Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet

Posted by Zonk on from the in-my-day-we-used-version-4-and-we-liked-it dept.

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."

62 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...untill they run out of addresses

    1. Re:just wait... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wanted to hit a colleague not long ago. I mentioned that it seemed that someone on the network had enabled IPv6 on their system, as I noticed some packets that I traced back to an IPv6 stack looking for a DHCP server. He (a network security engineer) said something about this being a threat, and that it was against policy, comments which are normal from him and which I ignore. I commented at the same time that it would be nice if we could begin converting to IPv6, at least on a trial basis for a few systems, and he said something about how IPv6 was "pointless" and "useless" since we have all the addresses we need using NAT. Arguments that NAT is a cludge and gets needlessly complex as you continue to NAT multiple layers went nowhere with him.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  2. There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 by ylikone · · Score: 5, Funny

    just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    --
    Meh.
  3. Oh Dear by taskforce · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "There's an education job to be done," said Rod Murchison, senior director of product management for the Security Products Group

    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)
  4. Need more software and support by strider44 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Need more software and support by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      When they get around to rebuilding their kernel and hitting Y next to ip6tables.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Need more software and support by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative
      there's not even a good IPv6 firewall up and running

      Ahem.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  5. Duh by Heliologue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Duh by Heliologue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Substantial portions of that address space is reserved for private network, loopback, etc. You could end up using these addresses, of course, but that would require reengineering every network-capable device that's been built to-date. You don't think that within a decade, there'll be 4 billion mobile phones, each with it's own address? NAT only goes so far.

    2. Re:Duh by stephenbooth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last I heard it wasn't so much that every person would have an IP address so much as everything you wear, carry or own would have one. Supposedly the idea is that your socks will be able to email your washing machine to get the microwave to remind you to wash them whilst the fridge will IM your PVR with a list of what's in it so it can identify and record cookery shows that use those ingredients, prioritised by how close to the use by date each ingredient is. Meanwhile the coffee maker will be contacting the local stores to get you the best prices for Kopi Luwak then putting a reminder in your GPS enabled PDA so that when you go near the store you get a message telling you to pop in and get some (and whilst you're in there pick up some milk, eggs and your mom's magazine reservations).

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    3. Re:Duh by quantum+bit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not picking on you in particular cHiphead, just happened to be a convenient place to post.

      IPv6 = everybody gets their own ip address, walk up to a computer, swipe your worldID card, it switches to your personal ip.

      Except it doesn't work like that. IPv6 uses a hierarchical routing model, much stricter even than IPv4 classful routing.

      The IPv6 address you get assigned (each customer is supposed to get their own /48 subnet, we'll see) comes out of your ISPs pool, which is probably a /32 or something. The really big carriers (i.e. backbone) get /24s, and they allocate smaller subnets to smaller ISPs. The big carriers get their subnets assigned out of a pool, but of the remaining 24 bits, the first 3 specify the address type and the last 8 are reserved. That leaves 13 bits, so there can be a maximum of 8192 "big" carriers (called TLAs).

      Now, unlike the current internet, ONLY TLA's exchange routing information with each other. Every single address withing a TLA's block MUST be routable from one of its peering points. Routing between the TLA blocks may only happen at those top-level points. Small netblocks are no longer portable, so when you change ISPs, you get new addresses. No exceptions -- doesn't matter how many you have. That also means if you want to have a redundant connection for your server (multiple ISPs), it has to have multiple IP addresses too. No more BGP tricks.

      So you can't assign an IPv6 address to a person, as every terminal they use has to have a different address by definition of IPv6.

      The other common misconception is that IPv6 has more addresses (2^128) than particules in the known universe. This isn't really true as the lower 64 bits are not routable. They're usually automatically derived from the 48-bit MAC address, but can be statically assigned if so desired. Even if you did statically assign them, all (2^64)-2 of them would have to be on the same (flat) subnet, which would be one huge honkin LAN.

      So that really only leaves 2^64 routable networks, each of which MAY have a lot of machines but in practice probably won't have more than 100-200 max, and probably averaging much lower than that. If you take into account that the specification calls for each customer to be given their own 48-bit subnet (giving them 16 bits worth to route internally if they so desire), there isn't just a whole lot more room then IPv4 because so much is forced to sit unused. It is considerably more to work with yes, but not astronomically like many people seem to think.

      Ok, sorry for the rant, but just trying to make sure reasonably accurate information gets posted somewhere :)

    4. Re:Duh by BridgeBum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Certs use names, not IPs for certification. It is common practice to have web server farms running on private IP space (RFC1918) behind a load balancer.
      The certs can and frequently do live on each server. The cert needs to match the URL domain name you are hitting, otherwise browsers pop-up a warning.

      (There are other factors which trigger pop-ups as well.)

      In otherwords, one IP can serve an entire farm of hosts. In fact, one IP can serve more than one domain, by using different webservers running on different TCP ports behind said load balancer above.

      None of this is in the least bit unusual in today's internet.

      --
      My UID is the product of 2 primes.
  6. NAT works... by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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 ::1 ?) and over all lack of a need helped kill IPv6 from becoming too popular.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
    1. Re:NAT works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NAT is not good enough.

      Too many things have to work around NAT problems.

      I run a small network and all the users running filesharing programs have problems. I have to give them each a port.

      What happens when more than one of them wants to run server for a protocol which needs a specific port? SMTP?

      Why shouldn't people be able to have full IP connectivity? NAT does not provide that, and UPNP is not enough to fix that.

    2. Re:NAT works... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess you've never had to merge two large private networks that are behind NAT.

      NAT itself is okay, but using private IP ranges behind it doesn't really work for large organizations, especially large organizations that can (and do) need to merge with other such large organizations.

      I've been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations; it can cause a LOT of pain.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    3. Re:NAT works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The heck?

      No backward compatibility ::ffff:* is specifically for backwards compatibility with IPv4.

      ugly naming scheme (tell me , who like ::1 ?)

      And 127.0.0.1 is better? Easier to type? Shorter? This is a moot point, this is why ISC gave us bind, from which flows an endless bounty of hostnames.

      the requirement for large IP chunks for offices and stuff disappeared.

      What rock have you been hiding under? 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.

      As someone else mentioned, connecting two NATted offices via a VPN is incredibly difficult when they both use the same 192.168.1.x addresses. The list goes on and on.

  7. Re:There's no place like ::1 by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Funny

    Learn to use and enjoy Zero compress in IPv6 :) ::1 would be the same as 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

    Did you hear about the guy who went to get a /32 IPv6 block and the ISP replies that they don't retail out single IPs.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
  8. Information Technology by kevin_conaway · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  9. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by the_xaqster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Semes like someone could make a ton of money designing a IPv4 to IPv6 bridge, so you could run 2 network segments, expanding the IPv6 segment as you go.

    --
    I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
  10. ivp6 is so not cool man by GillBates0 · · Score: 3, Funny
    AOL is the way to go if we want to improve the internets!!!!1

    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
  11. Doesn't achieve their goals? by nganju · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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,
    1. Re:Doesn't achieve their goals? by farnz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An IPv6 address is the same as 4 IPv4s in the worst case. I have a /48, and even I can remember 2001:8b0:104:1::1 and 2001:8b0:104:2::1 off the top of my head (DNS and gateway for two subnets); it's not much harder than remembering 81.187.250.193 and 81.187.250.201 for both. Plus, DNS deals with the need to remember lots of IPs anyway.

      --
      I appear to have a blog. Odd.
  12. India and China by naveenkumar.s · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. But... by RemovableBait · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by MartinG · · Score: 4, Informative

    What are you talking about?

    I run ipv6 and ipv4 together on the same net all the time.

    For ipv4 I have one static internet address on my router machine which provides NAT for all the other internal machines.

    For ipv6, I have a /48 allocated to me so each machine has its own real ipv6 internet address and can talk directly to all other internet ipv6 addresses. (plus, I have over 281 trillion ip addresses spare for later)

    Also the applications don't need writing for one or the other. By using the ipv6 API you automatically get support for ipv4 at the same time.

    There is an easy upgrade path. What will really get folks upgrading is when more and more sites become ipv6 only. For example I am setting up a nature webcam site which will be ipv6 only for exactly this reason.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  15. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by csgames · · Score: 2, Informative

    Of course it can run on the same network. Just need a v6 connectivity, just as you have a v4 one. You absolutly don't need multiple nics! Are you one of those who think an interface can only be configured with one ipv4 address ?

  16. Vested Interest by Magada · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Vested Interest by Slashcrap · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services.

      I'm pretty sure that Juniper sell IPv6 compliant kit and would love to sell more of it.

      I know for a fact that they sell VPN kit - NAT & IPSEC go together like oil and water. Yes, I know it does work but it's still a pain in the ass and I say this as someone that has to do it for a living.

      Remember kids, implementing IPSEC NAT-Traversal makes the baby Jesus cry.

    2. Re:Vested Interest by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services.

      I hope you are joking. Juniper would love to sell upgrades of their router's to all of their current customers to facilitate the jump to IPv6, but as they said, customers are just not very interested. I work for a company that sells network security devices and I can tell you IPv6 has been on the agenda for a long time, but most of the IPv6 support just keeps getting pushed back further and further, because no one really wants it from us. The only reason to include it is because some of the asian market is starting to ask for it. The U.S. as a rule is uninterested.

    3. Re:Vested Interest by Joehonkie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, you pretty much misfired. They will still need to sell routers, and probably replace all the old ones. And think of all the money to be made on re-training and re-certification. Increasing the address space doesn't make the routers go away. IPv6 would probably require more memory and processing power if anything. Both Cisco and Juniper are TYRING to push IPv6. So, I think you misread their intentions.

    4. Re:Vested Interest by rnxrx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Juniper sells boxes that do NAT. They also sell boxes that route IPv6. People buy their equipment regardless.

      I don't think Juniper is pushing an anti-IPv6 agenda here - who do you think is providing a lot of the IPv6 routing infrastructure in DoD and Asia? They've got entire groups that do nothing but deal with IPv6. IPv4 vs. IPv6 in the Juniper world doesn't make that huge of a difference. They sell the same hardware either way.

    5. Re:Vested Interest by Magada · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "IP6 adoption would probably just make folks buy home routers all over again". Laughable. With such an enormous adress space, IP's will commodify in no time flat, thus making the "router" concept irrelevant for all but a handful of applications, along with all of the "advanced features" of firewall boxes nowadays, which mainly deal with NAT anyway. Get real. When/if IPv6 comes, you'll have no reason whatsoever to continue buying stuff from Juniper&co.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  17. A sound point by cryptochrome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  18. Might be a good idea by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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.
  19. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by iblech · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ehm, I'm currently surfing on Slashdot (IPv4), while my mail is sent using an IPv6 SMTP server. I only have *one* connection to my ISP, and only one NIC, and only one router.

    IPv4 and IPv6 can easily coexist, and IPv6-only programs don't even have to be modified to accept IPv4 connections (keyword "IPv4-mapped addresses").

    A miracle?

  20. I have a minimal by macaulay805 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  21. The best way to speed up adotion by doublem · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  22. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by bnitsua · · Score: 2, Interesting

    it took me 15 minutes to set up 6to4 on mac os x...
    I can access any ipv4 address or ipv6 address without any problems.
    but I guess that doesn't count as an "easy way...to try it out"

  23. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by dlippolt · · Score: 2, Informative

    much to the dismay of all my developers, my answer to just about every problem is "you can use an ssh tunnel for that"

    when i bought my powerbook 15 months ago, reverse tunnels stopped working, and it took me awhile to figure out why.

    normally you'd run something like:

    ssh -R 8080:localhost:8080 user@remotedevbox.com

    to let a remote server access tomcat running on your laptop.

    i suspect OSX routes "localhost" to the ipv6 address by default in this case. the solution was to change the tunnel:

    ssh -R 8080:127.0.0.1:8080 user@remotedevbox.com

    point being... from the "what have you done for me lately" perspective, ipv6 has been nothing but a headscratcher. and we're supposed to run the internet on it?

  24. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. IPv6 experiences since 2000 by puzzled · · Score: 4, Funny


    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 /64 that comes with each tunnel.

    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
  26. Few articles actually address IPv6 benefits by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The biggest problem is probably lack of awareness, just like in many other situations.

    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.
  27. There is also the "network effect" to consider by under_score · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  28. use this tunnel broker by puzzled · · Score: 2, Informative


    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
  29. Re:What does ipv6 get you? by Danathar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Other than larger address space?

    - New header format (less overhead in routers)
    - A new Efficient and hierarchical addressing and routing infrastructure (again....less overhead in routers)
    - Stateless and stateful address configuration (You could theoretically dump your DHCP servers)
    - Built in IPsec
    - Better support for QOS (Quality of service) in the protocol fields
    - It's extensible (more headers can be added..it's in the protocol)

    and more...

  30. IPV6 --prepare for your toaster spamming people by tarpitcod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  31. Re:Industry study say govt must spend billions... by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read that Alexis de Toqueville Institute study as well.

  32. Please note: by CrazySailor · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!
  33. Re:Give me an easy upgrade path by garcia · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually it's small mammals running around somewhere in England.

    Young, petite, teens?

  34. Could have had a V8 - IPV8 that is! by RouterSlayer · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!

  35. Re:Actually... by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Off course once it's released, you'll start waiting for IPv8 (etc)...

  36. India/China IPv4 myth by shani · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  37. 90/10 by jfengel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."

  38. Built in IPSEC, etc. by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Read up on IPv6 some time.

    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.
  39. Your Goals != ISP's Goals by sweatyboatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  40. Re:will IPv6 give me an unique identifier? by Wouter+Van+Hemel · · Score: 2, Informative


    You can run dhcp on ipv6. Your isp can choose how they set up things, just like with ipv4.

    Autoconfiguration with MAC addresses might not be the answer for ISP networks, since an ISP might not have enough control about people's NICs or how they will use MAC numbers. I suspect they will offer two solutions: one DHCP-like with 1 ip for cheaper accounts, and one with /64 subnetting for more expensive accounts.

    In 2000, I had an ISP that had native ipv6 support, and I was assigned one random ipv6 address through dhcp.

    As I understand it, one of the main selling points of the whole ipv6 setup was that end-users would be alotted a /64 to enable them to connect more smart appliances without the hack of NATed networks (although I wish ignorant end-users would be forced to put their windows disasters behind a NAT firewall)... So personally, I would like to have a fixed /64 and use the internet as it was meant to be, with direct access to my machines at home.

  41. Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet by ndansmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, that's no surprise; there's hardly any interest in today's internet.

  42. IPv6 Myths by shani · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  43. IPv4 subset of IPv6 by augustz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  44. It won't happen until Microsoft MAKES 'em. by crovira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  45. Lost in the debate by rockhome · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  46. artificially scarce resources by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But when the numbers start to run out, they'll be clamoring for 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.