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."
this is a first post for freedom
What's better...
IPv4
IPv6
Sex with a mare
DEATH TO ANTI-SLASH!
Ackbar is a sad baby virgin!
Will this help you to get first post faster?
Make sure they're open to the public too. You don't want to be a stingy admin right? You should share your proxy server with the world.
This page/site already does it.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=122680&thre shold=1&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Reply
Yikes, this is even worse than the IT section.
I saw a link to this on another thread. I'm only posting to see which article this is.
Fuck IPv6, fuck Apache, and FUCK YOU.
By having an open proxy anyone can send/receive data via your proxy server (duh). There are implications: e.g. I've seen someone's server bandwidth being used to serve images in a spam (pr0n) email.
If you don't want people hiving off your bandwidth and potentially using your server's bandwidth for puposes you wouldn't normally approve of, then consider controlling your proxy access.
--
Use your VPS proxy powers for the powers of good
Is it just me? I can't see any AAAA records for ipv6.org itself. I would have thought they would be the FIRST to change.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
An extra hop to go through on my web surfing adventure...NOT ON MY WATCH!
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.
IPv4 has ben around for 20 some years what's the rush... I'lle switch over when i reinstall on my linux box. looks at kernel 1.1.0 on router...
The solution is more ISP support. This is where you vote with your wallet. If your ISP doesn't support IPv6, find another. Same goes if you're hosting a Web site. They will eventually catch on and begin offering IPv6 more widely.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
ISPs providing IPv6 at the same time than IPV4 addresses, at no extra cost, would help. But of course, they will want to give you one, not a group, and for a fee, if they ever use them soon (in some places you have to pay an absurd quantity for a fixed IP with cable or dsl... in the range of more than a small hosting that has an IP but includes the machine power & renting and a similar network monthly usage you could get with dsl always transfering). So I will not hold my breath.
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.
It seems to me that it would be really useful if the little off the shelf linksys/dlink/netgear/etc. routers did ipv6. I don't see it really being used until hardware starts using it.
On top of that it's my understanding that NAT should go away with ipv6. What is everyone with an internal network to do for IPs then? I've heard you can get free ipv6 blocks right now but they can be revoked once everything goes "live" but I don't want to deal with that.
Ultimately I guess I really want NAT ipv4 for inside my network until my hardware can hand out ipv6 addresses that I own forever.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Not until IPv4 addresses run out.
Users need a clear advantage to switch any technology (even trying to get them to switch to mozilla is painful).
What advantages do normal users see from IPv6? Other than being able to give their toaster net access, I see no benefits for them.
Users will switch when ISPs and Microsoft tell them too (and even then they will not know the difference). ISPs (and MS) have no incentive to switch since the lack of IPv4 doesnt seem to be a problem in reality.
From there:"
Why does this service exist?
There appears to be a chicken and egg problem in deploying IPv6; ISP's serving endusers don't want to do it yet because there isn't any need for it from their clients, Hosting companies don't do it yet because there isn't any demand yet either from clients... Thus, we made this gateway, which allows users who do have IPv6 to get to all the content in the IPv4 world. If you don't have IPv6 connectivity (yet) you can of course try the SixXS Tunnel Broker.
This is essentially the same observation and the same solution except that it focuses on getting ISPs (clients) to support IPv6 rather than servers.
Nice try, but that's not a Catch-22.
A Catch-22 is when the solution creates the problem. From the book (yes, there was a book) if the doctor diagnosed you as crazy, you didn't have to fly any more bombing missions. The catch was that you would have to be diagnosed crazy by a doctor to want to fly more bombing missions. Thus, by achieving the status of "unfit to fly", you were actually certifying yourself to fly.
What we have here with IPv6 is two parties with no immediate reward for an investment. If one of them stepped forward, the other would step forward, and the world would enjoy IPv6. There is nothing about this that is remotely close to a Catch-22.
...that if I adopt IPv6 I will have access to a larger collection o Asian pr0n?
I can clearly identify the killer application IPv6 needs.
Where do I sign up?
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.
- 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.
- 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 Anonymiser Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
- 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.
- 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.
These points are not addressed by using proxy servers, and they must be addressed by the IPv6 community before it will be deployed outside of research networks. What better place is there than slashdot to address these points?I really wish that the w3c would also adopt for the client side of the http protocol support for the SRV records. (also wouldn't be a bad idea with MUA's) How many would like to see the ability to have your content on multiple locations without costly equipment, or lb'ed dns
That killer app may be VoIP. If everyone wants their own IPv6 phone number.
Or that killer app may be someone coming up with an awesome spam/virus/security solution that requires features found in IPv6.
But just wanting people to switch for no good reason will never work. Market forces...
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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!!!!
My 10.3 PowerBook seems to have both IPv4 and IPv6 running at the same time. Currently my Airport's IPv4 address is 10.0.1.25 and my airport's IPv6 address is fe80:0000:0000:0000:020d:93ff:fe88:f5c4. I can visit both http://ipv4gate.sixxs.net/ and http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net/. Does this mean my computer both has an IPv4 and IPv6 address, and I can visit both IPv4 and IPv6 websites? Maybe I am just missing the point of this news post.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
And get me some IPv6 addresses? Which, if any, ISPs/hosting companies support IPv6? Who do I talk to to reserve me a chunk of space so when my bacasswords ISP gets in line, I can get me some public IPs for my boxen at home?
I am very very disappointed with the performance of the trolls here at Slashdot these past two weeks. Around here we operate on GOALS and EXPECTATIONS and quite frankly, some of you (you know who you are) just aren't meeting them.
Look folks, it's really quite simple and I'm going to spell it out for you one more time and then hopefully we'll then be able to go about our day productively and without the need for more intervention:
A) More GNAA. I can't stress enough how important GNAA trolls are the to future success and robust presence of Slashdot in the negro homosexual market. I expect each and every one of you to give 110% or I will personally drop by your cube and rape you with a kumquat. Heh, kumquat. It's a fruit with a funny name, and you fruits better get with the program or it's going up your asses.
B) Natalie Portman references. She is a hot little filly. Did you know that she was born with a six digit? Neither did I, but it's going to feel like I've got six on my fist when I ram it up your backside if we don't see an improvement, pronto.
C) Absolutely anything to lighten the goddamn monotony around here. Seriously folks, if you're going to induce me and seduce me into clicking onto a comment link that says "**TROLL HERE**" in the hopes of perhaps having a little chuckle, then please don't waste my time with the same old weak shit we've been seeing around here lately. It's pathetic to the point of embarassment and frankly it's not anything that you'd like for your mothers to see. As an aside, I have a list of all your mothers sitting on my desk in front of me and am prepared to start going down it one by one, using directory assistance if need be.
I've laways been surpised that more people haven't seen this coming. It will take a lot of time before the majours ever do, and even then they'll reap the rewards.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
"If you don't want people hiving off your bandwidth and potentially using your server's bandwidth for puposes you wouldn't normally approve of, then consider controlling your proxy access."
Not any different than the argument that if you release your works into the wild (intentional, or not), it's free for people to do whatever they wish with it (Including massive copying, or consuming server resources). The usual following argument when the above is pointed out, is. "If you don't want us to do what we please with it, you shouldn't expose us to it.(1)"
(1) The subtext is: We can't control ourselves.
40% of the IPv4 address space is unallocated, and much of the allocated space is probably unused.
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.
The issue with ipv6 adoption is not an issue of servers or clients, it's an issue of routers.
ISP's need to adopt ipv6.
Tunnelling won't push adoption, but it might help YOU if you need to work with someone who is using ipv6.
Network Anonymiser Translation? I suggest you eat a dick.
Sure, China and Korea would like billions upon billions of addresses, but that's because they've spammed their IPv4 address space into every blacklist on Earth.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Isn't this just 6to4 which has been around for ages?
Okay, maybe I'm ignorant, but can't websites just dual-home on an IP4 and an IP6 address until IP4 becomes obsolete?
Seems like a simple migration plan to me. Maybe I'll try it myself...
which offer IPV6 service?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
All you have to do is complete an offer on http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8804 376
4 376.
I will trade them for confirmed referrals on http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=880
If you've completed the referral, I'll send you a GMail invite, simple as that.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
It is true that ARIN will not give you a really small (/24) block of portable space.
It is true that you cannot own IP addresses.
That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no address shortage (under a sane usage model).
So what can I do? Are there any national cable or DSL ISP's I can sign up with? I can complain to my ISP all I want but it's not like anyone would give up their ISP simply because there's no IPv6 if they don't have an alternative. Does anyone have ideas as to what a regular old user interested in helping this technology can do?
with HDTV. Now look at the market. Its booming. It takes alot of variables beside the two mentioned in this article to make it happen. But it will one of these days. HDTV had the government behind it in setting a deadline date that forced the industry to convert. And it will most likely take another forced change to make IPv6 come to light.
This may be a bit OT, but I'm reading many people talking about NAT like it's some horrible thing.
As a longtime NAT user I like the fact that just one of my computers is hooked to the real internet and the others can't be diddled by outside computers.
Even if I had unlimited IPs, I'd still probably do it this way.
vk.
Most people know that IPv6 delivers a bigger address space, and IPSec security. But what ever happened to its multicast tech? Is anyone sending a single multimedia stream over IPv6 to multiple recipients, without having a separately addressed packet stream like in IPv4? That feature would be the most timely, arriving just as large audiences are developing for online streaming multimedia content.
--
make install -not war
Of course, we now know that NOT having proxies has been a disasterous mistake. I can only hope the IPv6 community in general can accept that.
IPv6 is more than just addresses. You have utterly transparent mobile IP. You have automatic network configuration. Anycasting allows you to request a service and have the closest server respond, without you needing to know where that server is. You have almost-mandatory IPSec - which is more than just encryption, it authenticates that the machines are who they say they are.
IPv6 is a valuable tool. Back in the early days, I ran the first registered IPv6 node in Britain. At its peak, I had 10 tunnels running across Europe and the US. That was using IPv6 under Linux 2.0.20, using the-then VERY experimental IPv6 patches that existed. It started with static routes, but I later moved to MRT and finally Zebra.
MRT and Zebra are now fast-decaying abandoned project, as far as I can tell. The only Open Source software router I can find is Click, and whilst it's good, it doesn't have the developer- or user-base to be confident that it can really do more than be a nice experimental project.
(Any distro authors out there SHOULD put it in their distro, if for no other reason than the fact that Linux will cease to be useful as a router platform, if the last remaining projects don't get adopted.)
IPv6 would benefit from having an IPv6-over-IPv4 protocol defined, much in the same way that SIT defines IPv4-over-IPv6. Again, I've argued this from the start. The idea of a migration to IPv6 will NOT be realised or realisable until the average person can plug in an IPv6 address into a browser or some other network software, without having to care about the fact that it is IPv6, and see a result.
Once IPv6 is truly transparent to the "unwashed masses", you'll start to see people adopting it. After all, it IS easier to configure and maintain. That would make people like ISPs very happy. Less time wasted on network maintenance means more profit for them. And nobody is averse to getting a little richer, a little quicker, when it costs nothing to do. You even have the bonus that it's legal and ethical (though some wouldn't care about that part).
Because IPv6 supports host authentication, it's great for Joe/Jane Average, too. It's harder to spoof mail addresses, when the mail server can validate the transmitting machine. That won't eliminate spam, but it will make using fake addresses slightly harder, which will give people a little more confidence that the sender is who they say they are.
Because multicasting is part of the standard, it also means that video streaming to multiple recipients will be less savage on the network. Once people realise that you can get damn near TV-quality reception by multicast, versus 5 seconds a frame (with tiny, low-grade frames) via a typical webcast, who in their right minds will go back to that worn-out way?
(And by near-TV standard, I'm talking NTSC or PAL resolution at 15 to 20 frames per second. The bandwidth would be impossible to maintain, if the server had to do point-to-point to every recipient, but it's very doable over a multicast transmission, and it's very normal for any of the multicasts advertised using SDR or similar tools.)
The technology that people have, right now, versus the technology researchers have had for decades is pathetic. What you can buy as top-of-the-line off-the-shelf today was commonplace in most research labs 10-15 years ago. Some of the slow adoption comes from wanting to really test the technology. Most comes from corporations dragging their feet and exploiting the time-lag to squeeze their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers for every penny they h
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, yeah. But that does little good until their providers upgrade.
Getting an ISP to make large technical changes is too not hard..
Getting any of the union telco/comm workers to lift a finger in the name of change; that is the hard part.
Network folks at Brown actually have a clue. You do not. NAT is network address translator, and the common MTU is around 1450.
People will use IPv6 when they need it; when every device you have needs it's own internet connection, and routing/NAT will no longer do- providers will switch to IPv6, it'll happen basically overnight, though the use of a consortium.
And even then most people will just take there shiny IPv6 address, NAT it and use IPv4 internally.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
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!
Plus it is nice to be behind a firewall.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Though SSL can sort of be proxied (without a man in the middle attack, that is), would this work for https sites?
How much does it cost to move a family from a town whose incumbent high-speed Internet providers do not provide residential IPv6 service to a town whose incumbent high-speed Internet providers do provide residential IPv6 service? Or do you expect each Slashdot reader to start his own fixed wireless IPv6 ISP in each town and figure out some way to connect it to some sort of IPv6 backbone?
Please, correct me if I am wrong.
Isn't the internet IPv4 only and IPv6 is archieved thru
encapsulations like The 6Bone ?
If so, what's the point of worring about sites not being in the 6bone?
If I am wrong, can you post some links please?
Thanks
I am running MacOS X 10.3.5 behind a Belkin DSL router. I followed the instructions here. I then tried 'ping6 www.kame.net', to which I get 'ping6: UDP connect: No route to host'. I then follow the instructions here, and then trying ping6 again I get:
[localhost:~] userx% ping6 www.ipv6.digital.com
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2002:0:0:1::1 --> 3ffe:1200:2001:1:8000::2
ping6: sendmsg: Network is down
ping6: wrote www.ipv6.digital.com 16 chars, ret=-1
If I play around too much I get a kernel panic. Anyone have any ideas?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
What killer app do you envision that will move residential customers to demand a /64 of globally routable IPv6 space?
My network seems to filter out normal ipv6 tunneling protocols, so I can't establish a connection. Are there any free tunnel brokers which can establish a tunnel over TCP or UDP?
IPv6 already specifies a range of addresses that map to IPv4 addresses.
May we never see th
For those gamers that enjoy the old online text games, I have a java telnet mud client with a packaged proxy server. The proxy server was developed with a focus on the client, but supports a robust area of features.
Initially I was against using IPv6 for the service, yet the developer whom created the proxy for my java applet was using IPv6.
I believe we will begin seeing more IPv6 support throughout the internet. Currently it is still considered a geeks toy, but as more software is released with IPv6 support, it will become common programming practice.
Take a look at this proxy program that is packaged with a java mud applet client for websites at:
http://www.mudmagic.com/java-client/
It isn't as supported as Apache, yet has been extensively tested on a high-profile server, and offers: port assignment, set-uid, logging, access control list, daemonizing, and a few other snazzy features.
My Thoughts, Kyndig
Part of your IPv6 address is your MAC address. You will never not have a fully routable address under IPv6 because there are just that many of them to go around. Basically your ISP will have their prefix, and each of your devices will append it's suffix, derived from the MAC. Thus an end user will never need to get their own static IPs, they'll have them automatically. The only people that will need to acquire space are ISPs, corperations, universities, etc that want/need to have their own dedicated prefix(es). Since you don't need that, you just use your ISP's prefix.
Seriously, what problem is this solution solving?
:)
I run ipv6 here at my site, every PC ont the LAN is using it.
Inside the LAN its almost totaly native IPv6. Only the printers are IPv4 only. When surfing the web, the users browser does a AAAA DNS lookup, if it succeeds, then it does a native IPv6 connection. If you try to connect to IPv4 only site (very common), then the PC initiates an IPv4 connection. Our Internet router provides the IPv6 tunnel and does NAT'ing for IPv4. Its all totaly transparent, requiring no end-user setup or mucking around with.
I regularily use IPv6 websites, and I don't notice that they are IPv6 unless a) the website notifies me I'm connecting over IPv6 (eg http://www.ipv6.org/) or b) i look at the traffic going through.
The only thing I could do to "improve" the situation here would be to have my ISP IPv6 aware, so I didn't need to use a tunnel broker.
The way that would work would be the ISP would issue a single IPv4 address and a IPv6 prefix on connect. Then the would would be a great place
All my applications I write are IPv6 aware, infact they are primarily IPv6 applications with fallback to IPv4.
Most applications you use today are IPv6 aware. The next step for IPv6 is hosting companies and ISPs proving IPv6 natively. This will happen once the backbone routers are fully IPv6 aware.
Nick
I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
At the current rate of non-progress, IPv6 will never reach critical mass. IPv6 needs a jumpstart.
IPv6 is getting its jumpstart. From the upcoming mobile IP vendors. They want IPv6 for tracking their phones/modems (for which they can't buy enough IPv4 address space to be confident of not hitting a wall). So they have made it a checkbox on equipment acquisition (i.e. you don't sell 'em a router unless it has IPv6 - period).
Since they're talking equipment purchase totaling into the billions this is NOT something the equipment vendors are ignoring.
Once there's a bunch of endpoints out there that can only be reached by IPv6 (or NAT/tunnel servers bridging to it) there will be a lot of pressure to migrate the rest of the net.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Subject line says it all.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Look for the well thought out and accurate beginning, the claim to authority, and the slow and deliberate insertion of false and self-contradictory material:
1. Cisco routers suck. Pointing at outdated data.
2. There are too many addresses: Incorrect number of addresses per m^2, it's closer to 6.6*10^23/m^2. straw man argument about being unable to conceive of a use for all those addresses (despite giving a valid use in statement 3)
3. Routing tables only care about physical networks, not all possible logical networks. We will have to deal with growing routing tables as physical routers increase anyway.
4. States that ipv6 header has twice as much overhead as ipv4 despite showing that it's actually 3.4% overhead for most packets.
Remember, if it starts out relatively sane but gets crazy, it's an AST.
i remember my professor introducing me to ip6 a few years ago, and one of the major things he touched on was tunneling through ip4 networks. soooo what was the problem, and why does this article make it seem like it needs more software? did that not end up implemented by default?
BGP currently shows roughly 1.3B addresses as being routable. That represents a little more than 25% of the IPv4 space.
/8's around and a ton of academic institutions (MIT) and large corporations (Eli Lilly, etc.) that received /8 assignments back in the day.
/8 recipients from that time wont either.
e
There are alot of special use
I can not imagine MIT utilizing 16.7M IP's, and most other
For more information see http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-spac
Note to moderators: This post always shows up every f**king time IPV6 is even mentioned. As you can tell from the replies it's generated, most of the objections are BS and/or out of date.
how will this, or any, proxy affect VPN connections? does the translator in 2.4 kernel know about ipv6?
Subject line says it most, anyway.
how to invest, a novice's guide
You might argue that we can still use VPNs. That's true, but is it easier to tap few VPN tunnels and having the rest of traffic to intercept, mail filtering,
Not to forget that the US gov. still restrict exporting strong encryption to certain countries!
They will find a way/regulation/pressure to halt any large scale project to implement it.
"Evil thrives when good men do nothing"
Give the address a name and provide the name to your friends who run mail servers so that they can add it to the end of their MX list.
ok, now show me a open SOCKS proxy server for IPv6 ?
#include "coucou.h"
Tunneling is only a way to transport packets between two IPv6 endpoints over an IPv4 network.
With tunneling you still need IPv6 support at both ends of the connection.
With a gateway/proxy you don't.
Google being the technical geeky company it is should go IPv6. It wouldn't be hard for them, and it would signal the start of the main stream sites adopting it. I've used IPv6 for a couple of years now. I always compile in support for it, and always add dual DNS records for all my servers. Grab a tunnel from a tunnel broker, and you're playing on the IPv6 net. Which is nice and friendly at the moment - much like IPv4 was 25-30 years ago, I would imagine.
Get your own free personal location tracker
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...
This is really a terrific idea... Picture higher-level routers that only recognize the first IPv4 part of the address and pass packets on to the leaf routers. Such a protocol would require only minimal and thus cheap upgrade of firmware for most hardware on the Internet, not to mention that their 32-bit CPU's would still perfectly do the job.
And so the whole address space would become a tree, just like the domain name system.
(After all, for simplicity of the user-end routing devices, each node's MAC address can be appended to the 4-byte IP address, for example, which will turn IPv4 into the forgotten IPX... The first 2-3 bytes of the MAC address can be changed in each node to reflect the local tree structure in your LAN/WAN. Something like NAT, but with a bit more complicated IPX-like structure in your private network... TCPX?)
As for other "benefits" of IPv6... Autoconfiguration is dangerous since it can be spoofed in large and weakly controlled LAN's. I never really trust DHCP, UPnP and other "smart" guys and try to avoid them whenever possible.
Everywhere in the world, except the USA, has run out of IP addresses
With my cable ISP (in Switzerland) a standard package costs more than twice as much with a static IP address as without one. If it weren't for companies like DynDns.org, I wouldn't be able to host web sites at all.
(Not a plug for Dyndns, there are others equally good that do the same thing, I just happen to use them).
Its also about new features in the IPv6 protocol and network design. IPv6 aware apps is also caugth in the moment22. When it finally comes it will be like flushing the toilett. I guess DNF will be IPv6 multiplayer (DNF may though outlast IPv6 in the vapor-race).
Did anyone else wonder, "whatever happened to IPv5?"?
Well, this seems to be the answer...
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
IMHO, the real issue is that most content providers don't want IPv6, and most ISPs don't want it either, for largely the same reason.
IPv6 keeps alive the original spirit of the Internet - end-to-end. The network is dumb, the endpoints are smart. Even if there may be a lot of intelligence built into the network, it's purpose is to look dumb, and simply deliver packets from one end to another.
That's not the way the Internet has been heading. Unfortunately, the Internet is being driven toward a smart-broadcast model, where there are content providers and content consumers. It's two-way to the extent that the consumers can specify what they want from the providers. Business types also like the idea of smarter routing, so "premium" customers can get their packets routed ahead of us rabble. You know, buzzwords like "differentiation" and "value-add pricing" apply here.
It's also worth noting that most people do only two true end-to-end activities, in the original spirit of the Internet - email and filesharing. Now we find email under assault by spam, and we're approaching the point where some people would accept ANYTHING to stop it. I fear that unfortunately, that solution may well be some sort of client-server or content provider based system. As for filesharing, we know what The Powers That Be (??AA) think of that. So from those points of view, true end-to-end *should* be deprecated in favor of client/server.
As for the ISP side, the smart-broadcast model suits them just fine. Smart users who want true end-to-end are just a pain in the neck. Perhaps IPv6 could simplify things for the ISP, but that would be at the end of a long migration process. It would certainly take longer than on quarter, and ISPs couldn't see that far into the future, for the cost savings.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I'll lay a bet that most US corporate websites and heavy usage educational websites (MIT) my be the last to upgrade to IP6. Why? The for the same reason /. isn't fully css. Reason being: it works great now, and it would be alot effort to change things.
Actually, IP6 itself will cause problems with some third party programs. My company uses applications that are licensed by IP4 addresses and limited to certain IP addresses. We wouldn't be able to run them if we switched. It's reasons like that will slow IP6 adoption.
IPv6 makes for nice project work, but I don't believe that it will ever be implemented in any meaningful way, at least for a good long while.
Eggheads play with it, manufacturers move to support it, but nobody uses it. When I say this, I mean, nobody is forced to use it, so nobody will make the change.
If anything should be replaced it's TCP.
C'mon -- you know you want to!!!
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
It is hard to imagine that the proposed solution will ever really be needed by anyone.
By the time there are significant enough numbers of IPv6 clients with no connectivity to IPv4 web sites for this to be a potential concern for web site operators, this will have been solved on the IPv6 side of the fence. Otherwise, what value is the IPv6 connectivity? And probably this solution will not be an application-specific gateway such as the one described, but rather a more generalized IPv6 to IPv4 gateway at the edges of the IPv6 islands in the IPv4 sea. Many generalized IPv6-to-IPv4 translation technologies have been proposed and discussed by the ngtrans working group of IETF, such as RFC 3421.
No, it's called a vicious circle. viscious looks a little too much like viscous; Viscous circle sounds dirty but it might just mean a torque converter, I guess.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is hard to imagine that the proposed solution will ever really be needed by anyone. By the time there are significant enough numbers of IPv6 clients with no connectivity to IPv4 web sites for this to be a potential concern for web site operators, this will have been solved on the IPv6 side of the fence. Otherwise, what value is the IPv6 connectivity? And probably this solution will not involve application-specific or protocol-specific gateways such as the one described (even for an important protocol like HTTP), but rather a more generalized IPv6 to IPv4 translator handling traffic leaving the IPv6 island for the IPv4 sea. . Many generalized IPv6-to-IPv4 translation technologies, such as RFC 3421, have been proposed and discussed by the ngtrans working group of IETF, and some kind of technology like this will be deployed long before anyone really needs a solution like the one proposed.
thanks!
an offtopic q... how could i have sent
this thanks more privately? the closest
option i saw slashdot offering was to
mod you as a friend, is there no pm when
a
I would really like to switch to IPv6, but don't I have to wait for hardware support? Can I use IPv6 on my wireless network using D-Link bridges? I run a small WISP and asked about IPv6 before. I did not get any answers on how to run it on my current configuration. I do think that it would help a lot with my routing issues.
The above is not worth reading.
Most of the client software my family uses still doesn't support IPv6, so despite the fact that I have my network set up to route IPv6 through 6to4 it rarely gets any use. There's not much point in ISPs supporting IPv6 until a majority of client applications support it too. Just about the only thing I've ever used IPv6 for was pinging a couple of servers to see if it was working and spending a short while as an IPv6 client on an IRC network, but even then I couldn't use my client of choice so I just went back to IPv4 after a week.
Yeah, you do that.
Most sysadmins have other things to do that work on promoting a protocol for no special reason.
there are dozens just in my area competing to provide Internet service over DSL.
They can't if the phone company drags its feet on putting DSL in an area, and the cable company is unwilling to offer a /64 worth of IPv6 space to residential customers or open its last mile to competitors. Are they supposed to make their own fixed wireless network? How would they afford the FCC licenses for such an app?
Evidence to support this claim? Most consumer broadband embedded routers do firewalling as well as NAT.
Did you read any of the other messages in this thread? I have already explained it quite clearly: NAT does NOT filter anything. The standards don't specifcy that it does and I don't know of any implementation that does. I have given examples of how to go straight through a router that is only doing NAT and not filtering. Port forwarding has nothing to do with it because outsiders can esablish routes to your internal network which does not depend on NAT or port forwarding or anything. Again, read the other messages in this thread, I explained it several times as did several other people.
Firewalls already are very important. Practicaly everyone is using them already.