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."
...untill they run out of addresses
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)
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
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,
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.
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?
For example I am setting up a nature webcam site which will be ipv6 only for exactly this reason.
Until the porn world goes IPv6 only there will be no major rush to upgrade. I really hope that your "nature webcam site" is really nude women running around in the forest or I just don't see it making a difference.
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.
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."
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!
Well, that's no surprise; there's hardly any interest in today's internet.
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.
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.