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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The US will adopt IPv6 as quickly as it's adopted the metric system.
256^4 = 2^8^4 = 2^(8*4) = 2^32
/plurvert
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a Troll, and I could just mod him down, but I feel more like argueing back.
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!
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
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?
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.
As we have to point out in every IPv6 thread, 6to4 is more efficient than tunnels.
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.
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