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
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.
The US will adopt IPv6 as quickly as it's adopted the metric system.
Sounds like a Troll, and I could just mod him down, but I feel more like argueing back.