Slashdot Mirror
Accelerating IPv6 Adoption With Proxy Servers
jgarzik writes "IPv6 presents a catch-22: the most popular web sites on the Internet
don't have any incentive to switch to IPv6 until a large portion
of their userbase is on IPv6, and their user base does not have a
large incentive to switch to IPv6 until many of the popular Internet
destinations support IPv6. My proposed solution is simple: Configure a proxy server that
serves IPv6 requests, passing those requests through
to underlying IPv4-only servers that not have yet been transitioned
to IPv6.
This article describes how to configure Apache's proxy server to fill this role, and suggests a few ideas for use."
Yes. An open proxy server on a topic just mentioned by /.
I can't imagine that's abusable. I mean, nobody would embed ads in their IPv6 proxy if it became too popular, right?
Just a thought.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
IPv6 was primarily designed to solve a *problem*.
That problem was IPv4 address space exhaustion.
If the problem isn't hurting people on either side (client or server), then there is no reason for them to migrate to IPv6.
For people in certain heavy net using countries (such as Japan and S. Korea) which have received a smaller slice of the IPv4 pie, then there is more incentive to move; for the vast bulk of the world there is very little incentive to move to IPv6.
IPv6 will take over just like anything else. When it reaches critical mass and demand forces it. Probably starting in SE Asia and moving westward.
I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
Silly people.
A reverse proxy server (http accelerator) must be open to the public.
However, that does not mean the server is an "open proxy"... the proxy configuration only proxies for the specific web sites listed in the configuration file.
A reverse proxy or http accelerator with IPv6 on one side and IPv4 on the other.
That is mightily impressive and you certainly are a genious of our time.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Sounds like a funny solution to me. Why not just multi-home the webservers? No extra hardware, extra point of failure, simpler, less dependency, etc.
I always thought that the way it worked was that if you were certified insane you couldn't fly, but the Catch-22 was that if you tried to get certified insane it proved that you didn't want to fly, which was an action of a sane man, therefore you had to fly. Nothing you could do would prevent you from flying.
Fellowship 9/11
Not many people have the option to choose between ISPs. Where I am, it's either crap or crappier.
Network folks at Brown actually have a clue. You do not. NAT is network address translator, and the common MTU is around 1450.
After creating these gateways what is the incentive for users to switch? What is the incentive for popular destinations to switch? In both cases I think the answer is none.
No. The answer to rapid IPV6 deployment is for someone to create an IPV6 only P2P network with a ferocious amount of free porn and mp3s. The next day everyone will be upgraded to IPV6.
MOD me up this is both funny and the truth!
ISPs do provide IPv6 addresses for free when they provide IPv4 addresses. Every IPv4 address has a corresponding IPv6 address. One of the points of moving to a huge address space is that you can assign each old address a new address and not use up a significant portion of the new address space.
What would be interesting is if ISPs would assign a static IPv6 address to customers who have dynamic IPv4 addresses. If the ISP has IPv6 at all, they have a huge block of addresses, which they could trivially assign to their customers by account number. And then there would be people who would set up IPv6-only sites or sites where the IPv6 address was more reliable, because the address was free.
in the current incarnation, you're not allocated a single address, but rather you are allocated a subnetwork, which is currently 2^64 addresses.
Watch residential ISPs break the recommendation and grant a /128 instead of a /64 in the name of profiteering.
Just as a comment: "some people" probably amounts to 0.01% of paying customers, and is therefore totally insignificant. Even networking professionals - who understand well why IPv6 is better - realize that IPv6 can not happen overnight, and there is really no clear need for it today. Majority of people just buy a $99 wireless router (NAT) from Linksys, and they are all set on their own Class A network. What else is there for them to ask for?
It is also understood that IPv6 shines in a lot of areas (which were mentioned more than once in this discussion.) However none of them are mission-critical, or even noticeable to the average customer. For example, IPv4 NATs are not VoIP friendly - so there are software and hardware solutions already (UPnP, STUN, TCP etc.) and they work on existing networks just fine.
If you want my guess, the star of IPv6 will never rise. It is past its time already. People were concerned about address spaces many years ago, but now it seems everyone is happy, and nobody wants to buy into IPv6.
"But," one says, "the IPv4 address space will be exhausted!" Yes, it will be. A new protocol will replace IPv4. But it may not be IPv6 at all. Who knows? I think IPv4 will be firmly with us for 10 to 20 years from now. Then we shall see. IPv6, after all, is a souped-up IPv4, and it is not all that different from its parent. Maybe something else, something better, will be needed? I'd say so. Maybe they will dump fixed 128-bit addresses, and make them variable length instead, so that new addresses may be allocated where they are needed... Maybe some other crazy scheme will be devised. But IPv6 at this time solves no real problem, and that's why it is not popular.
And if telecoms want IPv6 on their mobile phones... by all means, please do. It's just very likely that the IPv6 will terminate at Verizon's 6->4 proxy, and that's the end of it. This would be practical anyway to cache the data, since I guess majority of users access relatively small number of sites (CNN, Yahoo, MapQuest etc.) and they are mostly cacheable - and the telecom wants to insert their own ads too!
Bah, that's nothing. My proxy converts first posts on slashdot into insightful comments!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
You mean the USA will not use IPv6 (because it has got 70% of the IPv4 address space, more than enough for the foreseeable future). Everywhere else has run out of IPv4 addresses, including Europe. They are rationed by price - a standard cable package with a static address costs more than twice as much here as one with a dynamic address.
the world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4,
What you really mean is that the USA doesn't need more than 3 billion IP addresses. You're probably right, but it's irrelevant to most of the world's internet users.
IPv6 addresses are too large
You may have a point, 32 bits was too small but 128 bits is overkill. However, the time to argue this point is long past. The disadvantages of a 128-bit address space vs a 64-bit address space are not as big as you claim (other posts have addressed that). IPv6 is an accepted standard now, it's time to run with it, not try to change it.