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.'"
That word document has 37 pages, 12,946 words, 74,666 characters, and 564 paragraphs. I think there's enough detail.
"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
There's no place like ::1
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
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"
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
Anyone not having access to an IPv6 network, say because you are behind a NAT, and are wanting to try out IPv6, because it is in your blood to do so, I recommend giving Miredo a go. If I suggest this one over other solutions, is because of the number of platforms supported (including, Linux, Windows, MacOS X, BSD). There is Freenet6, but it won't work from behind my NAT with MacOS X.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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?
I am not amazingly versed in this issue but several things stand out immediately to anyone who has a little networking experience.
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.'"
I don't know what IPv6 is but I'm assuming because it is on Slashdot and it involves the government I should be against it.
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.
IPv6 addresses are four times the size of IPv4 addresses. That means additional computation is necessary to handle the simplest IP tasks (routing.)
Uhh... what? One of the big advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 is that it will make routing *easier*, thanks to the hierarchical address space.
Additionally, there are less options in IPv6, making the logic to analyze a packet even more simple than for IPv4.
Random Google result:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/Ipv6.htm
If you keep spreading FUD instead of doing a simple Google search we will never get IPv6.
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
There is also right now a huge disagreement going on in the background about how to multi-home in IPv6.
The presently-proposed model implies that only big ISPs (plans for at least 200 customers that you'll be allocating space to) can get their own IP space...everyone else has to get space allocated to them from bigger groups. This, predictably, is making the content providers and big enterprises very unhappy, because they're used to (and now require) multiple uplinks to differing ISPs.
The proposed fix for this problem, shim6, has been routinely savaged as a complete non-starter. That's mostly because it's proposing allowing each and every end host to make it's own decisions about what path to take, causing all sorts of uglyness for security devices and traffic engineering.
There presently is no good answer to this, which is why a lot of orgs are holding off on IPv6.there was actually a perfectly good answer to this proposed by deering.
geographic addressing. it was unnecessarily denounced as anti-provider
and socialist.
Not to mention they'd piss off a bunch of home users who would have to replace all their equipment (routers and such) with IPV6 hardware. There's probably a lot of people still running OSes that don't support IPV6.
Where did DavyGrvy mention turning off IPv4? They work together, you know. Do even Slashdotters not understand that adding IPv6 to a network does nothing to reduce IPv4 connectivity? It's win-win.
IPv6 tunnels over IPv4. IPv4 tunnels over IPv6. Machines running IPv4 can talk to machines running IPv6. Machines running IPv6 can talk to machines running IPv4.
IPv6 still has issues, to be sure, but interoperability with IPv4 isn't one of them.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That is sooo funny because it's sooo blatently wrong. Dead opposite, dead wrong.
f . 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 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.pd
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.