Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Four Root DNS Servers Go IPv6 On February 4th

Posted by Zonk on from the our-interwebs-are-all-growed-up dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "On February 4th, IANA will add AAAA records for the IPv6 addresses of the four root servers. With this transition, it will finally be possible for two internet hosts to communicate without using IPv4 at all. Certain obsolete software may face compatibility problems due to the change, but those issues are addressed in an ICANN report (pdf)."

8 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Routers! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The main problem isn't obsolete software, but hardware. Changing routers to some that support IPv6 isn't done over night. And even if you do, and get IPv6 assigned, it doesn't help unless your provider also supports IPv6 -- else you might as well be tunelling the old way anyhow.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art

    1. Re:Routers! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

      This may beg for the question, but it does not beg the question.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. Re:Finally by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Informative

    They don't do dynamic IP addresses because they don't have enough addresses. They do it for stopping you from running a server on your home computer. Sure you can still run a server, but it's harder to run one when your IP address keeps changing.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  3. Best IPv6 Read ever (not the article) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    But the off topic link I'm making to the wikipedia page...

    IPv6

    common to see examples that attempt to show that the IPv6 address space is absurdly large. For example, IPv6 supports 2128 (about 3.4×1038) addresses, or approximately 5×1028 addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion people[1] alive today. In a different perspective, this is 252 addresses for every star in the known universe [1] - a million times as many addresses per star than IPv4 supported for our single planet. These examples, however, have an underlying and inco
  4. Re:two of 'em, eh? by shentino · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, v4 and v6 are quite independent. A single host can have BOTH at the same time.

    I'd hope /. keeps its v4's at least until my college switches to v6.

    I think it's backward compatibility IIRC.

  5. Re:About time.. by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is so difficult about adding a default rule to your firewall that blocks all incoming connections to your subnet and then adding rules specifically for the devices and services that do require incoming connections?

    ie) deny ip from any to 2610:78:ad::/48

    With NAT you are eliminating the possibility of incoming connections, with IPv6 you can deny connections all you want but can allow incoming connections where required or desired. Sure you can setup a port forwarding rule to allow a service for a given machine, but what happens when you need the same service to go to more than one host? You know need to accommodate for that by changing the incoming port on your real IP.

    Not to mention all the issues raised by protocols that embed IP's that are not routable within the protocol themselves (take the SIP protocol for example). Work-arounds need to be put in place for many protocols on an individual basis in a NAT'd environment. This is a pain in the ass that would be highly unnecessary in a post IPv4 world.

    If you're so fond of the kludge that is NAT, nobody is stopping you from using NAT with IPv6 in combination with a non-routable unique-local prefix (fc00::/7).

    Dragging your feet on adoption of a superior technology that works for every situation in favor of a broken setup that happens to meet YOUR rather limited requirements is delaying progress for the rest of us. ;)

    Generally speaking the consumer world isn't ready for IPv6 yet anyway (Too many Windows machines with limited IPv6 capabilities)... but I still get annoyed with all the anti-IPv6 commentary by those that have not fully investigated the specifics.

    Just the personal pet peeve that is looking forward to moving behind the network design of choice for the 1980's.

  6. Re:About time.. by growse · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everyone, lets all hold hands and repeat now:

    Firewalling and NAT are different things...
    Firewalling and NAT are different things...
    Firewalling and NAT are different things...

    --
    There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
  7. Re:So when will I be able to connect? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right now.

    No, really.


    You appear to have misspelled your answer: the correct answer is "Real soon now. Not really."

    Google has no IPv6 address to connect to. Nor have most other major net sites. IPv4 is still the only way to connect to almost all of the internet.

    Chris Mattern