Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Government to Adopt IPv6 in 2008

IO ERROR writes "The U.S. Government is set to transition to IPv6 in June 2008, according to Government Computer News: 'In the newest additions to the IPv6 Transition Guidance, the CIO Council's Architecture and Infrastructure Committee has provided a list of best practices and transition elements that agencies should use as they work to meet the deadline. The latest additions, (MS Word) released in May, are a compilation of existing recommendations and best practices gathered from the Defense Department, which has been testing and preparing for the transition for years, the private sector, and the Internet research and development community.'"

10 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Deployed!?! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If the commercial world doesn't accept it then the goverment will be on it's own and that won't fly too well."

    The government will never be on its own, there are too many corporations sucking at its teat who will need to step into line.

    Note how this works in re: MA trying to force open standards for anyone it does business with.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  2. Stats on IP usage? by lawaetf1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm curious as to whether there are any reliable stats out there about the availability of IPv4 address space and how it has changed over time. The widespread adoption of hide-mode NAT has allowed companies, universities and the like to move thousands of computers out of the public address space, freeing up large blocks of public address goodness. Cripes when I think about what I got away with in university, hooking my desktop up to the local LAN, getting a public and ........

    --
    CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    1. Re:Stats on IP usage? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes but NAT is evil, it's a dirty hack. Plus NAT is changing the face of the internet, clearly separating content provider and producers. Sure you can host your blog anywhere now, but what about censorship ? If things such as darknets, freenets, etc become needed NAT will be a major annoyance.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    2. Re:Stats on IP usage? by cmason · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Got away with? Cripes, this is how the internet is supposed to work. Goddamn NAT. Grr.

      -c

      --
      "If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
  3. 2008? by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the CIO Council and Office of Management and Budget help map out the June 2008 transition to IP Version 6, perhaps the biggest challenge is that they're entering unfamiliar territory.

    In the newest additions to the IPv6 Transition Guidance, the council's Architecture and Infrastructure Committee has provided a list of best practices and transition elements that agencies should use as they work to meet the deadline.

    So the government has a year-and-a-half to meet this deadline? Forgive the cynicism, but given that they have a loose set of guidelines and so many systems that would need conversion, I think they're being a tad optimistic. Kudos for trying this, but I won't be surprised when it takes until 2010.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  4. Re:Deployed!?! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government will never be on its own, there are too many corporations sucking at its teat who will need to step into line.

    Agreed. Who writes this stuff? ISPs already have management networks running IPv6 and big players like Comcast ran out of unique IPv4, for their cable modem pools and have completed their migration to IPv6. China is on the boat and most network gear deals with both just fine. How exactly is the US government going to be on its own here?

  5. Re:What are the Downsides to IPv6? Anyone? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not amazingly versed in this issue but several things stand out immediately to anyone who has a little networking experience.

    1. Lots of legacy equipment does not and will never support IPv6. That means...
    2. We will have a whole bunch of IPv4 to IPv6 gateways. This will be absolutely necessary. We have them now, of course, but not so many of them. You think NAT is a PITA when you have IPv4 on both sides of the wall? Try it with different protocols. You're going to have fun!
    3. IPv6 addresses are four times the size of IPv4 addresses. That means additional computation is necessary to handle the simplest IP tasks (routing.) Doing the comparison to find out if a packet is yours on a 32 bit system can take as many as four comparisons, whereas with IPv4 it was only one.
    4. IPv4 software is mature, IPv6 software is comparatively untested. GUIs need to be developed for configuration, and all the software has to be developed. A lot of software has IPv6 support, but hasn't really been hammered on in that way, simply because practically no one is using IPv6. There will be significant fallout.
    5. IPv6 may be simpler, but retraining will still be necessary. Lots of people have spent literally decades getting used to TCP/IP, learning all its ins and outs, and figuring out how to make it do the right thing. IPv6 is allegedly more intelligently designed, but there will still be gotchas.

    I'm sure someone with a little more knowledge, and/or a little more imagination, can come up with others.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Good news, bad news by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The good news: long term, I think IPv6 is desirable. Thus, I like seeing a large organization pave the way. Let them get the kinks out. Let them find out what all goes wrong. Let them blaze the trail so we can ride on their coattails. Let them incur the big expense.

    The bad news: Wait a minute. "Them?" Oh shit, it's the US government. I'm a US citizen. Argh, that's my expense. D'oh!

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  7. Re:What are the Downsides to IPv6? Anyone? by convolvatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    there was actually a perfectly good answer to this proposed by deering.
    geographic addressing. it was unnecessarily denounced as anti-provider
    and socialist.

  8. Re:IPv6 Adoption by Olmy's+Jart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is sooo funny because it's sooo blatently wrong. Dead opposite, dead wrong.

    Comcast exhausted the entire 10 net last year and are deploying IPv6 for their management addresses. Just check out their presentation at the recent NANOG (North American Network Operators Group) titled "IPv6 @ Comcast Managing 100+ Million IP Addresses" http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/alain-durand.pdf . Their situation is dire just with managing HSD "high speed data" devices (aka cable modems) already and going to get MUCH worse with their "triple play" deployment. Since they are management addresses, NAT is impractical, whether it's externally accessible or not. They don't have a choice. IPv6 is the only practical answer for them.

    Comcast, themselves, are saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming. They use private address space, but that's NOT the way it's going to stay. The address shortage is a pointed issue with them. They're already moving to IPv6. IPv6 to the customer is on the horizon.

    You loose. Thank you for playing.