Slashdot Mirror
IPv6 and the Business-Case Skeptics
Julie188 writes "Experts keep screaming that the IPv4 sky is falling. Three such experts were recently asked point-blank to state an irrefutable business case for moving to IPv6 now, and their answer was more plausible than the old refrain (the lack of addresses and a yet-to-be-seen killer IPv6 app). They said that there isn't a business case. No company that is satisfied with all of its Internet services will need to move, even in the next few years. They also pointed out that Microsoft is a unique position in the industry both causing and hindering IPv6 adoption — causing through its IPv6 support in its OSes, and hindering by not extending IPv6 support into very many of its apps."
There's no business case if you don't care about growing your network. If you do, you need to care about IPv6, becuase in a few years, it's going to become increasingly difficult to get new public IPv4 addresses.
Actually, Microsoft supports IPv6 in several of its core products. IE, Outlook 2007, Windows Mail/Live Mail and Exchange 2007 support IPv6, as do many of the services in Windows 2008 (IIS, DHCPv6, DNS, POP, CIFS, LDAP, Kerberos, Remote Desktop). Some of these also have IPv6 support on Windows XP (IE, IIS, Remote Desktop, CIFS).
China has already demanded it. China's new national network, CERNET2, runs IPv6 - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/27/content_403512.htm.
Ultimately China will need a lot more than a billion IP addresses. At the moment I have internet connections for home computer, work computer, mobile phone and laptop
Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network.
I don't believe that's accurate. What's supposed to happen is that your ISP gives you a /64 block and you don't need NAT, but nothing says you can't use NAT if you want to (or if your ISP doesn't play nice).
Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network.
You technically can, but there are few sane reasons for wanting to.
That means I need a block of IP addresses assigned to me. So does my telco/cable company have this set up and will it cost me a huge amount to get a block of IPs?
Correct, yes (they will), and no (it won't). I have a free /48 allocation from Hurricane Electric, giving me a home netblock of 2^80 addresses. If your ISP tries to rake you over the coals, I could probably peel off 2^64 or so of those to lend you.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The reason no one upgrades is that the new "standard" is not simply interoperable with the old. When color TV came out you could still watch the same programming on you B/W. It is not the case with IPv6. You need new routers, new software, new DNS and to train your people. Sure Apache 2.0 and Vista work but an Apache configured just with IPv6 can not serve people on the "internet" (yea yea build a bridge yada yada yada)
Please, the spec is bad just for this reason. The simple basic requirement for new addressing scheme is that it works with existing equipment.
Time to start over with a new spec.
Well, since IPv6 was laid out in RFC 2460, and that RFC is not listed as having been obsoleted, I think you are incorrect. There are more recent RFCs which specify certain applications and/or protocols running over IPv6 - however, this situation is no different from IPv4 - where there are still RFCs being published today to specify particular applications and protocols. Oh, and RFC 2460 was published in December of 1998 - so I think we've had plenty of time for testing...
Windows is the most used though. In this sense, Microsoft did more to bringing IPv6 to everybody then switching ever other OS over would have. On top of that, Microsoft was not the last. Windows NT and 2000 had an IPv6 implementation available, with the first release of that in 1998, the same year Solaris 7 was released which also had a IPv6 add-on as Solaris didn't ship with IPv6 until Solaris 8 (2000). While the first release of IPv6 for Linux happened earlier (1996), it was unmaintained and almost useless until Linux started tracking KAME in 2000. Those efforts did not enter the mainline kernel until the 2.5 development cycle. While some of that was backported to 2.4, the first production kernel to include IPv6 (as opposed to it being an external project) was 2.6. KAME (IPv6 for the BSD's) started in 1998.
In short, just about everyone had a working IPv6 stack at about the same time.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I am sorry but that explanation is lame. Is there any operating system out there that does not support dual TCP/IP stacks? Is there any mainstream application out there that does not support IPv6 in addition to IPv4? There you have it. Just configure your IPv4 system to be also capable of IPv6 and offer your services in both ways. You just need an upstream provider that provides you with IPv6 connectivity (a little more difficult but not a show stopper).
AFAIK there is only one real problem left that will keep many big businesses from deploying IPv6: multi-homing. The technology to have more than one upstream provider for IPv6 connectivity is still in flux.
Repeat it until it sinks in. In some cases it is possible to tunnel through NAT routers. And there are several attacks that do not depend on the victim having a public IP address. If you want security, use a firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware technology.
Did you read the toaster's man page first?
You don't really need an IPv6 capable ISP for the bare minimum of IPv6 -- there's an anycast address (192.88.99.1) for the nearest 6-to-4 relay which worked with no problems for me.
What is a problem is routers -- specifically, consumer routers with integrated modems etc -- which don't support IPv6. My ADSL modem/router worked after I'd given it a new firewall rule -- I could then use IPv6 on one PC on the LAN. But what should happen is the router gets the /64, then assigns addresses within it (like DHCP) to any devices on the LAN as required. Few (if any) consumer routers support this.
I want my static IPs so I can run my own server and access my network without having to use a 3rd party service to synch up the IP and the domain.
Try here (just giving my colo provider a free click)
Seriously--I pay $59/mo for a dedicated server. I have 16 IPs included with an offer of additional IPs for free.
If you want home internet access, call Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, Qwest, AOL, Compuserv, or whomever.
If you want to host a server, call a hosting company. Your home internet connection is not sold for hosting servers.
There's no place like
...In _one_ customer deployment We're deploying 1.7 million devices over 1200 mobile subnetworks in under 18 months. Each device needs to be capable of self addressing and migrating from subnetwork to subnetwork subject to the local RF conditions.
These devices need to be uniquely addressable from existing Unix hosts, as well as capable of being monitored from current Enterprise Network Element Managers.
We've further hypothesized that by 2012 as many as fifty of these networks will be in existence, each of which may need to have all their nodes addressable by multiple vendors.
There is your business case for IPV6.
Ironically, internally, in our company, and on all of our servers - we are 100% split stack. No desire whatsoever to run IPV6 pure environments. NAT does everything we need. Don't even run IPV6 on our IPSEC Remote Access VPN or 802.11 environment.
- Any Day above Ground is a good Day (Michael Rich, 1997)
In the v4 Internet, multicast exists but is usually disabled (except U-Verse).
In the v6 Internet, multicast will exist but be disabled (except maybe U-Verse).