Slashdot Mirror
Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet
Ant wrote in to mention a Computerworld article that is reporting on the slow acceptance of the IPv6 version of the internet. From the article: "Information Technology (IT) decision-makers, in U.S. businesses and government agencies, want better Internet security and easier network management. However, few see the next-generation Internet Protocol called IPv6 as helping them achieve their goals, according to a survey released Tuesday by Juniper Networks Inc."
Lightman also called for a national IPv6 coordination office in the U.S. with an annual budget around $10 billion.
No way that'll happen; $10 billion can buy a lot more soldiers to kill Iraqis.
...untill they run out of addresses
2007 is coming up fast!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Meh.
It's not backwards compatible. I can't run old IPv4 on the same net, it's one or the other. Don't tell me to run multiple NICs, that's not practical.
In short, there's no easy way to upgrade, to try it out, to upgrade slowly and practically.
Infuriate left and right
Translation: "There's a marketing job to be done"
I thought education was for important things which you need, and marketing was to convince you to use products and services?
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
The reason why is there's not that much support or software for the protocol. As the summary said they want better security and easier management, but there's not even a good IPv6 firewall up and running, so why would they take it up?
Wait a while until there's the software backing then you'll see companies using it.
What's the problem? IPv6? Qr5as! Just get a bigger, longer, string.
Which is why IPv6 isn't going to be in full effect until 2025. They figured that acceptance would be slow. The fact is, at this point, people don't need IPv6. But when the numbers start to run out, they'll be clamoring for it.
NAT is the reason why ipv6 has not really been needed. The idea of having an IP address for everyone on the planet and for his dog too was really not needed.
::1 ?) and over all lack of a need helped kill IPv6 from becoming too popular.
Once NAT+Firewalls became popular enough, the requirement for large IP chunks for offices and stuff disappeared.
No backward compatibility, ugly naming scheme (tell me , who like
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
...to mandate IPv6 transition or earth will stop spinning sending everybody flying off into space.
Learn to use and enjoy Zero compress in IPv6 :) ::1 would be the same as 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
/32 IPv6 block and the ISP replies that they don't retail out single IPs.
Did you hear about the guy who went to get a
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Thanks for clarifying what IT meant. I've been lost on this site for YEARS and now I finally know what that acronym means. Life is good.
nothing.
That's right, upgrading your network and spending lots of time/money gets your organization nothing. Sure ipv4 space is limited, but what's wrong with a little conservation.
I would bet most of the ip space is used for dialup users, where 1 dialup user = 1 ip address. Why not just NAT those dialup users? If you need a static ip address, do a 1:1 NAT or something. There's absolutely no reason a dialup user should have a public ip address.
People that use the internet for e-mail/web browsing could care less about their ip address.
Gaming on dialup hasn't really ever worked and is painful at best.
Running a web server on a dialup connect? probably not.
How many people still use dialup?
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
all the cyber people need to support teh AOL in their awesome efforts to make the internets better for everybody.
can't believe you peeps havent seen the cool AOL comercials!!!!111
"want a better internet?"
"you belong to america online!!!"
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Companies won't change if there's no incentive; they have to be shown that it will help them out in measured ways, or until they're eventually forced to do it by everyone else. They won't be an early adopter otherwise.
Life is the sport of champions. Those who lose, die.
How about providing static IP addresses to DSL and cable modem users, so we can actually use simple DNS (or even just memorized IP addresses) to host things with servers in our living rooms? Seems to me that would be a huge value proposition for any ISP to its customers.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet
Ain't that the truth.
Developing countries dont have an option other than to move to IPv6 due the apparent shortage of IP numbers. And if that's the way, then the rest have to go for IPv6 because, they say v6 cannot inter-operate with v4.
Regardless, what's wrong with IPv4? I've been using it on my network for years and I haven't had any problems or extra requirements. They're gonna have to come up with damn good reasons to switch because, at the moment, it's just not worth the hassle.
I know i'm not the only one who thinks like this.. all of my colleagues are happy with the v4 system, and the (less high maintenance) users know what i'm talking about when I assign IPs or mention '127.0.0.1'. None of them have a clue about '::1', and it isn't worthwhile changing until IPv4 truly becomes defunct and obsolete.
I think the major problem is that most Americans have gotten used to the limitations of NAT.
I for one would like to be able to transfer files once again with friends (you now like pictures or video conference) which I can't seem to do now since everyone is behind a NAT these days.
I would also like to play Hearts of Iron again multiplayer without having to disconnect my room mates from the internet. (No amount of port forwarding and opening ports and using DMZ actually works mind you. Well it sort of does... But not very well...)
But it might be a while before we see IPv6 universally.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services. A severely restricted adress space is what they need to continue to do so. This is just an attempt on their part to establish/enforce a perception that IPv6 is not needed/wanted. It may have misfired, though.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
IPV6 will involve more digits/typing/remembering than IPV4. Of course sysadmins are reluctant.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
monitoring like security and tracking. Half of
internet2 when i goes mainstream will be used for
tracing users for illegal activity.
Then will be the need for a secure and
unmonitored net to run on top of the new
internet to overcome sensorship, and guess what
it will have the same speed as the current internet.
"If studies like this aren't acted on ... then instead of having a quarter of all the world's ISPs clustered here, around Reston, you'll have a quarter of the world's ISPs clustered around Tokyo or Beijing. I don't know if that's what the U.S. government really wants."
Hmm... moving AOL to Tokyo or Beijing might not be a bad idea. Would be much more expensive to send out all those CDs to people here...
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
I have a minimal writeup on my blog here. It states where I got my 6to4 tunnel from, how to activate the tunnel (in FreeBSD), and the problem I faced when activating the tunnel! All in all, now my webserver answers requests on ipv6!! Check it out! Its very easy, I suggest all geeks at least try this at home. Later tomorrow, once I'm done testing, I will put an extensive writeup on how to make your home network a functioning IPV6 ONLY network (includes: Windows Boxes, Mac Boxes, Linux Boxes, FreeBSD boxes, and OpenBSD Boxes).
First, you need to make it cheap and easy to migrate, and make it part of the OS. Want a new Windows machine? Fine. It'll connect to the Internet and Ipv6 transparently, and you won't see the difference.
Second, move all the porn sites to IP v6.
Actually, screw step 1. If you can manage step 2, and keep any new upstarts from taking over the vacated IP v4 porn market, then IP v6 will become the standard within a year. We'll all have a laugh over the contorted and convoluted arguments PHBs with little to no technology understanding will come up with to justify switching their corporate networks to IP v6.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If people wanted to jump start IPv6 traffic (at least on Internet2), an offical Bittorrent protocol specification that includes IPv6 would help.
Bram Cohen has talked on occasion about IPv6 having some advantages for Bittorrent although I can't remember what he said.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I suspect that much of the perceived "insecurity" of the net stems from people's experience with spam, e-mailed viruses, and phishing. Redesigning the protocol to prevent spoofed headers would go a long way to reduce spam (or at least make it easier to filter). We get about 75 spams a day that claim to come from our domain or mail server IP.
.mil or collegial .edu networks never had even consider issues such as spam, spyware, DDoS, DNS poisoning, IDN spoofing, etc.
The other major source of the perceived "insecurity" of the net is due to the insecurity of end-user devices (and end-users themselves), but that a harder issue to tackle.
The larger problem is that the internet was designed during an innocent era when all the devices on the net were assumed trustworthy. Secure
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Why is everybody so shocked? The market changes and "oops" we forgot to think of these new requirements. So the solution is to ossify the mistargeted solution by creating a government office for it? Sounds like crybabies crying to me.
Using the best knowledge of today to create the problems of tomorrow.
I first implemented IPv6 on a Cisco 7120 with a single FreeBSD 4.0 box as a host behind it - this would have been some time in late 2000. The IPv6 link came from Viagenie and this lasted a few months before I got bored with it.
I tried again last year with a couple of cable modem attached Cisco 17xx and some tunnels from Hurricane Electric. I was at a point where I wanted to do a lot more with IPv6 to get ready for my CCIE exam. HE was relentlessly useless in getting me more than what their tunnel broker system provided so I gave up again.
I tried later last year with BTexact's tunnel broker service and some other routers. Made it run, then started moving offices and lost interest.
I'm at it again - BTexact because they've got the best tunnel broker web interface and they'll give multiple tunnels, Cisco 28xx here, Cisco 17xx at a playful customer's site, and one FreeBSD 5.4 host. My CCIE gets closer and closer so this time its gotta go - web server, DNS, going to put up six total tunnels, then press for a block larger than the default
Looking at IPv6 from the outside it would appear that someone collected a bunch of people who got kicked out of IETF for mental instability, a number of disgruntled Novell employees who believed that IPX was a gift from an advanced space alien culture, and locked them all in a junior high gymnasium with a goodly supply of blotter acid and two boxes of twinkies. Its the only explanation we have for the results we see today
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
actually, current count right now for Mozilla vs. IE, both up and running and actually several more mozilla windows running. IE: 59.8 MB Mozilla: 41.3 MB on the virtual memory look. Now as RAM goes, mozilla is using a lot more, but its not the memory hog for me you seem to have a problem with. and I bet firefox is much lighter(though I don't have it on this particular computer)
Few articles actually address real IPv6 benefits and instead pull out strawmen about a purported shortage of IP addresses. That's got to be the least significant and least relevant change between IPv4 and IPv6. Maybe that's all the 'journalists' can get their teeny minds around, or maybe it's mandated spin because certain key advertising accounts *cough*MS*cough* aren't looking to be IPv6 compliant any time soon.
Some of the main advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 are:
- quality of service
- simplified headers
- multicasting
- security (that's certainly buzzword compliant, why is it never brought up?)
- autoconfiguration
- improved routing
- authentication
Japan and China are already rolling out IPv6 networks. Since the article specifically points out the U.S., maybe it's time that U.S. businesses start getting technical news from sources other than their MS account representative.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
IPV8 is MUCH better
;)
guys, get a clue!!!
first post!!
why would we bother to adopt a new technology until there's an impending crisis w/ the old one?
I could set up my servers to do IPv6, but I don't have sufficient motivation to do so. It takes time and energy to get this set up, and I don't see any return for doing so. This is because the network effect is not yet strong enough. Someone has to work on getting IPv6 to "Cross the Chasm" or to "the Tipping Point".
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
These guys have a good tunnel broker interface:
https://tb.ipv6.btexact.com/
I used these guys a couple of years ago and they made me very sad:
ipv6tb.he.net/
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
OMG dude you totally posted this for the wrong article. LOL!
With the most recent windows update, MS decided that we should all implement ipv6, which broke alot of things. I just switched to Mac. At least I know that the ipv6 interface on this thing can be smoked with ifconfig....
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Once most ISPs are IPV6 native, there'll be a lot more reason for people to play with it -- if only because it'll then be a lot easier. (Hey, I'm lazy. I expect that others are too). I had tunnelling working for a while but it broke and I haven't gotten around to getting it working again.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
from TFA:
Computer users would need a broadband connection with at least 512M bit/sec. to enjoy the better picture. IPv6 will free television stations from expensive satellite cable connections, Bayliss said.
See my previous post.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I could never figure out what was so wrong with the OSI NSAP addressing that required IP6 instead. Other than NIH that is. Anyway...
Deleted
Most users use a firewall to do NAT at the moment., they thus get some level of protection.
Take that away, have loads of IPV6 addresses and un-informed consumers, and your setting yourself up for your uC driven toaster, oven, refrigerator, entertainment center etc spamming people.
It just gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies -- does anyone else remember the feeling of walking into a PeeCee site that was 'internet connected'back in the 90's and asking what they were doing and finding out every un-patched PC had a distinct IP on the internet?
Why dont all IPv4 addresses simply automatically get a secondary address where 255.255.255.255 would become 0.0.0.0.255.255.255.255
Technoli
opera 8.00 currently current. mem usage 23,980. VM size 29,884
Juniper has a horse in the race, selling network devices.
There's currently an IPv6 conference at which they're appearing as well. The conference ends today (2005-May-26).
There's a Washington Post article on the summit.
I'm posting from the summit, where they have a IPv6 802.11 network up for visitors use.
-- Improve Windows - Buy a Mac!
I guess the US (having most of the IPv4 addresses in existence) will only start upgrading when US companies need IPv6 to use all the cool gadgets and technologies developed in China, Japan, South East Asia, India and Europe.
Of course they will have missed the innovation boat (and profits) by then and will be users rather than providers of new technologies.
if we want to improve the internets!!!!
By which, you are referring to both the Internet and Internet 2, I assume...
Techie has access and can spend the money on a fast net connection (either DSL, cablemodem, etc). Ergo, because this is his (and usually it is a guy who does this) situation he couldn't imagine that anyone else could be in a different one or want to be. This results in such idiotic statements such as "How many people still use dialup?".
... then humanity will follow.
I'm just waiting for IPv7...
Never invest in today's technology, always wait until it's tomorrow.
Instead of separating addresses with :, why not just use the good old .?
IPV6 adressess just looks ugly.
This is my sig.
if you have a public ipv4 ip then just use 6to4 and use the ipv6 /48 it gives you for basically as many machines as you wan't
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Hey guys, how about you get a clue?
Try IPV8! its a hell of a lot better!
its backward compatible with IPv4 - not necessary to change all the internet hardware or BS
and it has a LOT more addresses than Ipv6 ever will.
Dont like it? then try IPV16 !!!
sheesh you guys are behind the times... really!
They already have.
--
Don't Fight Firefox! Let Firefox fight you!
Let's all calm down. This is not uncommon with all new technologies. It's an economic concept called network externalities, and it's applied to many technologies where "does it make sense for me to use this?" relates directly to "how many other people are using it?" The telephone, the TV, e-mail, and yes, even the web, have had these growing pains.
A good example is that barcode on the side of packaging that makes it easy to be rung up at the supermarket.
Until most supermarkets had scanners,it made little sense for food manufacturers to upgrade to put barcodes on packaging--no demand.
Until most food had barcodes, it made little sense for supermarkets to invest in pricey scanners--they still had to rung most things up by hand.
Whatever will we do! *wring hands* Why isn't this catching on?
Fortunatly, you know where this one turned out.
Initial growth will be slow--that's expected. It will be comparitively more costly for early adopters than later adopters--they have to do the pioneering before there's a lot of others to talk to.
But at least some are seeing benefit from switching now, and those numbers seem to be (slowly) increasing. For each oragnization that joins, they make it more compelling for other organizations to join, and move some others over the line from "not interested yet" to "OK, count me in." Eventually, a tipping point will be reached where most people cross that line, and eventually the technology will become the de facto standard.
Relax. This will happen. Every day the case for switching gets a little more compelling. But don't expect it overnight.
How do I get IPv6 address blocks officially assigned to me/my company?
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Of these, only "simplified headers" really applies to IPv6 over IPv4. (Although I confess to not knowing what "improved routing" refers to.) Yes, there is QoS for IPv4, and multicasting for IPv4, and IPSEC for IPv4, and Zeroconf, etc.
The real advantage of IPv6 is... more addresses! It is nice to be able to give each device a "real" addresss (meaning not behind a NAT) for any situation where you want your client to act like a server, the main use being P2P and games (as I see it). I think this is a compelling reason, actually, and eventually we will get IPv6. Why panic about the low level of interest?
Then again, I am in Amsterdam, and have a
Huh? What the hell article were you trying to post to?
It's just FUD. Probably from IPv6 fan-boys.
But don't take it from me. Take it from the guy who runs the organisation that gives out addresses to India and China.
p2p would be SOOOOO much easier with IPv6 because there is no need for NAT, but since there is so much resistance to p2p it can't be used as an impetus to move to IPv6.
Hopefully, VoIP and VCoIP will catch fire and providers will realize that its much easier to provide these services without every user using NAT.
1. Convert to porn sites to IPv6
2. ????
3. Profit!!
While there are certainly cases where NAT isn't nearly good enough, for the vast majority of users it IS good enough.
That's what makes IPv6 acceptance so slow: your ISP isn't going to rebuild its infrastructure so that you can run a SMTP server. Certainly not for the measly (from their POV) $50 a month you and your friends are paying for that line. If you want a static IP, or a few, you can have it, but you'll start paying $150 a month or more for the service.
Some day, those necessary static IPs will be too rare, and you'll have to switch ISPs to get it. At that point your ISP will need to switch to IPv6 to keep your business. I have no idea when that day is. It may well be soon; I can't say. But as a major investment for your ISP they're going to put it off as long as possible.
So the answer to your question, "Why shouldn't people be able to have full IP connectivity?" is, "Because not enough people want it to make it worth their while, but if you really want it you can pay for it."
As a home user and/or a business, why would I want to do this?, other than to be able to say "Yay I'm cool, because I use IPv6?
1) Wrong thread. 2) he meant he's been an [insert "engineer" or technical role he states] for 20+ years, NOT that he himself is 20-some years old. I believe he said something along the lines of ["20-some year old security ~something"], which differs from "I was born 20-some years ago." I don't know about you, but I happen to be a person; I don't exist mainly as a job title, so I can see how that would throw some people off, but I guess he just loves his job enough to state his time-in-the-industry when most people would give their age (logic is on his side, however: his actual age is less relevant than his experience). 3) So AMD solves every problem he rants about, eh? Unlikely, but it's still not the point. He said WinTel and he meant WinTel... If you want to use other platforms, then go right ahead (no matter how similar they are to Intel as far as most PC users are concerned...); that was what he was trying to encourage. 4) FireFox is FireFox, he mentioned no browser by name (in sections I read); If you care about how your resources are used, don't use Windows. Which is also what he seems to be encouraging, or at least hinting at (with a title like 'Mad as hell, switching to Mac', and such, you be the judge). Low resource usage is not what the majority of Windows installs which I have seen are all about, and most rely on 3rd-party software to shave off some of the filth that develops on common installs, be it the network ports Microsoft likes to leave open which most people don't touch, extra un-needed registry keys, spyware, malware, you name it. A large amount of Windows installs go downhill fast, in many aspects.
Currently I have a dynamic IP. my IP is assigned by my provider from a pool, and changes at least dayly. I see this as an important advantage for my privacy.
If IPv6 became widespread, would this result in me having the same IP for as long as I stay with this ISP? Or even longer?
I regulary delete cookies I don't want, but if there is an unique identifier that is tied to me, then this is no longer possible.
Cookies could just be saved server-side, and shared among different servers. As long as I cannot change my IP, I could be clearly identified
Right now it is not feasible to identify users in this way, because most users do not have a static IP.
Would this change if IPv6 became widespread?
D. J. Bernstein has a really nice page that explains why the current IPv6 transition plans are a joke. It's worth a read if you're interested in IPv6.
From what I've read, the wi-fi built into the Nintendo DS is IPv6 _only_. I might be wrong but that's a pretty huge userbase waiting to happen.
It's got built in equivalent of IPSEC. That alone would go a long way in improving most computing environments.
"Improved routing" refers to, among other things, route aggregation which reduces the size of routing tables which is helped by the simplified header which reduce router processing loads.
Someone with more networking knowledge can clarify why the IPv6 functions are much better than the IPv4 ones, where they may appear to overlap.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Even when you are using NAT you still have to filter out packets that are routed to your outside interface and aimed at your inside boxes (you do do that, don't you?). This is especially true of cable systems where I can often see broadcasts from the other boxes in my neighbourhood and know that inside networks are almost always 192.168.[0123].* . There are often other ways to suss out the inside topology of a network besides just guessing.
Presumimg that just nat is going to protect you is the kind of false security thing that leads to gaping holes in your defences.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I tried IPV6 on a wrt54g Linksys cable/dsl router and it went kaput. Don't know IPV6 or that firmware that I got of a site or the 700 times I flashed it :).
Was loads of fun though.
take care
-A
The whole Internet is reachable through IPv4, only a small portion of it is reachable through IPv6.
Dan J. Bernstein explains the problem perfectly well here as well as suggesting a solution.
...as always. Still: want better Internet security and easier network management. they write. Thing is, those IT folks they speak about probably know exactly what IPv6 is for, which is not better security and easier management. It's mostly the extended address space, not much more, think of it as IPv4 on lower-end steroids. So they probably don't expect such features from it. Which is not true for ignorant article writers.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Most ISPs don't want their users hosting ANYTHING out of their living-room. That would use up bandwith which is directly linked to the pocketbook of your ISP. What ISPs want is home users paying a regular rate and using a minimal amount of bandwith (e.g. surfing the web, checking email). Not serving up their home movies or getting slashdotted.
Not to mention that by making dynamic IPs the industry standard, they can treat "static IP" as an extra feature and charge through the nose for it. (Much like text-messaging & ring-tones on cell phones.)
All of which is to say, ISPs see no profit from giving all their users static IPs. IPv4 is a blessing because it makes static IPs precious. Moving to IPv6 would just cut apart that revenue stream (at least in the short-run, which is all most companies seem to be concerned with).
-tom
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Why do /. editors accept posts about articles in InfoWorld, CNET, ComputerWorld et al?
Is SlashDot supposed to follow the paper media ? These articles are days, if not weeks old when posted - why does SlashDot accept them?
Is SlashDot paid to accept posts about these articles? If not, then they should be , since it's free advertising for commercial publications.
When will the Internet publishers like /. grow uip and cut their umbilical cord with the tabloid IT press?
Don't tell anyone, but the multicast ability in IPv6 could make P2P file sharing *even more efficient*! That initial seeder could send every packet to every downloader at the same time. Multiplexing that with a bittorrent-type download net means that you could move a lot of data much faster.
When each packet can reach multiple destinations, there are lots of very interesting possibilities. And if P2P has taught us anything, it is that those new technical possibilities will be employed first and foremost to trade moviez, mp3z, warez, and pr0n!
Well, that's no surprise; there's hardly any interest in today's internet.
From TFS:
...ee the next-generation Internet Protocol called IPv6 as helping them achieve their goals
> Information Technology (IT) decision-makers...
Given how many of these gits repeatedly put their palm (or equivelant) into their back pockets only to break it (yet, again), or will fight tooth-and-nail that a command or a switch not be deprecated because they don't know what deprecated means, this is hardly a surprise. I'm just waiting for the day when I can be more cynical.....
Read up on IPv6 some time.
Dude, I've been working with IPv6 for 7 years or so.
It's got built in equivalent of IPSEC. That alone would go a long way in improving most computing environments.
"built in equivalent of IPSEC"?? Huh? Rather, you mean the IPv6 standard requires that IPv6 implementations must have IPSEC, I am guessing. IPv6 with IPSEC is no more secure than IPv4 with IPSEC.
"Improved routing" refers to, among other things, route aggregation which reduces the size of routing tables which is helped by the simplified header which reduce router processing loads.
You are confusing two things here. IIRC, IPv4 checksum includes the TTL count, which means it has to be recalculated at every hop. This was fixed in IPv6. It's been a few years, but I think that this is what people normally refer to by "simplified headers".
Route aggregation, OTOH, is directly a result of address allocation policies. The hope is that because we can give "enough" addresses to each ISP, that any given network will only have to advertise a single route, thus minimising the number of routes that routers must maintain. This is a beneficial (and as yet unproven) side-effect... of having lots of addresses!
Someone with more networking knowledge can clarify why the IPv6 functions are much better than the IPv4 ones, where they may appear to overlap.
If you're talking about the socket API, in my experience there is no real advantage to the IPv6 functions. They exist so that you can manipulate IPv6 addresses, nothing more, nothing less.
This is just silly on the face of it. ISP's exist and physically cluster based on fairly straightforward economics - where are the customers and where can they get capacity cheapest. The choice of protocols is a direct function of customer demand and is not some kind of product or mindshare that would arbitrarily find itself overseas. If the US continues to move towards hundreds of millions of consumers online there will continue to be lots of ISP's - both serving customers directly and connecting to other ISP's serving customers directly.
From a more technological point of view as networks are upgraded in the normal course of things we're seeing devices which would either not support- or inadequately support- IPv6 disappearing, to be replaced by boxes which will do a better job with IPv4 and - surprise surprise - tend to also support IPv6. Look at the routing offerings from Cisco and Juniper - IPv6 is widely available.
When and if ISP's want to roll IPv6 in a big way (which, incidentally, is going to be driven by customer demand - not some fear of shady Asian ISP's taking over) they can do so with software changes.
The downside of IPng, IPv6, ISO CLNS/CLNP, ATM, etc.. has been that standards bodies often set out with (sometimes wonderful) solutions in search of problems. They seem to often ignore the fact that the strictures imposed by the present state of things is one of the chief factors to be considered. Life and technology very rarely afford us the opportunity of a completely fresh start. We should plan accordingly.
sell them on Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
... [caveat, I own shares of them]
heck, works for MSFT
Seriously, though, moving to IPv6 and Gigabit Internet for the whole nation would be a SMART thing. I can't believe you don't have high-speed bandwidth in the commercial world like we do at university, college, and medical institutions.
And you'd solve a lot of security problems by just ditching IPv4.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
True, the header is wider and more addressable. True, it's easier to send email to non-earth locations. True, the timeout values are wider.
But if properly installed IPv6 includes IPvSec, which means better authentication, and less hackable network designators, and thus makes it easier to use securely with an IPvSec wrapper which is supported fully on IPv6 but not on IPv4.
But, hey, live in the dark ages if you want
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Given the quantity of addresses available for IPv6, I'm unsure as to why IPv4 couldn't / wasn't made a subset of IPv6?
Right now we've got a catch-22 it seems. Why would I offer an IPv6 ONLY service, if that means a ton of my users will be locked out? As long as I offer an IPv4 service, why would my users switch? They can just use IPv4 up the stack.
If IPv4 address were subsets of IPv6, couldn't an IPv4 users request an IPv4 address. Once it hits their ISP, check routing and prefix if possible with IPv6 prefix. This could happen anywhere along the line, including just the last hop. My server can just run an IPv6 stack, and know that the rest of the internet, IPv4 and 6, can reach it.
Instead, we've got a "fresh start" approach, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
Or am I missing something obvious here? It sure looks to me at this point that running an IPv6 only server is a bit complicated unless you set up a broker or something else manually.
The address shortage is a myth.
in India and China and Japan - which are rolling out IPv6 whether the US wants it or not ...
Well, let's face it, we no longer "control" the Net.
Time to migrate to IPv6. I read the specs years ago, it's a lot cleaner than IPv4, IMHO.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
not only that, but simply training all of the lower level sys admins, desktop support people, helpdesk staff, etc. that need to know this stuff but aren't (and considering how little some of them get paid, shouldn't have to be) necisarily exposed to this kind of technology, could potentially throw a wet blanket on any organization's adoption of v6.
On top of that, with the very common practice of outsourcing desktop support now, it would be triply as hard trying to convince an outsource company to train their extremely high turnover call centers and onsite techs to not only work with a new technology, but give an entirely new face to networking in general. Considering that they are using the walmart method of super efficent (well, relatively) low cost, high volume business, even the slight per-employee cost of having to train everyone on this new technology could affect their profit margin very negatively.
But is like USB adoption, Microsoft won't do it until 'Apple's done it'.
Guess what? Apple's already done it, (with Airport Extreme and Express, with eight octet groups right on the hardware,) but they're not making a big deal out of it because Apple's customers are not tech savvy enough to know what the fuss is about anyway.
All Apple need to do is start making a noise and Microsoft will once again play 'catch up.'
I'm running IPv6 on my friggin LAN and the WAN is only running IPv4. Go figure?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This guy says that over 50% of all the addresses are allocated out, and despite the absolute explosion of network connectivity, he can continue to hand out /8's for the next twenty years? Not even maybe.
If IANA started actually allocating blocks at the rate they are being requested, they would run out tomorrow. Dynamic IP and NAT is a direct result of allocation requests being denied.
-Hope
I agree 100% - the point was - Do you really think that your average consumer who buys the new uC controlled refrigerator with nifty 'email you when out of milk' is going to have any clue about any of that stuff?
Nope, they are going to plug it right in to the 'super-duper highspeed broadband network' and *if* your *lucky* they are going to maybe have a consumer firewall that hasn't been shipped in a totally lame default configuration.
If they change the default password on their firewall and even change the internal subnet address then your *LUCKY*
I'm not talking about the few people who will plug it into their Penguin box with iptables firewall, who has a non darth-vader-unix snort box logging every packet.
I actually wonder what the legal implications of a network attached *anything that could make people sick* is going to be... Just imagine if some nasty script-kiddie SYN floods your refrigerator, and manages to convince it to turn off for say a day or two - at which point some internal watchdog process detects the problem and reboots, and starts cooling again without warning you.
You come home half asleep from a trip eat some food and wind up with food poisoning.
If it were seamless, I could have focused my attention on my other duties. As it was there was a lot of other work that didn't get done...
DNA just wants to be free...
I posted about this a couple of years ago I think.
Everyone keeps talkign about NAT and its problems and support for apps and services. The real reason that IPv6 isn't being adopted is because core backbone providers aren't forcing it. No one has made a real commitment to IPv6, so it is not used at the enterprise level.
If you start with service providers, I don't believe that there is a lot of IPv6 even at that level. This is only really my conjecture, but as a consultant in the network management space, I don't hear customers begging for products that support IPv6. And until the backbone providers , and the IETF, decide that IPv6 must go forward, NAT is going to work for most people, and not much will change.
IPv6 is going to be a tough row to hoe, it will necessitate a lot of updates to libraries and software before it can be fully supported. A lot of companies spend a lot of money every year to monitor and manage their business systems with IPv4 based applications, and aren't going to risks the expense until IPv6 is necessary and vendors fully support it.
One problem is that the united states has a lot more IPs per population than most of the rest of the world (does anyone have exact numbers for this?), so we'll be one of the last to run out, and therefore one of the last to adopt ipv6, which puts us in a very bad position.
A similar problem on a smaller scale is that those who own a lot of IPv4 addresses now have a competetive advantage over those who don't, and these are exactly the people (large ISPs, telco companies) who need to adopt IPv6 in order for it to take off. Their control of a scarce resource gives them a relative advantage against those who don't, so why would they ever want to cooperate to make that resource become non-scarce? It just isn't in their best interests.
I say fine let the business world keep the old internet and let the Geeks keep the IPv6. After all I think half the problems that the internet has, has to do with the business world anyway.
I think it's mostly corporates who don't "see" how IPv6 can make their businesses is profitable. The truth of the matter is IPv6 might probably kill off many of these corporates. Right now IPv6 is the nessesity for peer-to-peer communities, not just file sharing. Besides everything else it will probably eliminate NATs which is the biggest hurdle in peer networking. Right now all P2P clients including BitTorrent survives on meer hack called UDP hole punching which works for about 82% of the routers. No supporting IPv6 is good for MPAA but unimaginably bad for free Internet.
What ticks me off is that IPv6 addresses use colons instead of periods. This was not necessary. They could easily distinguish IPv4 addresses form IPv6 addresses based on the number of supplied bytes or by the presence of double periods (instead of double colons).
Not only that, but web browsers insist that IPv6 addresses be given in square brackets because they are cannot parse the colons in the IPv6 addresses since one might deliniate the desired port. This problem occurs because of the "text compression" with the double colon. It wouldn't have occured with periods.
There's noplace like ::1/128
I don't know much about ip6. I do know a little about IP4. As a end user without much cash and constantly using whatever free stuff I can get What real benifits would I get from doing Ip6 stuff? What's so great about IP6 anyway?
"Game playing through NAT is nearly impossible. Scratch that... if there is more than one person trying to play the same MMORPG from the same IP, it IS impossible for many games."
WoW works great. You can have lots of people on different machines behind 1 IP, assuming you have separate WoW accounts (no MMO lets you have multiple characters from the *same* account logged in for obvious reasons).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This is the first IP i ever saw with a smiley in it. This is truly innovative. Yay IPv6!!
Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!
Obviously you seem to have much more experience and knowledge of IPv6. IPSEC is a good thing and it should be used, but it isn't. The way to get people to use IPSEC is through IPv6. This may end up being like the metric system and the world will have IPv6, the US IPv4.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If he does that with IP4, he's even more toast (if you'll allow the pun) With every home getting a /48 network, guessing the address of the fridge isn't going to be as easy as with your average NATed IP4 network -- and if the routers have sane firewall rules in place of NAT, then you won't be able to do anything anyways.
Of course, if you don't want your toaster to be world-addressable, then you should just limit it to link scope addresses -- job done. You actually end up with the best of both worlds: Link scope inside the house for private units and global scope for world accessible stuff -- along with the built-in security that IP6 provides.
The more I think about this, the better it sounds.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I would have to disagree I work for a leading Cisco CCIE training company and one of our best selling books are the IPv6 topics.
I think the biggest problem is getting people trained enough to use it, then getting major ISP's to switch.
www.ipexpert.com
www.proctorlabs.com
I have designed a course on version six and I also teach 3G/UMTS and GPRS networks.
Why six will succeed (and I used to be a long time skeptic) is that Mobile IP will be big, and it will not work well with the version four world. Every PDA and phone will have VoIP and many other P2P applications and they will need to be reachable, not hidden as private addresses behind NAT routers.
I guess we could figure out some weird protocol to register on a SIP server your current NAT/port instead of your current version four IP, which often is private. Or we can have generalized "presence" servers and connections routed through non firewalled third parties. Actually IPv6 Teredo is a clever example of using similar tricks to create IPv6 public addresses behind v4 NATs and tunneling ANY IPv6 traffic to them.
Another huge problem with with Mobile IP, which still remains is incompatibikity with ingress filtering. That is a problem even with IPv6, but can be solved with the IPv6 mobility header home address option. And that needs general upgrading in the servers of the Internet, and it would never happen with Mobile IP v4, even if a similar solution (tunneling to servers) would be devised.
There are also political, commercial and psychological reasons for IPv6 to succeed, but not very much other technical ones: you need to be publicly addressable, independent of your location!
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi