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."

Comments

just wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

...untill they run out of addresses

There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

[ylikone]

just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Oh Dear

[taskforce]

"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?

Need more software and support

[strider44]

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.

Re:Need more software and support

[Just Some Guy]

there's not even a good IPv6 firewall up and running

Ahem.

Duh

[Heliologue]

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.

Re:Duh

[Heliologue]

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.

Re:Duh

[quantum bit]

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 :)

NAT works...

[Gopal.V]

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.

Re:NAT works...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:NAT works...

[MenTaLguY]

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.

Re:NAT works...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There's no place like ::1

[Gopal.V]

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.

Information Technology

[kevin_conaway]

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.

ivp6 is so not cool man

[GillBates0]

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!!!"

Doesn't achieve their goals?

[nganju]

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.

India and China

[naveenkumar.s]

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.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path

[MartinG]

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.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path

[iblech]

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?

I have a minimal

[macaulay805]

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).

The best way to speed up adotion

[doublem]

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.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path

[garcia]

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.

IPv6 experiences since 2000

[puzzled]

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 ...

Few articles actually address IPv6 benefits

[SgtChaireBourne]

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.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path

[garcia]

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

Young, petite, teens?

Re:Vested Interest

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

India/China IPv4 myth

[shani]

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.

Your Goals != ISP's Goals

[sweatyboatman]

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