03-20 09:45 · Score: 1

I don't mind using NAT if it everthing works properly (Yahoo/MSN Voice chat comes to mind). I am so grateful that I can just use more IP addresses when I need more. In this room alone there are 3 computers with 4 IPs and when VMWare is up, there are more of course :-)
Re:finally! by chris_mahan · 2004-03-20 13:09 · Score: 1

Wanna change that? When you go buy something, ask for it in liters, centimeters/meters, grams, etc.

Enought people doing that, and someone will sell a scale at the grocery store that dislpays both metric and imperial. (like car spedometers)

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 15:31 · Score: 0

And that's why canadians are better! :P

Erik

Won't this by robslimo · 2004-03-20 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Won't this by Loualbano2 · 2004-03-20 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I thought this was discussed until everyone was blue in the face. Go back and read the article, the only person saying this protocol is for the Internet is the author. This doesn't make it fact. Authors of articles get things all mixed up all the time. If you read all of the quotes from Dr. Injong Rhee, he never said it was for the Internet.

People come out with new versions of IP occasionally. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily:

1. For the Internet
2. Ever going to be used

IPv6 is a standard recognized by everyone. The stuff mentioned in the DOD article was done by a guy in the government, for whatever reason. Please don't be so goddamn facetious and/or ignorant.
Re:Won't this by robslimo · 2004-03-20 07:03 · Score: 1

Reread my first sentence. It was meant to be a joke, though I'll admit it was more than a little humor-impaired. Facetious maybe, but not goddamn facetious. I didn't bother commenting in that prior article, having dismissed it as an obscure research project not likely to amount to anything.

Reread my main point. It presumes IP6 is the next step in a logical progression and hints that marketing forces are the prime obstacle to adoption.

Relax; enjoy a refreshing beverage. No one is impuning or supplanting IPv6.
Re:Won't this by Loualbano2 · 2004-03-20 10:05 · Score: 1

I guess I was a little harsh on you. I just was fed up with the replies in that article and was a little peeved about seeing it again.

As far as the humor goes, given the amount of people who were serious about that in the other article, I guess it didn't occur to me that it was tounge in cheek. As I don't really know you too well, it could have just as likely been serious.

I had that beverage while I was gone, and it did help.

ft

Oh, wonderful. by joeszilagyi · 2004-03-20 05:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Another 945,478,233,526,156 IP addresses I need to blacklist from spamming me.

--
Dude, where's my packet?

Re:Oh, wonderful. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:52 · Score: 1, Funny

Just block any IPv6...
Re:Oh, wonderful. by base_chakra · 2004-03-20 06:28 · Score: 1

Actually, you'd potentially have to block as many as 34,028,236,692,093,846,346,333,165,775,879 more addresses, assuming everyone else decides to start spamming you, and don't spam yourself. :)
Re:Oh, wonderful. by base_chakra · 2004-03-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Oops, sorry, the real number is even bigger... my calculater couldn't handle it!
Re:Oh, wonderful. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:04 · Score: 0

340282366920938463463374607431768211456
Re:Oh, wonderful. by be-fan · 2004-03-20 08:35 · Score: 1

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 is the correct number. My calculator is Python :)

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

Other Countries slow to follow by pholower · 2004-03-20 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Other Countries slow to follow by kruczkowski · 2004-03-20 06:15 · Score: 1

I like to mess with people who know a little about networking and ask them to ping 127.12.34.65 - They look at me funny.

"I thought 127.0.0.1 was the loop back"

--
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by pholower · 2004-03-20 06:23 · Score: 1

It is the loop back. Or as some call it, home. But in v6 it is just simply going to be ::1

--
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by DrLZRDMN · 2004-03-20 06:24 · Score: 0

Well, think geek is ready
There's No Place like ::1 shirt
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by espo812 · 2004-03-20 06:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Japan also rolled out 3G wireless before everyone else. Have we incorporated as much as Japan? [...] But only because they don't have all of the infrastructure flaws other countries do.
Japan is also much more densly populated, so it's more cost effective to roll out advanced wireless products there. If by "infrastructure flaws" you mean the ability to make an upgrade in a smaller area to benefit more customers, then yes Japan has fewer of those. They also have a state run telephone network that is increadibly expensive - not exactly a desirable infrastructure.

--

espo
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Vancorps · 2004-03-20 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a point a lot of people forget about. Japan is a little collection of Islands and so rolling out new wireless technology is relatively cheap for them.
However, China is also getting in on the game, they have a state run monopoly though so they can set policy, might add that they also have no existing infrastructure in very large portions of their country which they will soon change but that means no upgrade, just pure new equipment.
The United States does have a flaw in their system but its debatable whether or not to call it a flaw. They have to make the largest number of people happy. End users probably couldn't care less about IPv4 or v6. Businesses small and large probably do and will fight to keep things working. Of course, many of these people don't realize their routers and switches all support IPv6 already because it has been around a long time.
Basically the only reason people upgrade in the U.S. at this point is because a natural disaster or some other event occurs that destroys the infrastructure, getting a telco to upgrade is like getting a child to spinach after the proclaimed they wanted chocolate.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by fyonn · 2004-03-20 07:12 · Score: 1

never mind "just going to be" it is

dave
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by pediddle · 2004-03-20 07:18 · Score: 1

PING 127.12.34.65 (127.12.34.65): 56 data bytes ^C --- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by DragoonAK · 2004-03-20 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, Japan wants IPv6 because they have a lot less IPs per citizen than the US does. I can't be bothered to look up the actual numbers right now, but I remember figures on the order of 100 IPs/US Citizen and 7 IPs/Japanese Citizen. China's most likely in the same boat.

P.S. If there was a US city with 30 million people, they'd have 3G damn fast. Wireless and high population density go together well.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by espo812 · 2004-03-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Basically the only reason people upgrade in the U.S. at this point is because a natural disaster
Or if a major sigment of the connected network moves to IPv6, like the Department of Defense is scheduled to do by 2008: link (PDF).

--

espo
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by jrockway · 2004-03-20 07:24 · Score: 1

Your system is misconfigured. jon:~$ ping 127.12.34.65 PING 127.12.34.65 (127.12.34.65): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms 64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms 64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms --- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 0.0/0.0/0.0 ms

--
My other car is first.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Vancorps · 2004-03-20 07:30 · Score: 1

The DoD is not a major segment of the Internet that end-users or businesses see or care about.
One might also argue that the DoD switching would slow the progress of other parts of the country because the DoD likes to test the land first, have some time to themselves before they allow other people to use the technology they've helped create. They have real pull with the legislature so if they want people to delay they launch then it will happen.
That said, IPv6 is quite mature as is and the DoD has been using it for quite some time so maybe it will all just prety well change over at once.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by XorNand · 2004-03-20 07:40 · Score: 1

I'm quite a bit past the "know a little about networking" phase, but can anyone explain the significance of '127.12.34.65'?

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Dave2+Wickham · 2004-03-20 07:50 · Score: 1

127.*.*.* is reserved for loopback:
127.0.0.0/8 - This block is assigned for use as the Internet host loopback address. A datagram sent by a higher level protocol to an address anywhere within this block should loop back inside the host. This is ordinarily implemented using only 127.0.0.1/32 for loopback, but no addresses within this block should ever appear on any network anywhere [RFC1700, page 5].
(from RFC 3330)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by XorNand · 2004-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1

Ah.. thanks. Guess I need to read up a bit more on the IP RFCs.

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:36 · Score: 0

ping 127.12.34.65
PING 127.12.34.65 (127.12.34.65) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.758 ms
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.223 ms
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.211 ms

--- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.211/0.397/0.758/0.255 ms
Yay mine isn't ...
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 10:25 · Score: 0

It may not be broken, but it is slow. 0.4ms to ping localhost?
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 14:01 · Score: 0

How about New York? Tokyo's population is actually on the order of about 10 million if you don't count the neighboring cities (although the city limits are quite arbitrary). The Tokyo megalopolis area is humongous. Tokyo actually has rather few tall residential buildings because of the earthquake risk. It's just got an absurd number of tightly cramped 5-15 story buildings over a large area.
And 3G is already rolled out in pretty much every major city in Japan, not just Tokyo. USA is just backwards in mobile technology like always. Deal with it.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by espo812 · 2004-03-20 19:15 · Score: 1

The DoD is not a major segment of the Internet that end-users or businesses see or care about.
But a significant ammount of DoD traffic is sent over the public internet, which must be a large ammount of data. This data is sent via backbone providers (which are buisnesses). These providers would have to support to IPv6 to interface with DoD systems in the future. This will serve to push IPv6 to wider adoption with connected backbones and out to end users (other buisnesses or individuals.) It's a cascade effect, all because it's often cheaper for DoD to send traffic over the public internet than use their own private networks.

--

espo
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by Vancorps · 2004-03-20 19:24 · Score: 1

I believe you have it backwards, the DoD would hold off using IPv6 because they use commerical networks. Commercial networks would have to adopt it first since you can't wrap IPv6 inside of IPv4. At least, not in a way I've heard of.
Of course, they could create a vpn connection using IPv4 in which case their effect would be neglegible on the rest of the Internet.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow by kruczkowski · 2004-03-20 20:56 · Score: 1

The 12.34.65 is a random number I made up. Anything 127.x.x.x is loopack. It's a silly design to give an entire /8 for loopback.

--
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5

How many addresses? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:43 · Score: 0

IPv4 has an address space of 256^4
IPv6 has an address space of 256^6?

Re:How many addresses? by Sediyama · 2004-03-20 05:47 · Score: 1, Informative

IPv6 has an address space of 128 insteade of 32 from IPv4. IPv4: 256^4 IPv6: 65536^8 Exemple IP would be: FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210 1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:4171 3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1 1080::8:800:200C:417A ::192.9.5.5 ::FFFF:129.144.52.38 2010:836B:4179::836B:4179
Re:How many addresses? by djplurvert · 2004-03-20 06:07 · Score: 3, Funny

256^4 = 2^8^4 = 2^(8*4) = 2^32

however

256^6 = 2^8^6 = 2^(8*6) = 2^48 != 2^128

but

65536^8 = 2^16^8 = 2^(16*8) = 2^128

Which explains everyhing...

Japan and china are ready to roll out ipv6 because there math skills are up to scratch....

I think we better just forget about ipv6 and focus on the metric system. /plurvert
Re:How many addresses? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:30 · Score: 0

65536^8 = 2^16^8 = 2^(16*8) = 2^8^16 = 256^16

So it should be called IPv16, not IPv6. There's a typo.

wtf??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:44 · Score: -1, Offtopic

CowboyNeal is ready!

Ready for what? Is he lubed up and bending over?

;P

Laugh people. It's funny!!!
Funnier than the rest of the tripe around this place these days...

Re:wtf??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:51 · Score: 0

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.
Re:wtf??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:05 · Score: -1, Flamebait

CowboyNeal is ready!

Ready for what? Is he lubed up and bending over?

LOL. Shame sodomy jokes don't go over well on Slashdot... It's the truth about gays though, all they want to do is screw around. Proof?

When the new San Fransisco Apple store opened, there was a much bigger turn out than there was at the city office the day gay marriage was legalized. Now, let's look at the numbers...

Apple has a 3% marketshare.
10% of the population is gay, not taking into account San Fransisco's higher gay population density.

By sheer numbers, there should have been a much larger turn out for gays to get married than Apple customers going to a new Apple store. The fact is, gays don't really want to get married. They like to piss and moan about equal rights but they don't actually want to be tied down to just one sex partner. Men are pigs by nature and gay men are no different.

Less mature infrastructure ? by ThomasFlip · 2004-03-20 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Less mature infrastructure ? by DragoonAK · 2004-03-20 07:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, this is a common phenomenon. Compare to the way cellphones took off in Europe as opposed to the US. Yes, part of it was geography and population density, but another big part was that the well-etablished US phone infrastructure was a lot cheaper to consumers than the comparative European networks. No per minute charges for local calls and all that.

An even better example is the way most developing nations are largely jumping straight to cell phones and avoiding setting up all those expensive copper wires. There's likely others, but I can't think of them right now.
Re:Less mature infrastructure ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:01 · Score: 0

>Their countrie's internet infrastructre can't be nearly as mature as the United States
More likely the other way around. Japan had internet "capabilities" five years ago that we are only realizing now. Checking mail on your phone and SMS are only two examples of things they were doing at least 5 years before we were. As advanced as our country is, we're still in the stone age when it comes to internet maturity.
Re:Less mature infrastructure ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:44 · Score: 0

By mature you mean antiquated and hard to manage, as well as spread out physically and tied to proprietary components controlled by those in power with a vested interest in seeing them not superceded?

The fun will begin... by MsGeek · 2004-03-20 05:47 · Score: 2, Funny

...when Japan rolls out Protocol Seven.

Present day...present time! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Re:The fun will begin... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:56 · Score: 0

Jesus fucking Christ, who modded this offtopic?
Re:The fun will begin... by tai_Dasher · 2004-03-20 06:00 · Score: 2, Funny

*sound of power cables humming*

--
"
Re:The fun will begin... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:34 · Score: 0

More likely it'll be in China first ;-)
Re:The fun will begin... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 10:01 · Score: 0

Present day...present time! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

great ... now I won't get that song out of my head for the rest of day ..

Moving On...... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:48 · Score: -1, Offtopic

"In other news, at the local beach today a vicious fight broke out between geeks about where to draw a line. Sand was kicked, noses have been blooded, we have some unconfirmed reports of a wedgie. We will have more on this breaking news as it comes in."

Please Don't Feed This Troll by HopeOS · 2004-03-20 05:48 · Score: 1

Check his post history. Check his name. Review the content. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Leave it alone. Thank you.

Re:Please Don't Feed This Troll by gazbo · 2004-03-20 05:52 · Score: 0

Umm...his name might make you suspicious, but that's no reason to think he's trolling. The content looks pretty rational to me - if there's something wrong with his logic, then perhaps you'd like to share your critique with those of us who think he makes sense rather than just labeling him a troll?

Why is it a troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:51 · Score: 0

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?!

Re:Why is it a troll? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:52 · Score: 0

So that means you want to stay in your large internet world of 2 (you and him). Meanwhile we all will be moving on. Have a nice day in limboland.

SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:52 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I offer today's quote of the day found at the bottom of the page:

Who dat who say "who dat" when I say "who dat"? -- Hattie McDaniel

With that out of the way I now offer this treatise:

The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an op

Re:SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:07 · Score: -1, Offtopic

slashdot is racist? how does that make them racist? African American Vernacular English his a valid dialect of English, not a substandard. Anyone can speak it if they want. You're a fucking retard.
Re:SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:08 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Racist. People like you are holding back America from becoming the civilized and enlightened society it can be. Fuck you and your racism.
Re:SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:25 · Score: 0

I am not racist. I am not even American, idiot. Maybe your own stupidity is holding a lot of things back.
Re:SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:55 · Score: 0

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
Re:SLASHDOT IS RACIST! by DeadChobi · 2004-03-21 04:57 · Score: 0

You're white, arent you?

--
SRSLY.

Check His January 11th posting - Same Content by HopeOS · 2004-03-20 05:53 · Score: 1

It has a score of zero for trolling.

Dont' worry: We (the US) won't. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 05:54 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The US doesn't care since we're not affected by this "so-called" IP shortage. DOD is trying to push for IPv6 but it won't happen because we all know that corporations run the US, and it will be far too expensive to implement IPv6 (replace routers, etc). Since there's no business reason, there won't be a migration.

If we do, then buy shares in Cisco and Juniper because it means everyone will have paid millions upon millions to upgrade their routers.

Re:Dont' worry: We (the US) won't. by Monkey · 2004-03-20 06:11 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

MODS by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:00 · Score: -1, Redundant

If you're going to mod up duplicated posts, please try to find one that's got some content worth modding up i.e. not this crap, AGAIN.

Thanks.

For starters... by HopeOS · 2004-03-20 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

There was no January 11th posting by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:04 · Score: 0

He didn't make any posts on January 11th. Moron.

Like the Metric System by alue · 2004-03-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US will adopt IPv6 as quickly as it's adopted the metric system.

Re:Like the Metric System by ch-chuck · 2004-03-20 06:14 · Score: 5, Funny

My router gets 4 octets per address and that's the way I like it!

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:Like the Metric System by WolfWithoutAClause · 2004-03-20 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think so. IPv6 has a reasonable degree of backward compatibility, unlike metric, and I suspect that soon you will be able to get IPv4 NAT gateways that give you IPv6 behind them- in otherwords you can tunnel your IPv6 home network out onto the big (IPv6) wide world across IPv4. Heck you can probably do that already, you just need more equipment and it's less convenient.

--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Like the Metric System by dicepackage · 2004-03-20 07:04 · Score: 1

"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it." Abraham (Grandpa) Simpson
Re:Like the Metric System by sirsnork · 2004-03-20 07:53 · Score: 1

It can be done already without much work at all if you currently have a linux firewall http://www.freenet6.net/requirement.shtml

--

Normal people worry me!
Re:Like the Metric System by Epistax · 2004-03-20 08:19 · Score: 4, Funny

IPv6 has a reasonable degree of backward compatibility, unlike metric...

I am stunned trying to think of a response... Metric isn't backwards compatible? 1 inch = 2.54 cm... and let's see.. if I multiply.. no.. maybe.. no... you're right, you can't go back!
Re:Like the Metric System by joaobranco · 2004-03-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Yes, you can do it today, more easily if you control the NAT box, a little harder if you dont. In the latter case, you only have to deliver protocol 41 packets (IPv6 in IPv4 standard encapsulation) to a machine that will be the end-point of the tunnel (which can run Linux, BSD or even Windows and provide IPv6 addresses to the rest of the NATed boxes). You have to notify the tunnel end-point about your IPv4 address (needed if you're on a dinamically allocated IPv4 address) but there are several working implementations (check the one on http://www.sixxs.net, using "heartbeat").

It would be better (one less box to worry about) if the router itself would do the translation though (its not rocket science, very easily done if the router/NAT box runs Linux/BSD or Windows, it SHOULD be done also on "home gateway devices", but AFAIK no device does it yet).

However, considering the usual (lack of) security of machines behind a NAT box, I don't know if it would be wise to provide them automagically with a world routable IPv6 address. Perhaps it should be available, but disabled by default.
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:48 · Score: 0

to read important essay re: retro advance of NAT and freedom of net and much else: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimat ur/
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 08:55 · Score: 0

Check out this howto, HOWTO Setup an IPv6 Masquerade Box Under Debian GNU/Linux Through IPv4 (with Windows XP and Linux clients).

works like a charme here...
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 09:20 · Score: 0

Security is no reason. If a box has a routable address but a packet filter refuses to forward any traffic, you can change your mind later when the box has one or more known-secure servers running. If the box's address had been unroutable, you'd be screwed--you either have to renumber or use some expensive kludge like a stateful proxy.
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 09:33 · Score: 0

"SHOULD be done also on "home gateway devices", but AFAIK no device does it yet)."

Apparently we'll have such a device from Cisco (aimed at small businesses, but would work fine in a home) waiting for me at work on Monday. I wonder if that's supposed to be confidential? In any case I'm sure it's no surprise that the manufacturers are ready to support this if someone tells them customers want it.
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 10:37 · Score: 0

and with even less if you have an OpenBSD firewall. (which is a lot easier to set up in the first place anyway)
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 11:47 · Score: 0

in otherwords you can tunnel your IPv6 home network out onto the big (IPv6) wide world across IPv4.

In other words.. use IPv4 as usual, but in a much more complicated way. Exactly what is this point of this geeky excercise??

Until I have more than roughly 60,000 hosts behind my NAT box, I think I'll stick with port forwarding, thanks..
Re:Like the Metric System by welsh+git · 2004-03-20 11:59 · Score: 1

My home network computers have all been talking routable ipv6 natively for yonks, even though my internet link is a single ip4. - My router (running freebsd) uses the freenet software/gateway at freenet-6, and my home machines are simply configured with ip6 'normally' with no specifics relating to the fact the ip6 is tunneled.

--
Sig out of date
Re:Like the Metric System by owlstead · 2004-03-20 12:38 · Score: 1

"Heck you can probably do that already, you just need more equipment and it's less convenient."

Ummm, why? You need software that can handle IPv6, but that's all. My dutch ISP (www.xs4all.nl) supports IPv6 tunnels, as well as having services on IPv6 (like the 12 TB experimental news server :). You do get an entire subnet indeed, so its great for home networking behind a linux server.

But more equipment? Don't think so. Don't forget that most of home networks contain just switches and modems. The actual IPv6 would be done by software. With support by linux, XP, java, etc. etc.

I think IPv4 NAT is a hack. One that works reasonably well for some protocols, but it's still a hack IPv6 should have more support already.
Re:Like the Metric System by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 14:50 · Score: 0

Why would they want to adopt IPv6? Once the world move to IPv6, they'll have all 32bits of IPv4 for themselves.

I remember when... by su2ge · 2004-03-20 06:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.

You Mean This One... by HopeOS · 2004-03-20 06:12 · Score: 1

IPv6: Not Ready for Prime Time.

MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:17 · Score: 0

You linked to the same post, doofus.

Quit trolling us.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:25 · Score: 0

Uh... I checked the date. Hopeos is correct. It's a dupe.

Big ISP's by sndtech · 2004-03-20 06:18 · Score: 0

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.

IPv4 backward compatible? by Sediyama · 2004-03-20 06:21 · Score: 0

Can my IPv4 network reach any IPv6 address? How can I do it?

Re:IPv4 backward compatible? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:24 · Score: -1, Offtopic

yes click here for instructions
Re:IPv4 backward compatible? by leerpm · 2004-03-20 08:54 · Score: 1

No, but any IPv6 computer through NAT-like mechanisms can reach any IPv4 address. So it provides a nice incentive for people to upgrade :)

same as ever by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:23 · Score: 0

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.

RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:27 · Score: -1, Offtopic

You just cant admit that you're a racist at heart and hold lots of hate and ill-will towards people of different skin color.

The thing about racists is that they are incapable of using logic. Instead, they resort to personal attacks and bigotry.

Re:RACIST! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:30 · Score: 0

Hahaha, ok. Whatever you say idiot. I'm heading out now. Gotta get some studying done. Nice talking to you.

HopeOS is both an ass and a troll. PLEASE READ. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:29 · Score: 0

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.

Re:HopeOS is both an ass and a troll. PLEASE READ. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:43 · Score: 0

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.
Can we please have a "-1, Wrong" moderation option?
Re:HopeOS is both an ass and a troll. PLEASE READ. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-21 07:39 · Score: 0

Or better yet, -1 YHBTYHLHAND

Less Addresses for US by ClimbNorth · 2004-03-20 06:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic

nice trolling you sir.

moron. if you actually took the bait from whoever posted the UNIX is racist, etc, post, then you are a freaking idiot.

Re:YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:07 · Score: -1, Offtopic

i knew it was a troll. wow. let's just assume that, please.
Re:YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 07:10 · Score: -1, Offtopic

no you didnt. you wouldn't have replied as if it was a serious comment if you did. YOU LOSE!
Re:YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 16:53 · Score: 0

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.

You need to ask for it by chrismcc@netus.com · 2004-03-20 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:You need to ask for it by fyonn · 2004-03-20 07:15 · Score: 1

The answer, "Nobody is asking for it".

perhaps your could point out that they are very blatently lieing to you.

*you're* asking!

I've asked my two isp's for ipv6 too, not been overly successful yet either.

dave
Re:You need to ask for it by leerpm · 2004-03-20 08:57 · Score: 1

It will happen eventually. When the DoD and parts of the US government start demanding that its suppliers and partners connect to it over IPv6, then you see those ISPs start offering access. But yeah, it probably will not happen from any push within the corporate or consumer market.
Re:You need to ask for it by cheezit · 2004-03-20 09:37 · Score: 1

And when your boss asks why that line the RFP seems to drive up the cost/exclude the preferred providers, what will your business justification be?

"Ipv6 is cool?"

--
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
Re:You need to ask for it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 11:40 · Score: 0

If you switch ISPs ask for IPv6 in the RFP.

Why? All the customers are on IPv4. We might as well write our web sites in Esperanto.

Nobody seems to have a good reason WHY IPv6 is so necessary, when we all have IPv4 addresses that work.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-03-20 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Could someone please clarify? by jguthrie · 2004-03-20 06:53 · Score: 2

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?

tr0llkore by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 06:59 · Score: -1, Offtopic

to decline for you get distracted bunch of gay negros of Jorda8 Hubbard just yet, 3ut I'm today. It's about over a quality United States of

I'm confused .. by stevey · 2004-03-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...

Re:I'm confused .. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 11:43 · Score: 0

No, because they still need their IPv4 addresses to get to the IPv4 sites, i.e., all of them. IPv6 is just a very complicated NAT at this point.

In Europe IPv6 is happening also by jordip · 2004-03-20 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

See this document and this site. And this one for the rest of the world.

Also news posted at the IPv6 Cluster.

By the way, a new tunnel broker is available here, also with Spanish instructions at 6SOS.

Short vs. longterm memory by damgx · 2004-03-20 07:21 · Score: 1

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...

Get a tunnel! by Glendale2x · 2004-03-20 07:42 · Score: 1

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

My system is by pediddle · 2004-03-20 07:51 · Score: 1

OS-X. Go figure.

Re:My system is by Gsus411 · 2004-03-20 09:24 · Score: 1

Mac OS X 10.3.3.... % ping -c 10 127.12.34.65 PING 127.12.34.65 (127.12.34.65): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.989 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.037 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.955 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.005 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.427 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.435 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.426 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.437 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.434 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.432 ms --- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 0.426/0.657/1.037 ms
Re:My system is by pediddle · 2004-03-20 18:56 · Score: 1

Same here. How strange. Completely stock configuration.

Stop the spammers and the viruses by gnuman99 · 2004-03-20 08:05 · Score: 1

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!

Don't get a tunnel! by Wesley+Felter · 2004-03-20 08:13 · Score: 2, Informative

As we have to point out in every IPv6 thread, 6to4 is more efficient than tunnels.

Re:Don't get a tunnel! by caluml · 2004-03-21 04:21 · Score: 1

6to4 i smore efficient than tunnels
Yep, but it requires that all hosts have a routable IPv4 address, whereas with a tunnel you can have an IPv6 subnet allocated. Horses for courses.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Don't get a tunnel! by Wesley+Felter · 2004-03-21 08:03 · Score: 1

That isn't correct; a 6to4 relay gets a whole /48 allocated to it (2^16 subnets!). Since AFAIK tunnels also require a routable IPv4 address at each end, I don't see much of a difference except that 6to4 is more efficient and requires less configuration.

Re:Other Countries slow to follow -Kansas Not by wrong_fuel · 2004-03-20 08:43 · Score: 1

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.

How will DNSBLs cope with IPv6? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 09:04 · Score: 0

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?

Re:Other Countries slow to follow -Kansas Not by CycoChuck · 2004-03-20 09:35 · Score: 1

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.

geographic identification? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 09:43 · Score: 0

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?

Cowboy neal is not ready by Omnifarious · 2004-03-20 10:37 · Score: 1

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 == bad joke by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-20 11:18 · Score: 0

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?

From the ground in East-China. by glenalec · 2004-03-20 12:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

IPv6 security by cpc · 2004-03-20 13:35 · Score: 1

I advise you to read this excellent article by Bruce Schneier about IPsec: http://www.schneier.com/paper-ipsec.html

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 don't have to wait by Craig+Ringer · 2004-03-20 14:22 · Score: 1

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.

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 ... 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.

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.

IPv6 is coming, unfortunately by porttikivi · 2004-03-20 22:51 · Score: 1

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

Bill Gates sez ... by some+guy+I+know · 2004-03-21 00:40 · Score: 1

I can't imagine that a domestic subscriber would need more than a few thousand IP's ...

Yeah, 64000 IP addresses should be enough for anybody.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana

IPv6: Now you can network blades of grass! by DeadChobi · 2004-03-21 05:07 · Score: 0

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.

Quality of Service, Security, Improved Routing by SgtChaireBourne · 2004-03-21 23:15 · Score: 1

Real benefits of IPv6 include quality of service, security, improved routing, simplified headers, authentication and privacy capabilities, and provisions for autoconfiguration. I'm sure I forgot some, too.

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.

Not necessarily good... Constantly changing IPs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-22 09:07 · Score: 0

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 :/.

Invalid Tacos by fm6 · 2004-03-28 05:37 · Score: 1

And very sensitive about it!

Slashdot Mirror

IPv6 Rollout Japan, China in 2005

191 comments