Slashdot Mirror
IPv6 Adoption Up 300 Percent Over 2 Years
Mark.J - ISPreview writes "The Number Resource Organization, which is made up of the five Regional Internet Registries, has revealed that the rate of new entrants into the IPv6 routing system has increased by 300% over the past two years. The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out. IPv6 addressing (e.g. 2ffe:1800:3525:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf) was invented as a longer and more secure replacement." IPv6 is still gaining ground slowly, particularly in the US.
And the rate of downloads of Ubuntu 8.10 is up infinity percent in the past two years.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.
There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.
That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.
IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.
I'm not sure why but I was always under the impression that an ipv6 ip looked more like ipv4, ie, 192.168.1.1.1.1. The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?
Whale
Any chance Slashdot could get IPv6 connectivity?
Progress in this direction is "stuff that matters", after all...
First off, anybody who thinks that NAT is a long term solution to the IP address shortage is fooling themselves. NAT is a stopgap solution that has a scant handful of years left in it (some estimates say as little as 3-4 years). IPv6 is the only long term solution we have at the moment.
The biggest thing holding me back from switching is that my ISP doesn't seem to care one whiff about switching. The only way I have available to get on is to set up a tunnel, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of IPv6. I don't want to run IPv6 just for the sake of saying that I run IPv6, I want to run it so I can have an address for every device and finally get rid of the annoying NAT solutions.
I read the internet for the articles.
Do remember how long it took /. to move from a tablefest of tagsoup to a CSS-based design? A good 10 years, give or take.
IPv6?
I'm wondering how far behind the popular adoption of IPv6, the nay-say'ers admissions that they were wrong will lag.
Progress will never happen. Things will always be the way they are now. There's no reason to change now, and there never will be. Pshaw.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Rubbish. Border security is not security. You can get exactly the same 'security' as NAT with a trivial firewall on IPv6 that blocks all inbound connections and maintains state tracking for UDP ports. You can set up NAT with a default route so one machine gets all inbound packets destined for the public address and not redirected by an outgoing connection, and you can have firewalling without NAT. The two concepts are orthogonal. What makes you think that consumer-grade IPv6 routers will not default to blocking all ports?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The main problem with IPv6's slow adoption is that no transition scenario was ever devised. The protocol was spec'd, implemented, debugged and ... that's it. Nobody ever asked the question, who's gonna switch and why?
Currently, if you want to use the Internet, you need to be on IPv4. The only existing transition mechanisms are those which allows an IPv4 host to emulate IPv6 on top of it. And 100% of any other hosts you might be interested in talking to are on IPv4, even if they happen to also be on IPv6. So basically, in the rare cases where you can use IPv6, you can also use IPv4 to do the exact same thing.
So there's no point.
What's missing here (and has been missing since the beginning of IPv6) is a mechanism whereby an IPv6-only host can talk to an IPv4 host. I believe there's something called "nat64" that's being worked on, but it's in preliminary stages.
Here's how it's going to happen: for a veeery long time (10, 20 years), most corporate networks will remain IPv4 only. They have no reason to switch. It's not just network stacks, it's networking equipment, firewall rules, inertia but also stupidity and incompetence. Consider this: right now, there are major websites still incompatible with Explicit Congestion Notification. It's not that they just don't implement it; it's that their networking equipment suffers from a 10+ year old bug that prohibits hosts with ECN enabled to access them. Non-buggy stacks just ignore the bit and let packets through, buggy ones silently drop the packets and cause the connection to hang. This used to be the case on www.cnn.com up until a few months ago, and is still happening on www.afp.com.
Instead, it's mobile networks that will implement IPv6. There is not even enough addresses in a class A (10.0.0.0/24) to even give addresses to all mobiles phones in an European country. It's trivial to implement proxies for HTTP and other common protocols, so that those mobile devices will be able to see CNN.com. But obviously, it would be much better to have a way to NAT those devices onto IPv4.
This puts a lot less stress on network security than there should be in a business environment, and much less attention to what should or shouldn't be allowed through a local firewall, let alone a site firewall.
I disagree. Say your current NAT setup is:
The firewall equivalent is:
The decision making process is identical. You've already decided which ports are which machines should be exposed, and that's the hard part! Once you're past that, the semantics of NAT and a "default deny" firewall are almost identical.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You have two options. You can go via a Tunnel Broker, such as Hurricane Electric, or you can use 6to4.
The advantage of the latter is that it just requires you already have a static IPv4 address, and the routing is relatively efficient. It also minimizes your dependency on third parties: while most TBs give you IPv6 for free, there's no guarantee they'll continue doing so.
The advantage of a tunnel broker is that some ISPs block 6to4. Some people also claim it's more secure, but I don't buy the argument personally for a variety of reasons.
Personally, I'd recommend going for 6to4. It's relatively easy to set up and doesn't involve anything other than the IP allocation you have now. 6to4 gives you 64k /64 IPv6 blocks per static IPv4 address, and it's real connectivity.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
1) the fact that NAT exists means we ran out a long time ago
/8s and stuff is not a permanent solution, denying that IPv6 is needed due to the application of a growing list of band-aids is obnoxious to listen to.
2) NAT is not a proper solution. It crosses the Network and Transport layer boundary to provide a hack solution to a Network layer issue. Having something like NAT prevents anything besides UDP or TCP from being used behind a NAT, since NAT relies on port mapping between UDP and NAT
3) What makes people think uPNP is a good idea? Wouldn't it be better to just have *real end-to-end connectivity* like was actually intended and used to be the case?
4) As the world of networked devices and content providers increases as fast as it always has been or faster there will be a growing need for content providers (servers) that cannot be behind a NAT while still hoping to use well-known ports for services
5) NAT does not scale. State tracking tens of thousands of connections? Since state needs to be tracked, load balancing something like NAT is just yet another hack on top of a hack.
I would love to hear someone explain how using NAT is a feasible solution permanently. Reclaiming unused sub-allocations from legacy