Slashdot Mirror
More on China's IPv6 Network Buildout
photojournaliste writes "China has developed and demonstrated its first high-performance network core router based on the next-generation Internet standard known as IPv6, which the country officially inaugurated earlier this week." There's also a CNet story, which has a bit more information than our earlier story.
Some experts have predicted that once China has embraced IPv6, Western countries that wish to do business with Asia will have to upgrade their own networks.
There is actually some truth in this, and might increase the accepetance rate. Same thing is happening to governments using OOo file formats is all, but at a smaller scale.
However, the other article said that it is backward compatible with ipv4, are they using some kind of NAT then, or is it just backward compatible in the sense that the Chinese network can read of ipv4 networks.
Another critique is that, whilst this network uses ipv6, it is mainly used to connect university networks, therefore, business won't be as much pushed to adopt ipv6, hence the article...
On the other hand, it's still pretty easy to tunnel IPV4 through IPV6, so where is the incentive to upgrade going to be?
At least running Linux at home, that's one conversion worry I don't have :-)
---
My blog or yours?
It helps to be last to market. They get those nice pebble bed nuclear reators, IPv6, no need to waste all the money with land lands just use the latest WiFi or cell phone tech, etc.
The problem with private address spaces is that they technically break the end-to-end structure of the Internet, not to mention a number of protocols. While most NAT routers now finally have helper apps to take care of protocols like FTP and IRC, it's still a pain in the a** at times.
:-(
However, the IP6 rollout is going to be an expensive process. It certainly hasn't gone at the pace that we were being told four or five years ago.
For myself, I've moved the company I work for away from some of their older hardware to Linux-based routers. This way we won't be shovelling money down Ci$co's throat, and the upgrade, at least at the head, will require nothing more than a reconfiguration.
Of course, there is our old Ci$co AS5200 dialup server. That may have to be put in an IP4 NAT space.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know just as well if everyone on the planet had their own dedicated IP space, the number of trojans, worms, and other malicious code that uses IP 'sprays' to find hosts would spiral out of control.. I don't think anyone realizes how many PC's are effectively firewalled and safe thanks to the NAT routers you think we should abandoned. Even if we did have IPv6 available at home, no business with enough sense to rub together would give every end user a block of IP's, routing of their own IP's (block), nor would they unblock 'malicious' ports and known common ports at the CPE level (cable or DSL modem). The current market dictates that services should be can on dedicated _servers_. IPv6 is only going to be realized as your thinking suggests when programs which listen on ports become secure..which may never happen.
I really believe that this is a good thing. Many people are not embracing IPv6 due to lack of a high-profile rollout showing its feasability.
Many people are also not building gigantic football stadiums made out of cotton candy due to lack of a high-profile rollout showing its feasability. But just because someone does it doesn't mean you will get more gigantic cotton-candy stadiums, even though it does solve the shortage of cotton-candy at football games.
Also, much of the software out there does not take advantage of IPv6. Having such a large number of people using IPv6 will persuade a few more people to start coding their software capable of using IPv6 addressing.
Why should it. All the good web sites are on IPv4 (or IPv4 along with IPv6 in a few cases). For instance slashdot is still on IPv4. So why would I need IPv6? In fact I regularly remove IPv6 support from all my software. My ISP doesn't even support IPv6.
I really look forward to the day when I can (once again) have end-to-end connectivity with peers.
I don't. I don't want any AOL customers to have direct internet connections for instance.
The proliferation of NAT devices truly has changed the face of the Internet from a large peer-to-peer network with content at every corner, to a client-server model where content is only served by those with enough capital.
Demonstrate how IPv6 will solve this problem.
This is readily apparent in the draconian acceptable useage policies of most providers.
My ISP gives me both public (non-NAT) address AND a draconian AUP. Demonstrate how IPv6 will solve this problem.
I *want* to be able to connect to any of my home machines from work, and vice-versa (firewall permitting).
Use port forwarding if you have less than roughly 60,000 machines. It works for me.
I would *love* to have my own block of portable address space for me to do with as I please.
Try 10.*.*.*, I hear that's available.
I simply can't wait for this to catch on in more places. I encourage all of you to look into IPv6 and see how much added benefit you could get from having a near-unexhaustable pool of addresses available.
I did look into IPv6. There are some nice features but on balance it seems like a total waste of time. I'm sorry to hear that you used up all the 10.*.*.* addresses on your LAN, you must have a lot of machines.
You realise that the Chinese basically 0wn the US, and that intellectual "property" is just bits of paper at most?
I"P" is a massive scam to get the West to stop manufacturing. "Made in England (or USA)" used to be a mark of pride, now all the real work is done by China, while the idiot West kills itself fighting over who has the most imaginary property?
Pretty soon, all the West will have will be ephermal dreams, and the rest of the world will say "fuck that".
Any non-trivial government can only be implemented through coercion and force. The most 'free' nations in the world _still_ need jails to enforce it's laws. As Tolstoy said 'Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us' (paraphrased, and where Tolstoy's violence is 'some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do.) I don't really see a reason why communism requires a totalitarian dictatorship; it is true that most communist societies have had one but I'd argue that most aren't (or weren't) communist, they were/are more purely totalitarian than anything. Disclaimer: I am not a communist.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
Evidentally, there are a fair number of hosts on the Internet with public IP addresses that are running "programs which listen on ports." Otherwise, there would be no communication at all. So, what is it about these "server" machines that make them more secure than "client" machines? Why can those practices not be implemented on client machines?
NAT has nothing to do with firewalling. NAT does not drop any packets whatsoever - your firewall does. With IPv6 noone is proposing that we stop using firewalls, just that we stop using NAT. Nobody's network will be one bit less safe by dropping the NAT and keeping the firewall.