IPv6 is Here

v6 could help solve some net problems by erick99 · 2004-07-20 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps we will get to the point where static IP addresses are required. That might help track down spammers and other bad netizens. I'm sure they will find a way around it, but, still, an assigned IP for each user and each piece of hardware would be a good start. And, it would seem that there would be enough to 'round:

Cerf said about two-thirds of the 4.3 billion Internet addresses currently available were used up, adding that IPv6 could magnify capacity by some "25,000 trillion trillion times."

Of course, if v4 runs along side of v6 for 20 years that may mean that it would be harder to implement an IP-per-user scheme. I don't know. But, 20 years should be enough time to work out any bugs:

He said the IPv6 system would run parallel to IPv4 for about 20 years to ensure that any bugs or system errors were weeded out.

Cheers!

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-20 03:22 · Score: 3, Funny

...because no one should ever need more than 100,000 trillion trillion billion RA--err, IP addresses.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by The+Darkness · 2004-07-20 03:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Also I'm not familiar enough with DHCP, can it do the same thing?
Yes, I have machines on my network that acquire static IPs through DHCP. It uses the MAC Address to determine when one of those machines requests an IP.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those that need closure
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by mattdm · 2004-07-20 03:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Sure, DHCP can do that. And lots of people use it that way. In fact, pretty much all of those Linksys/Dlink/whatever firewall/gateway/router boxes support it...
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by tabdelgawad · 2004-07-20 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps we will get to the point where static IP addresses are required. That might help track down spammers and other bad netizens.
Let's add "good netizens who want to be anonymous". Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I don't see a way of making the net spammer-proof without ending the concept of internet anonymity.

--
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by fishwallop · 2004-07-20 03:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Having more IP addresses doesn't mean that they will be statically assigned, nor that they will be assigned on a "per-user" rather than on a "per-device" basis. Even if each individual were assigned a block of addresses for their devices (this packet comes from John's palm pilot, this from his cell phone, and that one from his refrigerator...) you'd still have the problem of multiple users with a single physical device (public library computers, internet cafes, office beer fridges...) so, unless each device includes biometric identification and logging, you'll never be able to attribute every internet communication to a human party, even when one exists. I won't even get into the privacy concerns there.

The vast majority of bad netizenship occurs at protocol levels above IP -- spammers abuse SMTP, advertisers abuse DHTML, hackers abuse various services running on open ports. While some of this bad netizenship can be addressed at lower protocol levels (e.g. by blackholing certian IP ranges) the real solution is in fixing the higher-level protocols.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Matey-O · 2004-07-20 03:33 · Score: 2, Funny

IPv6 is big enough to give a class C subnet to every living person on the planet...I don't think static addressing will be necessary. Man, I don't think I'll be albe to rewire my brain to rember ssh 100.100.100.100.100

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-20 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

No static IP addr. for everyone. Think of this:

If I move from CA to NY, the routers of the world would have to change their tables to be able to get information to me. That is just for one person. Now think of all the people who move or change ISPs.

So static IPs for everyone is not a good idea.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Malcolm+Chan · 2004-07-20 03:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Alternatively, the ISP could still dynamically assign IP addresses, but instead of internal addresses (192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x, etc), externally routable addresses.

This way, no NATing is necessary, but there isn't any administration of IP addresses assignments necessary. The ISP simply has to make sure that he has enough externally routable addresses available for the max number of customers who could ever be simultaneously connected.

--
/MC
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by jerde · 2004-07-20 03:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

IPv6 is big enough to give a class C subnet to every living person on the planet

Um. IPv6 is big enough to give a Class A subnet to every living person on the planet.

It's big enough to route an entire IPv4 numberspace to every living person on the planet, and to each of their pets, favorite invisible friends, and pieces of furniture.

2^128 is a big, big number.

The point is, they'll be able to "waste" huge swaths of the that numberspace as they build the routing hierarchy, making the network more scalable.

I'm worried about remembering ssh 2031:0000:130F:0000:0000:09C0:876A:130B

:)

- Peter

--
INsigNIFICANT
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by rsidd · 2004-07-20 03:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Better still, bring back the old BOOTP protocol? Which if I'm not mistaken just simply keeps a database of MAC addresses to IP Addresses (manually entered),
An IPv6 address includes the 64 bit MAC address.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Mirk · 2004-07-20 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I don't see a way of making the net spammer-proof without ending the concept of internet anonymity.

I don't see a way of making the sending of email spammer-proof without ending the concept of email-sender anonymity. But that is not the same thing as Internet anonymity. Such a scheme need have no effect whatsoever on all the other numerous Internet protocols, including the Web.

--

--
What short sigs we have -
One hundred and twenty chars!
Too short for haiku.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Ianoo · 2004-07-20 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Or, you could just type "ssh pc1.id.isp.com". If IPv6 brings a demand for memorable DNS addresses for everyone, I'm sure the ISPs will provide. Considering you'll most likely be able to put each machine on a static IP within your subsubnet within your ISP's subnet, services like DynDNS will no longer be needed, so you can just register a domain and run your own nameserver.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by argmanah · 2004-07-20 03:59 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't see a way of making the sending of email spammer-proof without ending the concept of email-sender anonymity. But that is not the same thing as Internet anonymity. Such a scheme need have no effect whatsoever on all the other numerous Internet protocols, including the Web. You have no idea what you're talking about. John Doe is given static ip x.y. Free porn site logs incoming connection from x.y, immediately knows it's John Doe. So yes, forcing each user to uniquely identify their IP does affect web traffic. I can uniquely identify any user who connects to my webserver. Think what companies like Amazon and E-Bay could do with this information.

--
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by spookymonster · 2004-07-20 04:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

With postal mail, you can send mail anonymously (just don't include your address). When you want to receive mail anonymously, rent a mailbox (either at the post office or at a Mailboxes, etc, for example).

If every IP device gets its own address, but you want to send or receive something anonymously, use a public terminal.

For both snail mail and IP traffic, neither solution is convenient. However, the fact remains that it is still possible.

--
- Despite popular opinion, I am not perfect.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by dotwaffle · 2004-07-20 05:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't make me Briticise that... Ok...

number 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
three hundred forty billion trillion.
two hundred eighty-two thousand million trillian.
three hundred sixty-six million trillion.
nine hundred twenty thousand trillion.
nine hundred thirty-eight trillion.
four hundred sixty-three thousand million billion.
four hundred sixty-three million billion.
three hundred seventy-four thousand billion.
six hundred seven billion.
four hundred thirty-one thousand million.
seven hundred sixty-eight million.
two hundred eleven thousand.
four hundred fifty-six.

Now let that be a lesson. Lesser-cousins of ours.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-07-20 05:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Sometimes, although your source doesn't list that as as requirement. From the page you linked:
It is recommended that it be used as 16 bit internal network number and 48 bit MAC address, although sites can do what they liked.
For example, I get a /64 netblock from my IPv6 provider, but I split that out locally to three /80 subnets (LAN, DMZ, and WLAN). Everything I've read indicates that using the MAC address to autoconfig prefixes longer than /64 is impossible, so I have to manually specify the last 48 bits of the IPv6 address on each machine. Fortunately, that means that one host on the LAN is ::2, another is ::3, and so on.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by JPriest · 2004-07-20 05:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I got bored one day and figured out there are over a million IPv6 addresses for every square inch of the earth suface (counting water). Also it is not difficult to track somwone down just becasue they have a DHCP assigned IP address. Without DHCP we would have to hire 1 administrator for every person becasue they will have 15 or 20 IP connected devices.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by JPriest · 2004-07-20 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative

But someone has to manually add that entry to the dhcpd.conf file, and someone has to manually add the static route for the /30 on the router you connect to. If a network change is made, all these /30's have to be relocated to the other device.
We don't bother adding the /30's to DHCP becasue it is easier to let users do it with tech support than it is to pay UNIX admins to make the changes.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Basje · 2004-07-20 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I disagree. Making the net spammer-proof would not neccessarily end anonymity. You can always upload your stuff somewhere, and hope people look at it.

However, it would be the end of anonymous mailing. But I think that the receiver should be allowed to require people sending him mail to identify themselves. It's the classical debate of one's freedom ending where another one's begins.

--
the pun is mightier than the sword
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by AuMatar · 2004-07-20 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's always a reason for anonymity. Here's a simple one: I want it. According to the 10th ammendment, as the Constitution does not grant the right to take it away to the government, I have the right to be anonymous.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by jrockway · 2004-07-20 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

My ISP recently decided to NAT everyone. Now I can't log into my machine remotely. Now I can't receive email to me@rockway.gotdns.org. Now I can't use BitTorrent.

So no, NAT isn't a good idea. It BREAKS the internet. If I wasn't going back to school in a few weeks I would change ISPs. This is borderline unacceptable :)

--
My other car is first.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by M1FCJ · 2004-07-20 07:00 · Score: 4, Funny

Wait until "smart dust" concept really kicks in. A mole of (6.22x10^23) nanorobots will eat into your IPv6 numberspace pretty easily.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by the+chao+goes+mu · 2004-07-20 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except the shortage of valid domain names (which are ven vaguely memorable or pronounceable) would then come into play.

--
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by spektr · 2004-07-20 08:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Now I can't use BitTorrent.

BitTorrent still works (suboptimal) if you're NATed, because your client still connects to other clients (that aren't NATed) and uploads data to them (and thus receives data in return). You just won't get optimal download rates, because nodes that aren't NATed hold several times more concurrent connections. That's because everyone in the network can establish a connection to them, while a NATed node has only the connections it establishes itself (to clients that aren't NATed).
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by dgatwood · 2004-07-20 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
If I move from CA to NY, the routers of the world would have to change their tables to be able to get information to me. That is just for one person. Now think of all the people who move or change ISPs.
Easily solved. How about something like this:
- 128 bits of addressing....
- lower 48 bits for the host ID
- next 40 bits for your internet number provider
- top 40 bits for current network routing info
The client could try to send a packet to the static IP number as-is. If it came back with a network unreachable ICMP response, the client would assume that the server moved. Thus, it could use a variation of the existing DNS mechanism to ask who routes for a given host ID part. The root server throws away the top 40 bits and looks at the second 40 bits (the number provider part). It then says "mybigisp.com knows the answer for those 40 bits". You ask dns.mybigisp.com, which might subdivide those 40 bits into a multi-tiered namespace according to where you lived when you joined the network, for example.
Now at that point, you have a regional host in your original home region which says "the last time I heard from myHostID, it was coming from mycurrentisp.com's routing space."
Next, you ask mycurrentisp for the current IP number for myHostID. It does the same multi-tier lookup based on some division of the 48 bit host id part and hands you back the current IP number with a new top 40 bits glued on. Routing then occurs using only the top 40 bits. This still gives you 256 times the current total IPv4 namespace to use for routing, and unlike IPv4, it can be allocated dynamically.
Now from your server's side, your machine thinks it has a static IP. The first router it encounters speaks some IPv6 routing protocol and says "I'm suddenly seeing packets from a device whose number provider ID is (insert 40 bits here). I'll notify my upstream, which eventually would get to your ISP's name server, which would propagate it across to the number provider's name server.
In a scheme like that, you could have a static IP and not have a static IP at the same time. :-) Or maybe I'm just nuts. Hard to say.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems by Danathar · 2004-07-20 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's NOT going to happen. IN IPv6 you are not allowed to take your address with you to another ISP. All address blocks assigned by almighty on high are only to be given to tier 1 and possibly tier 2 providers. These Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers then subnet the v6 address space to their customers.

DNS becomes MUCH more important. Since that is the only thing you will be able to take with you if you move ISP's.

This was done to keep the internet backbone routers clean of having to deal with huge routing tables.

20 years to work out the bugs? by Michael+Dorfman · 2004-07-20 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

That's optimistic.

Perfect! by mfh · 2004-07-20 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

FTA: Cerf said about two-thirds of the 4.3 billion Internet addresses currently available were used up, adding that IPv6 could magnify capacity by some "25,000 trillion trillion times."

Perfect for colonization of other planets. If each human being has their own IP, then we would need to pack a whole bunch of planets to require more than that! They aren't kidding when they say they'll run IPv4 with IPv6 for twenty years. In that time, we won't have used even a fraction of a couple percent of available IPs, even if we assign every human being on the planet with one, and every company with a giant block.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

Re:Perfect! by ultrabot · 2004-07-20 03:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

If each human being has their own IP, then we would need to pack a whole bunch of planets to require more than that!

Binding IP's to humans is arbitrary - it's more realistic to expect that every human with money is going to have several IP addresses (appliances, toasters, whatever), while most of the people in the world will have none.

Also, for some reason, I don't really like the idea of persistent per-human IP addresses. The idea has an Orwellian feel to it.

--
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Re:Perfect! by TykeClone · 2004-07-20 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, for some reason, I don't really like the idea of persistent per-human IP addresses. The idea has an Orwellian feel to it.
You already have it (assuming your an American) - it's called your Social Security Number.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Perfect! by DreadSpoon · 2004-07-20 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

You don't have to worry about that, though, because it isn't possible. How would the routers handle those (theoretical) 6 billion addresses? The routing tables could never handle it.

At best, you'd continue to have a dynamic address, and then have a static address that resolves to some sort of forwarding service. So some agency would own a big chunk of 6 billion addresses (and routers would only then need that one routing entry), and then that agency's network would reroute packets to those addresses to your current dynamic IP assigned by your ISP for whichever device you want the IP to relate to.

Which is pretty pointless and stupid, because you'll have many different devices and thus many different IP addresses, so what purpose would there be in having a single static IP just to refer to you personally?

(And no, conspiracy theorists, I'm not going to assume that we all have chips implanted in our heads; trust me, we'd have another Revolution before that happened.)
Re:Perfect! by Smidge204 · 2004-07-20 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't need my SSN to make a phone call.

In fact, there are a lot of daily activities I don't need my SSN for, and I've never needed it online. It's hard to imagine any online activity that doesn't require an IP though.
=Smidge=

A brief and redundant article by Bold+Marauder · 2004-07-20 03:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Really doesn't say much that slashdotters don't already know (it's a very

short article). There is one descrepcy that I'm sure I won't be the first

to notice it, either:

Rapid growth in the use of the World Wide Web has in recent times

prompted concerns about future scarcity of domain addresses, with

demand threatening to overload the existing system, the IPv4.

Now, I could be wrong; but my understanding was that the need for IPv6 comes from the scarcity of IP addresses (eg 12.34.56.78) not the scarcity of domain names (eg slashdot.org, slashdot.net, slashdot.jp).

Re:A brief and redundant article by bheerssen · 2004-07-20 03:27 · Score: 4, Informative

The term domain addresses refers to IP addresses, not domain names.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:A brief and redundant article by AndroidCat · 2004-07-20 03:39 · Score: 2, Funny

A modest proposal: Add mark-up to domain names. Then you could have slashdot.org, slashdot.org and slashdot.org as different domains. Add in fonts and colour, and the numbers are huge! (I'd want to register microsoft.com in green Barf-Bold, but their lawyers might object.)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

I do wish by tekiegreg · 2004-07-20 03:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I could get something equivalent to my own Class A block of IPv6 addresses for my home. I'd give every object in my apartment an assigned IP Address. How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen, but at least on paper (heh) it would have an IP Address. And why not? So many IP addresses possible I could have my own class A block (or IPv6 equivalent) and hardly put a dent in the amount of available IPv6 addresses...but until an ISP offering DSL in my area supports IPv6 I'm outta luck...

--
...in bed

Re:I do wish by Vancorps · 2004-07-20 03:27 · Score: 4, Informative

I would suggest you check this out.
You can have a whole octet to yourself right now. That's a lot of IP addresses and you're ISP doesn't have to support IPv6, it can be encapsulated in IPv4. There are plenty of gateways out there that will translate the request for you so that only your router will need both IPv4 and IPv6.
It's all up on FreeNet.
Re:I do wish by Unnngh! · 2004-07-20 03:50 · Score: 4, Funny

do you put microchips in your pieces of toilet paper?
Well, with hardware being free in the future and all, sure, why not! Imagine a beowolf cluster of those;)
Re:I do wish by MacGod · 2004-07-20 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wish I could get something equivalent to my own Class A block of IPv6 addresses for my home. I'd give every object in my apartment an assigned IP Address. How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen, but at least on paper (heh) it would have an IP Address. And why not? So many IP addresses possible I could have my own class A block (or IPv6 equivalent) and hardly put a dent in the amount of available IPv6 addresses...but until an ISP offering DSL in my area supports IPv6 I'm outta luck...

See, to me, this is the exact thinking that got us in trouble in the first place! I realise that IPv6 has a hojillion (the technical term) times more addresses than v4, but if we start doling them out on a whim, we're going to hit the same problem again. Remember, there was a time when we though v4 addresses were all but infinite... hence Apple, Ford and Halliburton each were granted 16 million adresses (which they don't realistically need)

Human nature seems to tend towards excess whenever possible. Fresh water, trees, the ozone etc were all once abundant and we thought we'd never be able to make a dent in any of them

Even with the truly massive number of available addresses in IPv6, I'd still like to see some careful thought put into their assignment.

--
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Re:I do wish by Vancorps · 2004-07-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think you understand what is gained by using the gateway. First off, only IPv6 traffic goes to the gateway, all the IPv4 data is sent as it currently is. Second, you gain access to an entire network of very useful resources which you obviously didn't know existed. Last but not least, FreeNet is hosted out of the U.S. and throughout Europe; it represents the combined effort of many organizations over the last 10 years.
You're el cheapo firewall is irrelevent since the IPv6 traffic is encapsulated in your IPv4 traffic. So as long as you don't do content filtering it works fine, although I'm not sure it even supports content filtering so odds are it works fine.
Totally no idea how that was modded as insightful.
Re:I do wish by gunpowder · 2004-07-20 11:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I was indeed referring to an IPv6 router with no NAT involved, which is what I meant by "live" IP addresses. Sorry about the confusion.

Well, there are global scope IPv6 addresses (like official 'live' IPv6 addresses), site local (internal lan addresses, like 192.168.x.x for IPv4, but its use is deprecated) and link-local (used for IPv6 autoconfiguration). If you want to have a working IPv6 connection to the rest of the world, you will need (a) global scope IPv6 address(es). Thats what the IPv6 providers (native ISPs, tunnel broker) will assign to you.

Most IPv6 tunnel brokers (freenet6, sixxs, ...) will give you one (single) IPv6 address for your end of the IPv6 tunnel, and if you requested e.g. a /48 subnet, they'll additionally give you the 48bit-prefix you have to use within your subnet. So you can use a whole (128 - 48 =) 80bit address range for your subnet, just the first 48bits are fixed.

Usually the IPv6 addresses are derived from your (48bit)-MAC address to automatically create a (64bit)-EUI-64 IPv6 address. For this to work you have set up a router advertizing service (e.g. radvd under Linux), which will broadcast - within your lan - the prefix to use, and the PCs in your lan will use this info and automatically create proper IPv6 addresses by themselves.
However if the IPv6 'privacy extensions/temporary addresses' are enabled on a PC (by default enabled on Windows, disabled on Linux), it won't create a EUI-64 IPv6 address (from which you can easily figure out their MAC), but it will use a randomized IPv6 address instead.

You can also avoid using 'radvd' entirely and just setup your PCs to use statically assigned IPv6 addresses (e.g. in the PC's boot scripts), and thus you can make full use of the 80 bit address range.

N.B. there is also a DHCPv6, so you can assign to each MAC address a unique IPv6 address YOU specify, but the DHCPv6 protocol is work-in-progress and I haven't seen a working implementation yet.

I suppose your current network setup is something like this:

Internet ------ NAT box ------ Hub ====== PCs
In this setup you can either use the NAT box itself as a IPv6 tunnel endpoint/router, which will provide your subnet with IPv6 connectivity.
Another way would be to port-forward the IPv6 tunnel traffic to any of the PCs behind the NAT box, and do the IPv6 routing from there.

Anyway, when the PCs in your lan want to connect to a host on the internet via IPv6, they will connect to the IPv6 router, and the router will forward the packets though the IPv6 tunnel to your IPv6 tunnel broker.
Since the tunnel broker need to know that you are entitled to use their service and where they should forward the IPv6 tunnel traffic, you might also have to 'login' or use a special software to initiate/enable the IPv6 tunnel. How this works exaclty depends on your IPv6 tunnel provider.

20 years of Bug Testing? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-20 03:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Sounds like an open source project to me. I'm surprised they didn't just rename it to IPv0.4 so they could use the fact that it's pre-1.0 as a safety net for bugs, etc.

Re:20 years of Bug Testing? by reflective+recursion · 2004-07-20 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Considering IP (v4) is over 20 years old and we still have issues with it, I don't see the problem o f keeping it around. And you are forgetting that people still use COBOL. You really think all those programs using IPv4 can just be switched over? It's the same problem as Y2K, though I think this one can't be considered a "bug" and that is exactly why they are giving it 20 years. So people *aren't* forced into upgrades.

You can quote me on this too.. there will be nothing after IPv6. Every neuron in every single *creature's* brain on the entire face of the earth can be addressed with IPv6. I'm sure the singularity event will occur and other freaky shit long before we run out...

--
Dijkstra Considered Dead

Feeling Old by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-07-20 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny

It seems like just yesterday, I was surfing the Web, telnetting ports and Cracking warez with little old IPv1, strange - we are on v6 now and I dont even remember 5. guess I'm suffering from geezer syndrome.

Re:Feeling Old by wonkamaster · 2004-07-20 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Not too many people remember v5. The IP version is a reference to the IP header "version" field, and 5 was reserved for ST2: See RFC 1819 Sesion 1.2, 2nd paragraph.

So what do you call the next IP version? Version 6, of course!

IANA request by dmeranda · 2004-07-20 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

The IANA request that ICANN support IPv6 on its root servers is found here. And the timeline given then was:

"...the first of the IPv6 glue records will be added to the root zone on 28 June [2004]."

This is just the first step to real world-wide IPv6 deployment (replacing the mbone experimental setup). You still need to get all the intermediaries like ISPs up to speed.

Re:IANA request by Eslyjah · 2004-07-20 03:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Why would I think you are a request? Of course you're not!

policy problems by Feyr · 2004-07-20 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

an ip address for every human being... and they're non portable great!

i've said it before, and i'll say it again: ipv6 looks good on paper, but their current policy of not assigning IPs to anyone but big isps who will in turn sub delegate them to others is hindering the usefulness to small and medium ISPs

basicly you'll be locked into one isp, or face a major renumbering burden due to the non-portability of the addresses (and no it does NOT involve simply switching the network part)

My coffee grinder needs an IP... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-07-20 03:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Excellent. My shoe polisher needs an IP address. So does my bottle of shampoo.

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:My coffee grinder needs an IP... by TobiasSodergren · 2004-07-20 03:55 · Score: 4, Funny

Bad idea.. Some mischevieous person might unleash a Denial Of Schampoo attach when you're in the shower.

Is it just me by oO0OoO0Oo · 2004-07-20 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

or does "virtually unlimited" seem like a very silly and shortsighted estimate of the number of possible addresses? Especially because the uses/monopolization of these addresses will probably grow in unforeseeable ways.

--
We Are Familiar With Elephants By Virtue Of Their Size.

Re:Is it just me by DAldredge · 2004-07-20 03:39 · Score: 2, Informative

128 bit addresses allow for 2^128=340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768, 211,456 total theoretically assignable addresses.

THAT is a virtually unlimited number. ;->

Duke Nukem Forever by awhelan · 2004-07-20 03:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Sweet! All the bugs will be worked out just in time to play Duke Nukem Forever online!

other companies should consider by fonzer · 2004-07-20 03:27 · Score: 2, Funny

like maybe microsoft builds a actually decent operating system and has it run along side 3.0 for twenty years

Personally... by aznxk3vi17 · 2004-07-20 03:28 · Score: 5, Funny

I, personally, am looking forward to accessing the internet from the toilet paper I'm about to use to wipe my ass, while the toilet sends data about my fecal matter to the health department website, where they analyze to see if my poopy is healthy. Then, after the flush, the water pipes measure the amount of water going through them and access my water bill through the internet, telling me how much I've spent.

What, can you think of better uses for a mole of IPs per square foot?

Will arrive soon! by novakane007 · 2004-07-20 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny

"I like how they said that it will run along side IPv4 for 20 years to get rid of the bugs"
Fantatstic! This means it will only be another 20 years before we get a mass roll out of IPv6. *grin*

--

WURD!!

My IPv6 Rant by GeorgeH · 2004-07-20 03:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

I posted How the Internet is broken, how to fix it, and why that's not going to happen, a rant about IPv6 adoption, to my personal site.

Basic idea - include IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling software in Linksys routers. This would allow people to run IPv6 networks in their houses and talk to IPv6 networks elsewhere. This would fix a lot of problems that NAT introduces, and would sidestep the wait for IPv6 ISPs. It would also provide enough of a user base to encourage application developers to include IPv6 support.

Of course, this would kill Linksys' NAT router sales, so they have no incentive to do so, but I like to think it's a good idea.

--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?

Re:My IPv6 Rant by pediddle · 2004-07-20 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Who cares about NAT if the router could tunnel IPv6? I'd gladly pay for that (assuming by that time there are other IPv6 networks worth talking to). What they would kill in NAT sales they'd more than gain in tunnel sales... except they'd be the same product anyway.
Re:My IPv6 Rant by GeorgeH · 2004-07-20 04:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

It would spur IPv6 adoption, which in turn would make NAT useless once ISPs started providing enough IPs for everyone, instead of their current 1 IP per customer (and sometimes less thanks to DHCP) allotment.

Of course, since public companies are focused on short term sales they might see the IPv6 tunnel sales increase as worth cannibalizing IPv4 NAT router sales.

--
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?

Re:Running out of IPv6 by randomencounter · 2004-07-20 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, since there are enough addresses in IPv6 to give every grain of sand in the solar system a unique IP address with plenty to spare, I look forward to trying to exhaust the address space.

--
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.

Re:Running out of IPv6 (not) by dmeranda · 2004-07-20 03:33 · Score: 2, Informative

IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses. For those who can't count that high, let's see, thats:

340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211, 45 6

in decimal. Just try to use all those up! Well, as long as you don't let the spammers onboard first.

the protection of NAT by rdspider · 2004-07-20 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

of course, if we all have ip addresses and are directly on the internet, dont we loose the nat protection for all our windows os ! i depend on my linksys to save me from the internet!!

Re:the protection of NAT by pHDNgell · 2004-07-20 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

of course, if we all have ip addresses and are directly on the internet, dont we loose the nat protection for all our windows os ! i depend on my linksys to save me from the internet!!

It just amazes me that so many people think that NAT provides some kind of protection. Your firewall provides protection. An egress-only firewall filter provides the same ``protection'' that people think they get from NAT, but makes it far easier to get all of your P2P type services working when you have more than one computer.

Quick review:

NAT (PAT) just causes communication problems, many of which seem convenient from a security point of view. Its benefit is that it provides an easy way to work around not having enough IP addresses.

Your firewall keeps stuff you don't want to pass into or out of your network in or out of your network.

--
-- The world is watching America, and America is watching TV.
Re:the protection of NAT by sploxx · 2004-07-20 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ahh the common misconception about NAT.
NAT is not meant as a security tool. It is there to extend your address space (virtually). You probably knew that already.
One of the _side-effects_ of NAT (often unwanted) is that no connections from outside to your computers are possible.

But you don't need NAT to do that. A decent firewall (i.e. one you could build/buy which uses BSD/linux netfilter) should be able to do that as well.

Use the right tool for the job. A firewall. Put an end to the ugly fragmentation of the internet.

Still the anonymity problem by redelm · 2004-07-20 03:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

With 128 bit addresses, even DHCP will contain personal identifiers (MAC?).

The current IPv4 net has de-facto weak anonymity via DHCP, proxying, etc. It is effectively anonymous unless police authorities get very interested and are willing to wade through logs. And these logs get quickly lost/deleted.

IPv6 is the end of the 'net as we know it. Whether it will be an improvement is hard to say. I'm sure it will have a chilling effect. This might be good at stopping some undesireable activities (spam, etc. if enforced) but will also inhibit free speech, particularly in less-free countries.

Re:Still the anonymity problem by Junta · 2004-07-20 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Huh? That didn't make much sense.

I assume you mean DHCP-Assigned IP addresses, which well, works significantly different in IPv6. Well, for now, I acknowledge that yes, the dynamic addressing scheme by *default* uses the system mac address in a very deterministic fashion to get an IPv6 address. However, IPv6 'privacy extension' does not, and thus your IP to MAC relationship to hosts not on your network becomes as undeterminable in IPv6 as it is in IPv4. Even if the outside world did have your MAC address, they have no way of knowing *where* that MAC address is. It is still a meaningless identifier until they actual get your machine physically, at which point they've already gone well beyond the point of getting into ISP logs, or have access to the current DHCP leases and physical network segment, which isn't too much more trouble than ISP logs. Hell, you can even set your own MAC address dynamically if you want your tin foil hat to be more fully engaged.

Proxying will persist, it is more about performance and conservation of bandwidth than, say, NAT, which almost certainly goes by the wayside in IPv6 by and large. However, few ISPs have resorted to NATing customers wholesale anyway, so that isn't the case today. I have not seen an implementation, but NAT could certainly be used in IPv6 if you *really* wanted, but it still traces to the nearest routable address, which, as in IPv4 networks, is typically still you.

Ultimately, relying on the 'anonymity' of dynamic IP addresses is really ridiculous if you are really doing something requiring anonymity. IPv6 is in no way the "end of the 'net as we know it".

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Re:The bottom line by Lord+Bitman · 2004-07-20 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

yeah, linksys sure would hate for that to happen to its router sales. No company would want to sell four personal firewalls to every home instead of one whole router.
Try again.

--
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All

HL2/DoomIII by wowbagger · 2004-07-20 03:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, but do HalfLife 2 and DoomIII support IPv6?

Until these two critical applications support it, I ain't agonna go!

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

RFID here we come. by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-07-20 03:48 · Score: 4, Funny

How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen

Easy, RFID chips implanted in every sheet. Then when you visit the store

Greetings Mr. Cornholio, your last sheet of toilet paper indicated that you ate too much cheese and not enough fiber, visit aisle 9 we are having a sale on Ex-Lax.

where are the IPv6 native ISPs? by dgp · 2004-07-20 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

I live in Portland Oregon and every once in a while I survey the local DSL ISPs about IPv6. The answer has been consistenly "We have no plans to deploy IPv6." and "No customers have been asking for it."

Can someone point out ISPs that offer native IPv6 service to home users?

Re:where are the IPv6 native ISPs? by schmiddy · 2004-07-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's the classic chicken-and-egg problem. ISPs know that it will take quite a bit of up-front cash to convert their routers to IPv6. I don't even know to what extent v6 backbone routers exist, but I'd bet their pricey.

Right now.. really the only people that can use v6 are the BSD/Linux folks, as well as (I think) OSX. That's like 5% of the entire Internet desktop users, according to Google's Zeitgeist.

It's a scary thought.. but really, I think critical-mass v6 adoption rests solely on the shoulders of Microsoft at this point. We had better pray that Longhorn comes with it enabled (and that's like 2-3 years from now, at the earliest). If that happens though, it's a sure bet that Linksys et al. as well as lots of ISPs will be on board. I think we'll be waiting a while yet myself, though.

--
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Re:where are the IPv6 native ISPs? by IvyKing · 2004-07-20 08:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Speakeasy has been making noises about rolling out IPv6 support and apparently have done experimenting with it. Right now it still looks to be in the "near future".
A possible compromise would be for the ISP's to offer IPv6 tunneling hosts.
Re:where are the IPv6 native ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-20 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Not for dgp, but perhaps some of the Dutch users might be interested. XS4ALL offers IPv6 for ADSL connections since october 2002. http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/IPv6.html (in dutch)
Re:where are the IPv6 native ISPs? by anticypher · 2004-07-20 12:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Move to Europe.

The AMSix is a major IPv6 peering point, where many of their clients offer IPv6 to customers.

Nerim is a major provider in France. They offer IPv6 natively to all their home users, just enable it on your router/firewall.

The UK has any number of IPv6 capable ISPs (blech, puke), you just have to keep an eye on their internal support groups for help from those who have managed to make it work. Tunnels are always a way around broken providers, but are not an answer to your question.

There are a number of other transit and peering providers all over Europe who provide IPv6, and the ISPs are all starting to follow along. Demand only started when a handful of providers realised their was a large enough market for extra added services, even though very few customers made it an important item. The problem with IPv6 is that there is no WOW! factor, it just works as well as IPv4, transparently, and currently doesn't bring any new features to the internet that users can see.

Completely off topic...
I had a great time at CeBit this year, talking to the chinese ADSL modem makers. After asking if thier boxes supported IPv6, I then told them I needed 20,000 boxes right away for a small scale test, but only with a product with IPv6 enabled right out of the box, no upgrades allowed. Once I started talking about the 20-40 million unit market over the next year, you could see their eyes light up. But if they offered an upgrade within a few weeks (in other words, they'd have their coders pull some all-nighters), I'd walk off to find another with IPv6 already built in. I have a feeling that next year there will be dozens of small ADSL routers with IPv6 capability. Once we can get cheap ADSL routers with IPv6 as a checklist item, ISPs will start offering it.

In the U.S., the term for your situation is TSOL.

the AC

--
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on

It is out of date already in China due to IPv9 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-20 03:53 · Score: 2, Informative

China is already testing IPv9, something which promises to consume IPv6.

Link to article - China's New Generation Of IPv9 Network Technology Ready

;)

ping6 slashdot.org by caluml · 2004-07-20 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

When will Slashdot get an IPv6 address. Everything supports it - DNS, Apache, etc, nd all they need is to either get an IPv6 tunnel from a broker (the cheap option), or get their ISP to let them have it natively.

--
Get your own free personal location tracker

Re:ping6 slashdot.org by tbaggy · 2004-07-20 06:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Ya I want this too..
As a side note, you can get to Slashdot (and google, and CNN etc) via sixxs.net with IPv6 by going here:
http://www.slashdot.org.sixxs.org

Abbreviated number of the beast by BigGar' · 2004-07-20 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny

ipv6 or ipv666

Take the following:
Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

With no ipv6 number you will not be able to buy or sell and it's long so you'll have to write it down somewhere where you'll always have it, say on the back of your hand. ipv6 is simply ipv666 shortended up a bit to hit the true meaning.

There you have it, conclusive proof.
We are in the end of day's.

repent, Repent, REPENT!!!!

--

Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.

Hmph! Whippersnappers! by operagost · 2004-07-20 04:02 · Score: 5, Funny

What do you young'uns need with all those IP addresses? In my day, we only had eight, and they were big and bulky. We didn't have any fancy network address translation, you had to put your 80 pound IP address in your wheelbarrow and roll it across town so Joe Billy Bob Joe Bob could use it! And ol' Joe Bob sure would give you a sound whuppin' if you was late with his IP address!

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

Might not be a bad thing. by Gordonjcp · 2004-07-20 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

After all, registration numbers ended the concept of motor car anonymity, and most people would agree that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Re:Might not be a bad thing. by evilviper · 2004-07-20 23:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

registration numbers ended the concept of motor car anonymity

But the difference is that it's not an easy number to find.

There aren't huge databases, with interfaces in every shopping mall parking lot, that are gathering your car's registration number, and correlating it to your shopping habits, the other sites you visit, etc.

I'd be perfectly happy with a unique identifier etched inot my computer, but I don't want it being tatooed on my forehead, as IPs essentially are.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Freenet6 is obsolete by Wesley+Felter · 2004-07-20 04:21 · Score: 2, Informative

6to4 is simpler and more efficient.

Not a problem by Wesley+Felter · 2004-07-20 04:26 · Score: 4, Informative

This was solved years ago: Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6.

nooo nooo noooooooo! by mabu · 2004-07-20 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

IPv6 needs to stay in the can until we can figure out a way to solve the spam problem. Right now, RBLs are the most effective method of stopping spam. If IPv6 rolls out, spammers will have exponentially more address space from which to operate and the ensuing spam problem will make what we have now look trivial.

A prerequisite for the rollout of IPv6 must be law enforcement getting off their asses and demonstrating that spammers will get busted for their illegal activities. Otherwise it will take 20+ years to ID and block IPv6 rogue IP space.

Re:nooo nooo noooooooo! by Wesley+Felter · 2004-07-20 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Blocking a /48 under IPv6 is no harder than blocking a /24 under IPv4.

Re:No good IPv6 firewalls.. by rleibman · 2004-07-20 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

I believe IPTables fully support IPv6.

Re:Slightly OT: Reserved IP adresses in IPv6 by rleibman · 2004-07-20 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

IPv6 works in a very different way from IPv4, there is no need for private use networks. Each device on a network gets not one, but a few addresses, you have your loopback (::1), but you also have your link local (FE80::/32 an address that's unique in your network but doesn't get routed outside of it) and you can use this for many of the same things you use private addresses in IPv4. Oh, yeah, you also get a multicast address (FF02:/32 that other nodes and the router can use to find your MAC address). That's on top of a bunch of other addresses you may be listening to depending on what you are on the network (dhcp, router, etc)

Addresses are chosen with routing in mind by juancn · 2004-07-20 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may have more addresses, but addresses are chosen based on how efficient you can route packets to those addresses (more local information, less global knowledge about routes).

IPv6 (as IPv4) is also designed with the idea that addresses are somewhat related to physical location, you cannot choose arbitrary addresses, there isn't an easy way to provide the IP equivalent of "number portability" among providers.

Spam is a side-effect of the origins of the internet, when it was a network of peers, where everyone was the same (universities, mostly).

Trust was the primary asset, and email was designed without concerns about anonymity nor security (in the beggining, they all knew each other)

Now the network has become global, millions of people use it everyday, and we lost the trust, we have firewalls, spam checkers, complex authentication mechanisms, etc.

We have to find a way to re-establish the trust (maybe through better protocolos and infrastructure), but until then, all sorts of abuse will continue to be commonplace.

Re:No good IPv6 firewalls.. by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-07-20 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

ipfw and ipf on FreeBSD systems both have excellent IPv6 support. OpenBSD's pf, which is a Theo-ized BSD-licensed version of ipf, should also be solid choice.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:How is it implemened? by TheSpunkyEnigma · 2004-07-20 05:52 · Score: 3, Informative

This took 2 seconds.
nslookup
>set q=any
>f.root-servers.org

f.root-servers.org nameserver = ns-int.isc.org.
f.root-servers.org nameserver = slave.sth.netnod.se.
f.root-servers.org nameserver = ns-ext.isc.org.
f.root-servers.org nameserver = ns-ext.vix.com.
ns-ext.vix.com internet address = 204.152.184.64
ns-ext.vix.com has AAAA address 2001:4f8:0:2::13

Geographical Allocation by mindhaze · 2004-07-20 07:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure it's far too late for this now, but what would it take for IPv6 addresses to be assigned geographically? Then, by extension, it'd be amazing if we could just reference an IP Address by the bits that are different. IE: if we're geographically close to the piece of equipment we want to reach, we would only have to reference the last few segments.

That would rock, for sure!

Re:IPv6 for a small WISP, yes/no? by rleibman · 2004-07-20 07:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

What do you mean by switchincg to IPv6? you'll still need to provide some sort of IPv4 connectivity because your users will ask for it. XP is pretty much IPv6 ready, but you'll have to make some investment in equipment and training, it isn't as simple as it sounds.
IPSec is part of IPv6 anything that supports IPv6 MUST support IPSec. You don't need DHCP for most cases (though you can still use it for "managed" situations) IPv6 pretty much takes care of autoconfiguration.
The world of IPv6 will be much simpler than that of IPv4, but getting there will be a total pain in the neck.

Re:Only if implemented by redelm · 2004-07-20 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure, you can implement it and twiddle some bits, but it won't be successful if your ISP can't route packets back to you!

It will depend on whether the ISP's router is sufficiently stateful (and lax about MAC) and/or willing to do broadcasts.

This is were a few quiet conversations between security authorities and the larger router manufacturers (Cisco) can have large impacts. "Our routing/auth tables key off MAC for speed and efficiency. We don't do broadcasts to avoid congestion and security concerns." Plausible deniability.

Re:IPv6 address per-connection? by j+h+woodyatt · 2004-07-20 13:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Does anyone have a link to this information?

Look at the latest draft of RFC 2462. Nodes are allowed to use a EUI-64 address for the host number, but the recommendation for stateless autoconfiguration is to generate a unique number and test for duplicates with neighbor solicitation. You don't have to use a MAC address with stateless autoconfiguration, and furthermore you don't have to use stateless autoconfiguration if you use a DHCP server on your IPv6 network.

On the other hand, some of the docs I've read say the IPv6 address is based on your MAC.

You haven't read the docs in a long time...

--

--
jhw

95 of 420 comments (clear)