Slashdot Mirror
How Things Will Change Under IPv6
Da Massive writes "IPv6 Forum leader Latif Ladid provides an insight into the workings of IPv6. He also talks about how peer-to-peer file serving as we know it today will be redundant with the newer protocol." From the article: "Q: What is the most significant benefit that IPv6 offers the world? A: Global connectivity. Currently we have less than 50 percent world-wide Internet penetration, and we have used most of the address space. If you look at the Western world, we have more than 50 percent penetration. In total we have close to a billion people connected to the Internet. So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration. We have six billion people on the planet. When the Internet protocol was designed back in 1980 there were 4.3 billion address spaces; it was already insufficient for the population. By 2050 we will be nearly 10 billion people. But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people."
How long will a complete transition to IPV6 take? Many many years IMO, if it ever happens at all. None of the firms I know of or work with have even started looking into migrating yet. Hell they are'nt even talking about it.
"There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people"
I for one welcome our new.... thingy overlords...
So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration.
This is completely untrue! There is lots of full penetration on the internet.
On the comment "Billions and billions of devices that will serve these people", it seems to be unmentioned that (random estimate, not researched in any way) half of them will not be directly hooked into the interweb. Many of those are intended to be that way, since you want your layers of security, and that's why we have however many thousands of addresses in the range 10.0.0.[0-256]; technically they're using the same IP, but it doesn't matter because that IP is kept internally, and not in contact with the web.
IPv4 does not have enough numbers to give every single device its own unique IP. On the flip side... if we were locked into the system, it would still be workable.
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
Like this : here
It seems that when discussing "the sky is falling" ipv4 schemes, no one ever takes into account private networks. In most cases, especially in the Western world, all devices are not directly connected to the internet. Private address space, when used according to specification, will eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard.
IPv6, in some ways, is not a good thing, and my vote is to continue using the current addressing system, albeit in a more conservative manner.
Q: Besides the obvious thing about address space, what other advantages does it have?
A: Penetration! Because we don't have everybody connected yet!
Q: And how does IPv6 increase penetration? Does it build wires to people's houses or make provide satellite dishes to third-world countries?
A: No, but it does make sure we have enough addresses once they have some money to buy the actual hardware stuff!
Look, I know that eventually we're going to have to transition off IPv4 because of the address space issues, and that we might as well start now, but articles like this make it more like a marketing stunt to sell new hardware RIGHT NOW.
Oh come on, that's just thtupid.
What people dont seem to realize is that IPv6 is not only about adding more addresses.
They also improve the packet structure (by doing things like removing the fragmentation flag)
And we should be looking at making wireless roaming easier (consider forwarding mechanisms when changing WAP's)
But more addresses is a key benefit. And there is no real harm, just the cost of transition which can be minimized due to the backwards compatibility provided through tunneling, etc. So if everyone just starts installing IPv6 hardware, everything is happy. Why is this issue being rehashed?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
If you just want a broker that is quick to get started with, go to btexact and sign up. For those "permanent" set ups, go to (you will get a tunnel initially, but have to save uptime enough to get a subnet and such).
d en.info is.
So, what can it be used for? Well, at the moment I do not really use it to browse the web, but I use it for reverse dns on irc (efnet, freenode and most other ircnets have ipv6 enabled servers). In other words, I can have a range of customized hosts (very handy since many friends have shell accounts here) on irc, like @doomtech.net or cust-523452.nix.net.ru. The first one is my own domain, but the second is from afraid freedns. Afraid has a huge range of public domains, which you can add AAAA and PTR records for.
After thinking up a host, please go to spamcalc, if you don't have the brains yourself to see if your host is dns spam or not. A host like doomtech.net is not dns spam, but something like i.am.god.and.i.live.in.the.cave.with.osama.bin.la
Sixxs and btexact have pretty exact instructions on how to set this up on a range of operating systems. With the aiccu client from sixxs, the tunnel should work behind most NAT setups as well.
Dvorak on Doomtech
While it is nice to say we don't have enough IP address to cover everyone now, be realistic. Not everyone will need one. There are a lot of people like me who will have lots and lots of them with all the toys I accumulate. However, there is also going to be a lot of people who won't.
While we will need more in the future saying we have to have more IPs because we have more people is not necessarily correct. Whereas NAT is being used a lot in corporate networks it is also being used in the home as well. I know, this doesn't solve everything. However, I can say right now there is a generation of people (my parents) who do not know what an IP is, nor do they care. Including them in the big list saying we need IPs for them is a fallacy--they will never use it or want it. And how about babies? Unless you are tagging them with remote tracking chips when they are born chances are they don't need one. Moreover, right now there are entire places in the third world which do not have systematic running water or electricity. Including them in this count is ridiculous as well. They need a lot more basic needs before they all need individual cell phones running IPv6.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
How about if your domain name is blahblah.com, then your web server could be www.blahblah.com? It gets better: Your mail server could be mail.blahblah.com. And yes, your coffe pot could be coffeepot1.blahblah.com.
Errr you did read the bit that said that IPv4 can't support the number of people on the planet already? Also you do know that all you are talking about is a secondary addressing approach (network 1 : 1.2.1.2, sub-network : 2.3.3.3) which is already possible on IPv4, but requires an agreed standard for the secondary networking approach.
Oddly secondary networks have been considered during all of this, but it was easier to update the primary network addresses rather than formalising NATs which had other issues.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I understand that NAT is considered a hack, but isn't the fact that a device's real address is hidden a security feature for the user? Wouldn't it be that much harder for malicious users to track my internet usage? This would be especially true if I had a mobile device, since moving from one NAT system to another would make following my movements remotely more difficult. So I'd think NAT would be considered a privacy boon. The article doesn't really address this effectively. Also, since most mobile devices have limited bandwidth, I'd think that having a constantly changing IP address, or hiding behind a NAT would mean that DOS attacks against them would be more difficult. If most big mobile device ISPs like the blackberry and sidekick folks offered NAT based access in the future, I'd think that we'd be relatively safe from IPv4 address exhaustion. So stating the main reason for IPv6 being address exhaustion I think is crap. It IS very useful for other reasons though, and I think those reasons warrant it being switched to.
The closer we actually get to REALLY running out of IPV4 numbers - the more IPV6 will become adopted
This is known as "Market Forces" - this is a foreign concept to many but it is the reality of this situation.
When NAT becomes insuffiecient to handle the demand - IPV6 will be ready to roll. Then every man, woman, child, insect and grain of sand will have its own PUBLIC address which we can then begin to exploit - YAY!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Just think of the number of systems that rely on IPv4 right now: networks, routers, cell phones, etc. There really isn't a lot of room left at the current rate of expansion. But let's face, that's how we get: complacent. The current system is working -- why bother with a new one? I believe the Romans got that way toward the end...
I read the article and it was insightful, but I didn't have a lot of background on IPv6, so I searched for some background and found this on the details and this on implementing it in Linux.
From the article: The Internet was not designed like this. It was designed to enable peer-to-peer and VoIP. In the meantime, through NAT, telecomms companies are offering VoIP but they want to bill you for it, but the Internet was not designed with any billing mechanism. When you connect to the Internet you pay anyway, so why should you pay for more services? This is the big debate. The Internet was not designed for telecomms companies, it was designed for everyone to share expensive CPU power. When you share expensive resources you can do anything.
I agree. Paying for sevrices is basically just icing on the cake for telecoms.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Not a terrible idea, but it assumes that end users are going to be able to figure out how to configure static IP addresses for all their devices, which is a pretty big assumption.
Plus, who would be in charge of assigning them? Would that mean that I have to register for an IP like I do for a domain name? Who's handing them out, the DMV? The Social Security office? The UN?
Also, it seems like it would be easy for hackers to mimic other people's IP address. Seems like maintenence nightmare.
Why does IPv6 make P2P any easier to implement?
Why does it remove the need for servers?
Why does it mean that we "won't need providers such as Skype anymore because we'll be able to do it all ourselves"?
I don't see how IPv6 lets you do ANY of these things. You'll still be firewalled, you'll still need servers and software vendors like Skype. In fact the only thing about IPv6 that would seem to me to help P2P is that slighly more people might end up not being NATed but that won't affect anything much.
Does this person actually know what they're talking about or are they from marketing?
With sixxs, you get a /48-subnet, which should be sufficient for your quadrillion machines. The address I have looks something like this: 2001:770:11e::1, which is a short for 2001:0770:011e:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001. Luckily those zeroes can be shorted to just ::, which makes these addresses pretty easy to remember, actually. You can also have a bit fun, if you wish, by having e.g. 2001:770:11e:FFFF:DEAD:BEEF:DEAD:BABE :)
If you are bored some day, give the tunnel stuff a try, instead of sitting in your underwear drinking cola and multitasking irc and quake4.
Dvorak on Doomtech
Oh, you know what they're talking about. Billions and billions of devices to "service" you. Ever increasing "penetration." What, you think this guy is wrong aobut the future of the internet? ;)
In other news, a door in germany refuses to open because some script kiddie got it's IP address and crashed the door. Officials are trying their best to open the door but they suspect the door has to be rebooted.
Are this going to be the news from the future?
Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.
Where the heck did you get that information? We've added 750 million people in the last 10 years.
Take a look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html/
1995 5,694,418,460
2005 6,451,058,790
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
To all o' you people asking, "What does it give me?"
/. users-- old, out-of-date, and constantly reminiscing about the old days.
It gives you nothing. You're already on the internet.
IPv6 is going to give India and China and other high-populous countries connectivity. As it is, they don't have enough IPv4 addresses even to *nat* their country, let alone to provide real services with which NATing interferes.
And that's why you and I have very little say about the adoption of IPv6. It's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen soon (say, the next 5 years, tops). Pretty soon, those of us who remember IPv4 are going to be like 3-digit
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
When I read "But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people." I immediately invisioned billions of internet enabled sex toys.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
What if the "average" user wants to host their own content, without worrying about some external entity having control over it?
That was the original point of the Internet - not to differentiate between content/service "providers" and "consumers," but to enable redundant p2p information sharing.
hang brain.
No need - your IPv6-enabled DSL/cable modem will contain a Router Advertisement Daemon that takes care off all that for you.
It wouldn't really be routable. There would be no way figure out which way to send the packets for a given "address." For istance, under IP4, any router that sees a packet going to any machine with an address starting with 129.22 (one of the few blocks I know off the top of my head) knows that the packet should be pushed out a pipe that heads in the general direction of Cleveland. In fact, most routers probably work off even broder rules, with (just making this up, now), all address starting with 129.17-129.32 should be pushed out towards OAR net, then OARnet would do more focused routing in house.
With "people address", there are three problems. First, no way to generalize routing rules. Secondly, there is the fact that all your stuff might not be in the same place. Most of it is at your house, but some of it is at the vacation home. Finally, there is the problem that people, unlike IP4 address, tend to move arround alot, geographically speaking. Usually, if you move from New York to LA, you get a different IP, even if you use the same national ISP. Under your scheme, the whole internet would have to be told to redirect your trafic. Yick.
#include <signature.h>
Address space isn't why we should gloss over IPv6. Yeah, its nice that we can get rid of NAT, but the bigger deal is virtual circuits. IPv4 can't handle streaming data, keeping us from high-broadband technologies like TV-over-IP. IPv6 was designed to optimize routers for doing high-broadband transfers. That should be the biggest selling point of IPv6.
In the original vision of the Internet everything is supposed to be a server, so we're back at square one.
Creating a system where one has to opt in to have a routable IP is treading on a slippery slope. Soon after, you might need a special permit to have a server, and before you know it we're back to gatekeepers and the telephone network.
Why shouldn't non-geeks have routable IPs? How many future Shawn Fannings, DVD Jons, or Linus Torvalds' would we lose through such restriction? The Internet should stay as connected as possible, so that the innovation and creativity at the ends stays unencumbered and free. Just think about how long it took telephone companies to implement call-waiting, *69, etc. Also check out the End-to-end Arguments in System Design, it's a classic.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Implanting an RFID chip in everybody with a unique address makes it a very easy way of tracking people...and explains why IPv6 is being pushed so hard even though it is unnecessary. Sure, NAT will handle boatloads of expansion to come, but it offers a layer of anonymity to computers behind the NAT...security through obscurity...how many 192.168.x.x addresses are out there? This way, a unique IP can be given to each computer, more unique even than MAC addresses. And it can be reached around the world. If Those Above get their way through, I see computers eventually having hardcoded IP addresses. And RFID implants with a unique IP address for everybody.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Oh, and before you try to convince me that "average" users don't want to host their own content, please consider the popularity of Kazaa, Blogger, Flickr, del.icio.us, Podcasting, Myspace, and the world ending when mp3.com went tits up. There are plenty of non-geeks who want to create and share information on the net, and they're currently mostly limited to using a somebody else's machine to do it for them, because the barrier to being a "server" is so high.
hang brain.
Ah yes, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/Uh... no.
How about anyone that is running software that requires a peer to peer connection (and I'm not just talking about filesharing software)? And it's further worth pointing out that the only people that require such connectivity are not just the techie geekoid people. Running VoIP through NAT, for example, is a bitch and a half, and often not even possible if the end user does not have administrative rights on the NAT.
Your argument does touch on a very good reason why NAT would not be entirely obsolete even upon the move to IPv6, however.
(Also, by playing around with IPv6 extension headers and a gateway that adds or strips headers to a packet, it's theoretically possible to do routing right _THROUGH_ a NAT on IPv6).
So really, it seems that the only argument against IPv6 migration is just that people are lazy and cheap and don't want to do it right now because it'd actually require some effort.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Think about it. Almost every broadband ISP offers a "home network" package where they charge you extra for extra computers on the connection. However everyone else on the planet is selling easy to use broadband routers to do it on the cheap. If every device gets an IPv6 address then you can bill them very easily for all those extra computers on that DSL line.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
but when some kiddie wants your IP to hack into your system you'll have to give him something other than "127.x.y.z". You'll have to make up a much longer number.
If you've ever tried to implement an IPSEC VPN with numerous endusers that have DSL/CableModem gateways that default to 192.168.1.x, you'll know why NAT is so bad, particularly if you're using that address space internally already. Granted, there are workarounds to this.
That's dicey, but what's even more dicey is trying to interconnect corporate networks that use the same private address space. Companies that run virtual trading floors, for example, offer private line connections. You end up with multiple IP subnet conflicts and it's an incredible headache. That having been said, there are workarounds to that, too.
When NAT became popular way back when, I was part of a few really painful reIPing projects. The reason we went to NAT was because there was no way to get portable IP space and our ISP was being a complete dick, jacking their prices and refusing to run BGP with us. Moving to NAT meant portability and portability meant our ISP couldn't dick us. If I was to move away from NAT and put v6 addresses in my corp network, that's what I'd worry about more than anything.
As noted by the recent spate of cellphone-targeting malware....if you don't have the latest coffeepot firewall, someone could make you wake up to decaf! The horrrrror!
Back in the 70's, President Carter was going to move us to the Metric system. Road signs were being converted to mph/metric, goods were dual marked, etc. The idea was to make the conversion in 1981. Then reagan came in and stopped it. America was nearly ready, but it was stopped. Now, we are just about the only nation that does not do metric. That means that special labeling is done just for us. That also means, our goods are more expensive. Sadly, at this point, we have raised several whole generations without as much metric as we had in the 60's, and 70's. When we decide to finally change, it will be expensive and hard. reagan's choice was very short-sighted.
Right now, is the time to switch. In the future, it will only be more expensive esp. as small devices get IPs. They will also have to be switched. Finally, a new wave of software development could take place with IPv6, that is more difficult to do with IPv4. Not siwtching is very short-sighted.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Under IPv6 the internet will surf you.
Of course companies and academics don't want IPv6 they already have the only real advantage it provides - per machine addressing. Why would they invest money to get something they already have?
IPv6 benefits individuals. It benefits P2P, VoIP, photo sharing, blogging and email (yes email - you don't need a third party server if you have a permanent web presence). Yes you can have all of that with IPv4, but its held together with hacks like NAT, port forwarding and man-in-the-middle servers. That's fine, if like me, you hold a degree in computer science and arn't put off by the nuances of network security, berkley ports and subnet masks but if you're a noob who just wants to share their Christmas pictures with friends and family its a pretty steep learning curve.
I'm a pretty typical nerd. My home network has 4 computers that regularly connect to the internet. Of those, 2 offer services such as SSH, bittorent, email and my testing web server. After christmas that will probably extend to a new XBox360 and a PSP (admittedly passive net users). Next Christmas it might be my mobile. The Christmas after that my espresso machine will probably be consulting a distributed database to see what is the best way of brewing Co-op's Fairtrade Java.
You can buy a computer the size of a pack of gum with a complete Linux operating system and enough horse power to run a web server for ~$200. That's too expensive to be ubiquitous but in 2-3 years time that figure will be in the region of $20 and it will be a WiFi network. It's going to happen.
IPv4 forces our devices to be passive because configuring a NAT Router and Firewall is hard for Joe Public. IPv4 means that we have to poll to get system updates. IPv4 means that I can't just ask my fridge what its contents are without configuring a seperate box. IPv4 means that I'm happy when a third party agrees to handle my communications - I actually ask them to listen in and they 'promise' not to read my mail or listen to my conversations. IPv4 means that when I get an email from my girlfriend at 195.95.195.94 I have no method of authenticating that.
IPv6 means that I buy bandwidth and nothing else. I don't get 100MB of web hosting, or a whopping 5 emails addresses, I get to use my over powered desktop machine with 200GB of 'web space' and as many email addresses as I please. IPv6 means that I can start to build a web of trust, so that I can start to authenticate the messages I receive against a web of my peers - not a single verisign certificate. IPv6 means that consumer electoronics can be connected to my data pipe and that the manufacturer can be responible for its up keep - including firewalls and virus protection.
In short IPv6 allows people to own a bit of the internet and say it's theirs rather than renting an inch and getting kicked off that inch every 4 hours.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
The ONLY machines that need actual IP addresses are servers and gateways. PERIOD. Everyone else can be NATted.
Sigh.
The problem with this statement is that it presumes all content comes from central servers. But that's not what the Internet was designed to be, and forcing it into that model will severly retard, and in many cases simply destroy, all future innovation.
The Internet was designed as an endpoint-to-endpoint communications medium. The intelligence is at the edges, every device on the network has equal access to every other device, none are "special". In practice, of course, 72.14.207.99 (one of Google's servers) *is* special, recieving many more connections than most other addresses, but that's an emergent phenomenon, not one that's designed in. It's only special because lots of other devices *choose* to talk to it. One day they could all choose to begin sending their search requests to some sort of massive, distributed, peer-to-peer search engine (I don't think so, I think it makes sense to centralize search, but perhaps there's a really powerful distributed indexing and search algorithm that no one has yet discovered).
There's huge power, flexibility and opportunity in that model. We do a lot of things using the Internet now, in 2005, but it's still in its infancy. We have no idea what other kinds of communications technologies will arise or what sorts of things people might come up with to do with this medium ten, twenty, fifty years from now. That means it is critically important for the future of technology and innovation that we preserve the ultra-flexible model that the really bright guys at DARPA came up with.
End-to-end delivery. Intelligent endpoints. Dynamic, multi-path routing. No central control. Those are the characteristics that turned the Internet from a lab-based curiosity to such a worldwide phenomenon that we seriously talk about how it will one day touch every human being on the planet. Think about it. The Internet looks poised to become the *single* communications medium used for all electronic communications, be it text, audio, video. What is it that made this such a powerful medium? End-to-end. PERIOD.
Let's not throw it away before we even find out what we can really do with it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Awww... c'mon, that's classic family guy comedy!
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
No? Why not? Why can't you just get more IPv4 addresses so that I can connect to each of them?
The advent of NAT has solved the main problems that ISPs have had with giving their customers addresses to use for connecting to "content providers", but it has pretty much eliminated the original "every node is a peer" architecture of the internet.
Sure, if you're an ISP that works for you, but if you're some random guy that wants it to be easy to connect two (currently natted) devices together without involving a third device as a go-between, it's not such a good solution.
It's easy not to get it, just because we're all so used to having to do things the way we have been forced to. The epiphany comes when you realize how much more flexible the system is when NAT is not involved.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Billions and billions of devices...
Ah, if only Carl Sagan were alive to hear that comment!
Which thanks to recent health studies, can now be prosecuted as Attempted Murder.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
IPV6 could well be DOA, because it solves the wrong problem.
IPV6 solves the problems of the Internet, as originally conceived - egalitarian and end-to-end.
Nobody in power wants that any more. I'm sure that those in power would mostly prefer that the Internet would just go back and hide under the rock it came from, but they DO like the benefits it gives to THEM. If IPV6 goes forward, it'll only be because it has enough momentum as the "logical successor," and because TPTB can't propose what they'd really like.
If IPV6 were being designed TODAY:
It would have DRM built-in for the ??AA, as well as router-based monitors and controls for peer-to-peer networking.
It would have built-in provisions for wiretapping, even at the opportunistic VPN level, for government TLAs.
It would have content and traffic filtering provisions, for China and the Religious Right.
Of course IPV6 really runs counter to all of these "design criteria."
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The notion of a complete transition is fairly meaningless. We're going to be using IPv4 for the web, email, and dedicated appliances like printers that are hard to upgrade, almost indefinitely. However for those applications the limitations of IPv4 addressing aren't such a big deal as there are fairly acceptable workarounds. IPv6 enables many more hosts to participate in peer-to-peer interactions than before, and this opens up potential for many new kinds of protocols and networked applications.
As for deployment - Some large ISPs are already selling IPv6 access to commercial customers. Consumer ISPs will be the last to see IPv6 because consumers will be the last to understand why it is useful. But this isn't such a big problem either, as anyone with a static IPv4 address can use IPv6 right now using 6to4 or an IPv6 tunnel broker. Bottom line - if you want to use IPv6 with an application today, there's a way to do it using existing networks and services. What we're waiting for is new applications that make use of IPv6 to do things that they couldn't do with IPv4 (maybe because they couldn't access enough devices that way). I think we'll see IPv6 used to control traffic lights, monitor security cameras, etc. before we see it widely used to transport web and email.
I use IPv6 every day between home and work. It's what lets me have multiple individually addressible machines at home with a residential DSL connection. My work network now supports IPv6, but my home ISP doesn't. 6to4 solves the problem handily.
With "people address", there are three problems. First, no way to generalize routing rules. Secondly, there is the fact that all your stuff might not be in the same place. Most of it is at your house, but some of it is at the vacation home. Finally, there is the problem that people, unlike IP4 address, tend to move arround alot, geographically speaking. Usually, if you move from New York to LA, you get a different IP, even if you use the same national ISP. Under your scheme, the whole internet would have to be told to redirect your trafic. Yick.
You've missed the tin foil hat consipary theory. Assigning an IP address to all newly minted currency along with some RFID and GPS. Instantly, the MAN and your neighbor could ping all your money! The IRS would know exactly how much cash that you have stuffed under your bed!
Yes, it is quite easy with named virtual hosts and reverse proxies, and the usual NAT firewall.
...and then you give an example of something that demonstrates specifically that I cannot connect to those web servers...I have to connect to a proxy.
So, your answer is "no, you can't do that without a third machine as a go-between".
I'm not talking about removing firewalls...access control is a necessity in any network that's open to the public (I think I even mentioned having a firewall in what you responded to). What I'm talking about is the perversions that NAT forces us through.
Suppose we were talking about a different protocol...should we have no choice but to use proxies for any given protocol just because we want to connect to it on more than one machine in a given network?
Again...NAT solves the problems that ISP's have. It ensures that they can continue on without making significant changes, and lets their customers make outbound connections pretty easily, most of the time. It does so by removing the ability of any machine on a given network to be a peer simultaneously with other wanna-be peers if they're behind a NAT device.
NAT is an artful hack, and it has spawned many other artful hacks (virtualhosts, name-based and otherwise, being examples), but why would you want to make things complicated and restrictive when they can be simpler and open?
There comes a time when you're just arguing to argue. I know, believe me (been there, done that). Drop me a note when you've had your own moment of clarity.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
"Tell me, Grandpa, what was it like in the days of IPv4?" young Suzy asked as she played with the IP wireless transmitters in her golden locks of hair.
"Well Suzy," Grandpa said, his mind on the distant past, "back then we only had 32 bit addressing, and much of it was provisioned out to various regional entities, with large corporate interests sitting on whole chunks of the space. We had these things called NAT routers."
"Sounds scary, Grandpa." Suzy shivered.
"It was." Grandpa replied. "The first NAT routers could only support FTP and IRC, and folks using some chat programs could barely get their software to work at all. Still NAT did okay, for a while."
"Then what happened Grandpa?" Suzy asked, enthralled.
"Well, as I recall, the first problems came when handheld wireless devices became more common. They had to sit behind various other networks, without direct connectivity. Proprietary solutions abounded, and connectivity was in the hands of large corporate communications giants. Everyone knew that IPv4 had been in trouble for many years, but some folks said 'NAT's all we need' while others didn't think there was a crisis at all, and even if there was one coming, it was nothing to worry about."
"But there was, wasn't there Grandpa?" Suzy knew the best part of the story was coming.
"Very much so." Grandpa said after a moment. "You see, even with NAT and various other networks between the IPv4 network and the average person's devices, the Internet was growing too fast. The limited supply of IP addresses as beginning to slow the expansion of the Internet. Finally, with the great IP Famine of '18, we had no choice. IPv6 was rolled out. Some folks were mad, because they had put their heads in the sand and refused to recognize the problem had been coming for a while. It costs those people lots of money, and some either had to put up with being stuck behind NAT routers and losing out on new functionality or simply going out of business."
Suzy laughed. "They were very silly people, Grandpa!"
Grandpa nodded. "Yes, they were, but most of us survived. Now it's time to go. Don't forget your data glasses and your book tablet. The last flight to Tokyo leaves in an hour, and I promised I'd get you home before dinner."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And as a home user, it may be a bit annoying to me too, but it is still just implementation details. Set it up once, and I'm done. Now I actually have to build that website...
Actually, 99.99% of of corporations do suffer from the same lack of IP addresses. But NAT and firewalls have solved that problem for them, and most are actually happy for the extra guarantee that their internal traffic cannot be accidently routed over the network at large. That may be true. But vague hopes are not going to convince anyone to switch to IPv6.You cannot ignore the needs of large corporations, because IPv6 will not be widely adopted until they get on board. The bigger address space is not convincing them, because they are going to keep their firewalls whether they NAT or not, so the proxy is not going away. They need another, better benefit before they will adopt IPv6.
I'm not arguing that more addresses are bad, or that we should NOT adopt IPv6. I'm simply asking for another reason, any other reason, why we SHOULD adopt IPv6.