Slashdot Mirror
Proposed IPv6 Cutover By 2011-01-01
IO ERROR writes "An internet-draft published this month calls for an IPv6 transition plan which would require all Internet-facing servers to have IPv6 connectivity on or before January 1, 2011. 'Engineer and author John Curran proposes that migration to IPv6 happen in three stages. The first stage, which would happen between now and the end of 2008, would be a preparatory stage in which organizations would start to run IPv6 servers, though these servers would not be considered by outside parties as production servers. The second stage, which would take place in 2009 and 2010, would require organizations to offer IPv6 for Internet-facing servers, which could be used as production servers by outside parties. Finally, in the third stage, starting in 2011, IPv6 must be in use by public-facing servers.' Then IPv4 can go away."
This has been a hot topic on a number of lists. Some observations:
1. Neither John Curran nor the IETF has the the authority to bring this about, thus the use of the word "must" is misleading. Even if the regional internet registries supported this with policy that placed additional IPv4 addresses out of reach of those who did not deploy IPv6, far less than half of the content providers would be impacted within the proposed timeframe. Indeed, relatively few content providers come back for more addresses. Its mostly the transit providers which connect the end users who have a growing need for IP addresses.
2. The natural course of IPv4 depletion is more likely to drive conservation of IPv4 addresses than it is to drive IPv6 adoption. Business will tend towards this path because the incremental cost of conservation is small and the benefits are immediate while the cost of IPv6 deployment is large and the benefits are remote. Conservation might sound like a good thing but its actually very dangerous. It implies injecting many additional routes into the "default-free zone," which for complex technical reasons would decrease the overall stability of the Internet.
3. Existing policy at the regional registries serves to obstruct the deployment of IPv6. For example, in the Americas at ARIN, there is an additional $500 fee to receive IPv6 addresses in addition to whatever fees you pay for IPv4 addresses. That's a nuissance. More critical is the wide swath of legacy multihomed content providers who because they are too small don't qualify for IPv6 addresses from ARIN. Those folks can't get the so-called "provider-independent" addresses they need to connect via IPv6 in a technically comperable way to how they connect with IPv4.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The idea is that IPv6 addresses are a 2-part address. The first 64-bit part is the classification and routing. The second 64-bit part is the unique space, although literally that does not need to be. The idea is to eliminate error and complexity prone steps to map unique link layer addresses into globally routable addresses. Sure, this could have been done with a lot fewer addresses and still have enough for even the very largest networks. But then you'd have to ensure that no 2 hosts could end up with conflicting addresses. The gateway router could certainly do that, but if it gets rebooted, all the addresses might have to be changed because the map gets reset. By using link layer addresses, once the globally routable prefix is known, the host/interface addresses can remain constant even if the router is rebooted. One of the goals of IPv6 is more automatic configuration.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Again? Did you just wait for a possibility to post the same junk again, three years later?
No "Network Anonymiser Translation" this time, but an ethnic slur, great.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
- Home computer
- Work computer
- Laptop (private or work)
- Cellphone(s)
- Net connected appliances (TiVo, net music players, IP phones, home surveillance, alarms)
Each ideally needs its own address, and it's not hard to see how 4 bln addresses will be used up.
Solve it with NAT, you say. Sure - but actual interactivity is in higher and higher demand. Both my MythTV box and my laptop in most locations are NAT'ed. Save for my tinkering with NAT routing which is only for geeks, I can't get to my Myth box from the outside.
Another problem is the solution to the above problem - VPN. At my former job (a web consulting agancy) we were routinely given VPN access to clientsites. They were all setup with IPs in the range 192.168.X.nnn. We had no collisions of X, but we were a small firm, and it will happen.I remember hearing the same argument against using FAT32. Although your point is quite valid, I think the world will recover, and quickly.I'm no expert, but didn't the world stop using minimum MTU for anything larger that that a while ago? If an MTU is size 1500 instead, the overhead is a whopping 1.3%, or downloading an extra 51 mb on your full, uncompressed 50gb bluray movie.
Yeah, it's not free of drawbacks, but progress seldom is.
It's related to the birthday paradox. This is not really a paradox, but is counter to intuitive thinking. It states that in a group of 23 randomly chosen people, there is a 50% chance that two will have the same birthday. While you only need 23 different days in the year for everyone in the group to have a different birthday, you need a lot more if the days are chosen at random. For stateless autoconfiguration you need n parties (where n is the maximum number you might want to put on a single network) to be able to pick unique numbers. The simplest way of doing that is to take an existing globally unique number; the MAC address. You could use a hash of some other unique information, but the smaller you make the hash, the greater the chance of collision.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I know John Curran as a troll on the PPML who brings up "IPV6 internet cutoff" every so often. He ignores all of the reasons why IPV6 isn't ready, and loudly proclaims people on *this Internet* (ipv4) are just holding back progress of his *other internet* (ipv6) which nobody is on.
/8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers)
He suggests charging people more for IPV4 allocations will speed IPV6 adoption and has no idea what an idiotic statement that is. He admits he doesn't care if raising the price of IPV4 allocations will simply drive smaller networks "out of business" as "they should be on IPV6 anyway". Meanwhile Google can afford it and nobody gives a shit about IPV6- they just want to use the same internet that Google is on.
He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15
He has no migration plan besides "just replace all your hardware and software". It's about as stupid as the HDTV plan, which since I cannot record HDTV without buying illegal hardware, I'm not buying either.
Seriously, does anyone think an actual migration plan for something as big as - replace the entire Internet- would be authored by a single person that nobody outside of ARIN and IANA working bodies have heard of?
He's an idiot and an asshole.
What I don't understand is why the IPv4 address space isn't mapped conveniently into the IPv6 address space (the first set of addresses ... ie 000.000.000.. ... then you can run both "internets" side by side.
a nslation_algorithm
It is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_mapped_address
There are even ways for reaching IPv4 hosts from IPv6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_IP/ICMP_Tr
At the risk of feeding the troll, I wanted to try to clear up some misconceptions.
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6.
Anything reasonably current doesn't route IPv6 in software. Yes, there's legacy stuff out there that will have to be dealt with, but there are solutions to those legacy hardware deployments that aren't terribly arduous. But it does mean people need to get started dealing with this *NOW* rather than later.
2. There are too many addresses.
Uhm...so don't use them all. I'm not sure what sort of objection this is. "Oh, we can't do that because that solution will give us more resources than we need." Oh the horrors of not having to worry about running out of addresses, I'm not sure I can deal with that problem
3. IPv6 addresses are too large.
The ISP that I used to work for advertises 7 or 8 routes into the IPv4 default-free zone. With a move to IPv6, they could easily, without breaking a sweat, move to only advertising a single route. So, an IPv6 route would have to consume more than 8 *times* the memory that an IPv4 address does for it to be a loss for the routes that said ISP would advertise. Many enterprises advertise many many more routes than that in IPv4 and could drop down to a single (or very few) IPv6 routes. Yes, the memory footprint of each individual route in routers would be bigger, but the number of them will be significantly smaller, meaning overall router memory consumption will drop.
4. The IPv6 header is too large.
Ooh, 3.4% (and that's worst case)...I'm not sure the world can handle those sorts of inefficiencies. Yes, IPv6's larger header will drop data throughput efficiencies ever so slightly. That's better than the 100% drop in efficiency you'll have when you can't get an IPv4 address at all.
I'm being completely serious.
NAT (ie, the mangling of IP addresses) doesn't give you any security whatsoever. Putting your box in the DMZ isn't bypassing the NAT, its just setting up a different type of NAT.
The security that you get behind your NAT device is because the device necessarily has stateful packet inspection and filtering engine...because dynamic NAT doesn't work without it...its the stateful inspection and filtering that gives you the security, not the NAT/mangling of the IP addresses.
You could stick a stateful inspection and filtering device that denies inbound connections by default in your laptop travel bag and have exactly the same level of security, without breaking useful applications like NetMeeting (admittedly dated), and other useful applications that connect directly client to client.
How we do prove that we are truly running out of IPv4 address?
That's pretty much been done: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
We like our
Here's a hint. When you fill out your justification forms. Include all your RFC1918 IP addresses (ie, 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, 192.168.x.x, et al). Since there is no space reserved in IPv6 equivalent to RFC1918, meaning you generally need to allocate "global" IPv6 addresses for your internal systems as well, you can include your internal numbering space as part of the justification.
Otherwise, in North America, the criteria for getting IPv6 PI space is exactly the same as IPv4 PI space, and is based on your usage of IPv4 space...and since you can count the RFC1918 space in your justification, it actually ends up easier to get IPv6 space.