Google Over IPv6 Coming Soon

Wow! by Atrox666 · 2009-01-08 02:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wow I can finally have all the advantages of IPv6 like

Until they run out of IPv4 addresses it really doesn't matter.
There are a few obscure tunneling applications to this but who cares.

Re:Wow! by jellomizer · 2009-01-08 02:41 · Score: 1

Yea With NATs and DNS aliasing It will still be a while. Most likely there will be a point where they go to the people who reserved those big Class A and B networks, early on and edict of Use it or Loose it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:48 · Score: 0

Your troll-fu is... ... um ... ...weird.
Re:Wow! by drago177 · 2009-01-08 05:58 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Ya, I'd rather slashdot focus on improving comment rating than ipv6.

Consider PJ's comment from groklaw:

"My thought then was to try to explain legal news stories as they came along. I was forever reading /. [Slashdot] comments about legal news and most of the comments would be way off...and any time I tried to comment, it mostly ended up moderated a zero, meaning nobody read it, including probably the moderators, so I gave up on that..."

I wish they'd stop rewarding first posts more than insightfullness (they do just fine ignoring spelling & grammer).
Re:Wow! by Surt · 2009-01-08 06:53 · Score: 1

Routing speed. Jumbograms.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:37 · Score: 0

Yea With NATs and DNS aliasing It will still be a while. Most likely there will be a point where they go to the people who reserved those big Class A and B networks, early on and edict of Use it or Loose it.
Apparently, IANA reclaimed 1--I repeat 1--Class A network. It took the better part of a year to verify that the 984 allocations within said network were unused. That's the only Class A network not used. Trying to reclaim the other Class A networks would take even longer.
It's just not worth it.
Re:Wow! by lazyl · 2009-01-08 08:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cell phones will drive IPv6. Large service providers like Sprint are already dedicating significant resources to IPv6 because they know they will need it for 4G. NATing won't work because there are just too many phones. So those 4G phones will have to be IPv6. And then they can only access the IPv6 internet. So that will drive everything to switch.

--
Aw crap, ninjas!
Re:Wow! by stephanruby · 2009-01-08 08:33 · Score: 1

Wow I can finally have all the advantages of IPv6 like

Actually, it should help some University students in Ukraine. Until they get IPv6 implemented, I'm blocking all Ukraine Universities from accessing my sites. Now, most of those University students probably have no idea what's going on, but unless their Universities start jumping on the IPv6 bandwagon, their students, faculty, and staff, are going to get an increasingly high number of 404 errors -- with no explanation whatsoever -- until one day the only web site those students will be able to access is the one hosted by their buddy in the dorm room next door to them.
Re:Wow! by jellomizer · 2009-01-08 10:19 · Score: 1

What about class B they are 255 times smaller about a day a network.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Wow! by JackieBrown · 2009-01-08 12:42 · Score: 1

I am sure this went over my head but why are you blocking University students in Ukraine?
Do they share the same IP due to running out of addresses or is there something else?
Re:Wow! by anothy · 2009-01-09 08:20 · Score: 1

you might be surprised how far the service providers are willing to go to avoid dealing with IPv6. i worked on some of the WiMAX standardization work for a while, and was amazed. suggesting that they even consider or discuss it was a good way to get yourself branded as some kind of techie weirdo and ignored for the rest of the meeting.

--

i speak for myself and those who like what i say.

Oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:33 · Score: 0

Now we will need 128bit computers to store these addresses

Re:Oh great by LilGuy · 2009-01-08 03:12 · Score: 1

Well I've had a 64-bit cpu for about two and a half years and I'm still running a 32-bit operating system for fear that none of my favorite games/programs will work properly under the 64 bit platform. Screw 128 bit.

--

You're nothing; like me.
Re:Oh great by troll8901 · 2009-01-08 06:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm still running a 32-bit operating system
It's an extension and graphical shell to a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system...
(Wait, this is a joke sub-thread, right?)

Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cue people who don't understand routing and generally how the internet works saying "But why can't we just use NAT? HP don't need that many IP addresses!".

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog

Re:Wait for it.... by slugtastic · 2009-01-08 02:37 · Score: 1

But why can't we just use NA... No, the joke is too obvious.
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:44 · Score: 0

I manage a few BGP AS and feel that I have a rather thorough understanding of routing including both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols.
I also fail to see any short-term (5-10 year) need or advantage. Would you care to educate me?
Re:Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not about the short-term advantage because there is no short-term advantage. However, it's going to take a long time to do. Therefore, you start to think about doing it 10 years before it all goes tits-up.
We don't have a problem *now*. IPv4 is working great at the moment. However, we (people) are incredibly bad a doing global solutions to big problems quickly, so we need to start to migrate things early.

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Re:Wait for it.... by squiggleslash · 2009-01-08 03:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

We do have problems now. Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection, and why things like VoIP boxes (that require transparent two-way connectivity) require special ways of setting them up rather than just plugging into an Ethernet port in the wall.
We think we don't have problems because we're so used to jumping through the hoops, and even coming up with rationalizations for the mess we have ("Oh, but NAT gives me security because if my computer can't be connected to the Internet then it's completely impossible totally for a viroworm to assplode the packet fragmentation flag!")
We do have problems. If you don't think we do, fire up the configuration page of your router, and take a look at the "DMZ" and "port redirection" pages.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, I know that individual users have problems now. But that's not the same sort of scale of problem of a large company requesting a new IP block from their ISP and being told 'no'. That sort of problem tends to get things moving.

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Re:Wait for it.... by eln · 2009-01-08 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

However, we (people) are incredibly bad a doing global solutions to big problems quickly, so we need to start to migrate things early.
Unfortunately, we're also bad at doing global solutions to big problems ahead of time, especially when there's still disagreement as to whether or not the problem even exists or is as serious as some say it is. Nobody wants to spend all the money to redo their network infrastructure when no one can give them a good answer as to when or if the changes will actually be necessary.
IPv6 will only move forward in a big way when we actually run out of IPv4 space and no one can get the addresses they need, and no one can come up with a good workaround. Until then, it will only be in use in widely scattered installations, just like it is now.
Re:Wait for it.... by somersault · 2009-01-08 04:14 · Score: 2, Funny

You were only a NAT's cock away, why not finish up the joke? Are puns allowed? Oh wait, too late.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Wait for it.... by Austerity+Empowers · 2009-01-08 04:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

Given that NAT at least partially became popular due to a few ISPs trying to argue that you can have only 1 machine on your network connected or you're breaking "the law" (their idiotic TOS), I have some doubts that IPV6 would bring about any real advantages to end users.
I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
Re:Wait for it.... by Chang · 2009-01-08 04:46 · Score: 1

Let me refer you to what Paul Vixie has to say on the subject. Quoting from the NANOG list a couple of months ago http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/109650#109650

the human, as a species in the animal kingdom, is known to be the kind of animal who fouls its own nest and overruns its habitat. the idea of a tipping point, whether it be for CO2 in the atmosphere or polar ice shelves or explosively deaggregated IPv4 routing tables, does not occur in the minds of individual decision makers. instead it's left to us "chicken little" types, and the only way the individual decision makers ever make their decisions on the basis of tipping points is if some kind of "governance" makes them do so.
--
Paul Vixie
Re:Wait for it.... by somersault · 2009-01-08 04:56 · Score: 1

We do have problems. If you don't think we do, fire up the configuration page of your router, and take a look at the "DMZ" and "port redirection" pages.
I get what you're saying, but it's not like those things are complex, or even necessary for most home users. And even when IPv6 becomes commonplace they will still have their uses (thinking of stuff like workplaces and universities where you really want a single point of control for internet access).

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Wait for it.... by tlhIngan · 2009-01-08 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

We do have problems now. Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection, and why things like VoIP boxes (that require transparent two-way connectivity) require special ways of setting them up rather than just plugging into an Ethernet port in the wall.

I don't see what that has to do with IPv6. Sure, in an ideal world, the ISP will give every residential user their fair share of IPv6 addresses they're entitled to. No, most ISPs will probably give you an entire block of IPv6 addresses, but they'll only route packets to one of them, unless you pay $5/month for more (it's too lucrative a stream of cash - like text messaging). Some ISPs give every customer 2 IP(v4) addresses for "free", and I'll bet 99% of users still use NAT on the two computers they have.
No, it's stupid to think that IPv6 everywhere will mean the death of NAT. We'll just have NATv6 to deal with instead, and all the same problems we have with NAT today, will still be present in an IPv6 world. Even if the ISP decided to give everyone their fair share of IPv6 addresses, we'll still see deployment of NATv6 boxes, and since firewalls aren't going away anytime soon (if people don't deploy NATv6), end-to-end protocols will still break.
Firewalling has improved protocol design though - I still remember the days when to play online required opening 10 TCP ports and 10 UDP ports on your PC (per game, pretty much), due to some design decisions in some libraries (DirectPlay, notably). Nowadays, it's down to usually 1 TCP port, and a couple of UDP ports, if that (STUN helps). Or heck, sometimes you just don't need to do anything at all to get online gaming to work. Though you still do see the occasional game that requires DMZ mode...
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-08 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, a single point of access control, like a router. But it doesn't have to do NAT anymore.
Sure, they might run a transparent proxy on some services, but the point is they will be able to setup two way services without idiotic things like UPnP. IE they won't need dynamic port translations because every device will have it's own ports and specific applications can be allowed in advance.
For example, try to run multiple, simultaneous Xbox Live connections without UPnP. (It will probably work these days, but you won't be able to make two way connections ie host games, voice chat reliably, etc). This wouldn't be a problem if they both had their own address and port space.
Don't even get me started on IPSec, NAT-T etc.
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-08 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT != security
NAT doesn't provide security, it happens to disallow uninitiated inbound connections since it doesn't know where to send them, but so does any good firewall.
Re:Wait for it.... by peragrin · 2009-01-08 05:53 · Score: 1

It sounds like ISP's should start their own ipv4 to ipv6tunnels and feed their customers a ipv6 address. They then become a giant nat that can open up the tunnel as more companies go ipv6

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:00 · Score: 0

I'm sure that I *DO NOT WANT* all of my machines to have globally routable IPs.
Re:Wait for it.... by LingNoi · 2009-01-08 06:03 · Score: 1

No, it's stupid to think that IPv6 everywhere will mean the death of NAT. We'll just have NATv6 to deal with instead,
If you think this then you don't really understand what NAT is. A workaround for the limitations of IPv4, limitations which don't exist in IPv6.
Re:Wait for it.... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-01-08 06:38 · Score: 1

No, most ISPs will probably give you an entire block of IPv6 addresses, but they'll only route packets to one of them, unless you pay $5/month for more (it's too lucrative a stream of cash - like text messaging).
I don't see how. Most of their traffic is going to be home users, and most home users currently use NAT, rather than pay for the extra IP. So, ISPs have to realize that home users are going to continue to not pay for the privilege of IP addresses, so there's not much reason for them to do that.

Though you still do see the occasional game that requires DMZ mode...
...which wouldn't have to exist, without NAT.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Wait for it.... by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-01-08 06:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately, we're also bad at doing global solutions to big problems ahead of time, especially when there's still disagreement as to whether or not the problem even exists or is as serious as some say it is.
As usual, there's really no debate.
It's a bit like global warming. Serious scientists admit that it exists. The "controversy" is because of research groups quite literally paid for by the oil companies who would stand to lose the most if we started taking it seriously.
Similarly, there's really no debate that IPv6 would be a good thing to have, and that we'll run out of IPv4 addresses eventually, and that it will only get uglier as we do. The only real debate is from people who don't want to take the time to upgrade their infrastructure, or from businesses (ISPs) who actually profit from the artificial scarcity these days.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:48 · Score: 0

Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to
.
No they don't, your ISP is just stingy. My ISP will assign up to 10 public IP's per cable modem. No extra charge.

and why things like VoIP boxes (that require transparent two-way connectivity) require special ways of setting them up rather than just plugging into an Ethernet port in the wall.

Even if you have a single VOIP phone & no other internet devices, you still need a VOIP router. NAT is not the (only) issue. Directly exposing each of your phone handsets to the internet is just plain stupid. I could make it ring non-stop 24 hours a day if you did that & you'd have no way to stop it. VOIP does NOT require "transparent" 2-way communication.
I will agree that NAT is not a reasonable solution for an IP shortage.
But your attitude that NAT, Port redirection, etc. are somehow evil & should be done away with simply proves you have no grasp of networking using ANY type of addressing scheme.

Oh, but NAT gives me security be
I'll stop you there- NAT on home routers has probably done more to secure home networks than anything except port blocking by the ISP's.
Re:Wait for it.... by denmarkw00t · 2009-01-08 06:58 · Score: 1

Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection.
Um, thats not really a problem. Home NATs bring with them lots of features that help people who don't know much about networking. Also, most ISPs only give you one IP anyway, especially for residential use, unless you want to pay for an extra IP, which means buying another line from your ISP. NATs are how ISPs can say "Only use this address for one device" and turn a blind eye to the fact that you might have 6 computers on your single device line.

We don't have a problem, then, at the moment. IPv6 has great potential to help us in the future, but there is no immediate threat to the tubes as it stands with IPv4.
Re:Wait for it.... by Shakrai · 2009-01-08 07:25 · Score: 0

Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection
Yeah, it's a real PITA not being able to have a globally valid IP address for my TiVo.....

and why things like VoIP boxes (that require transparent two-way connectivity) require special ways of setting them up rather than just plugging into an Ethernet port in the wall
Yeah if only there was some sort of easy solution to this problem.

If you don't think we do, fire up the configuration page of your router, and take a look at the "DMZ" and "port redirection" pages.
Wouldn't that router just need to be replaced by a firewall if everything had a globally valid IP?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:29 · Score: 0

"Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection,"
This is not a problem for any of the 7 devices in my home. If fact, it is ideal because I don't have to worry about external security with these devices, only internal security.
Re:Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 07:59 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that router just need to be replaced by a firewall if everything had a globally valid IP?

Yes. That's the point. Right tool for the job and all that. People are still not getting it. The reason to switch to ipv6 isn't for residential users, it's because it makes life a lot easier when youre connecting seriously large networks together. The company I work for just merged with another large problems, and we have massive problems with networks with overlapping RFC1918 networks. Cue clusterfuck of NATs everywhere. This is the problem that ipv6 solves.

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 08:00 · Score: 0

We do have problems. If you don't think we do, fire up the configuration page of your router, and take a look at the "DMZ" and "port redirection" pages.
If you think thats bad, try going to the firewall page once every device on your lan is publically accessible. I assure you it will be either more complex, or more limitting if not.
UPNP of course makes the first one a non-issue (any app that wants to listen to a port can ask my router for it). Presumably you could continue to use UPNP to punch holes in a default deny firewall, but I've yet to see that setup.
Re:Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 08:02 · Score: 1

(I don't know what happened to that block of text, hopefully it's still coherent).

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Re:Wait for it.... by Geoff-with-a-G · 2009-01-08 08:29 · Score: 1

If you think this then you don't really understand what NAT is. A workaround for the limitations of IPv4, limitations which don't exist in IPv6.
No, your parent poster understands NAT better than you do. It has been popularized and mainstreamed through PAT (Port Address Translation, AKA Overloaded NAT, one address outside with many on the inside) but it didn't get invented because the world was running out of v4 space. Lots of people and organizations use NAT when they don't want their connected networks to have a full understanding of their address space (like I don't want my ISP to know I have four computers, or as a company I don't want the rest of the world to see the addresses of all my workstations), or when they are merging networks, or migrating from legacy networks... In a lot of enterprise security designs, they NAT through their firewalls, and have the users talk to a 10/8 address when the secured server is actually a 192.168/16 address, or vice versa.
Fundamentally NAT is just the ability to have your router say "if someone asks for address X, send them to address Y instead" or "if X wants to talk to my server, tell the server the request came from Y".
Now, I'm actually not a fan of most of these uses. I generally avoid NAT wherever possible. But that's my preference/philosophy, and it's not universally shared by all network admins everywhere. Home users may still want to obscure their multiple computers from their ISP, traveling laptop users may not want their unique ID (via MAC portion of the v6 address) exposed to all content providers everywhere, and enterprises may not want their address space visible to all. This isn't to say that these problems can't all be solved, but I bet you some people will solve it with NAT again.
Re:Wait for it.... by Shakrai · 2009-01-08 08:34 · Score: 1

Hey, I didn't say that there wasn't a reason to switch to IPV6. I just thought your examples of residential problems were a little exaggerated.

The company I work for just merged with another large problems, and we have massive problems with networks with overlapping RFC1918 networks.
You merged with another large problem? Sounds like my employer ;) Kidding aside, I've been there done that with network mergers. It's never fun :(

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Wait for it.... by mark-t · 2009-01-08 09:24 · Score: 1

It may or may not have escaped your attention to notice that nothing in ipv6 forbids NAT. And although having vastly more IP's in ipv6 is a major reason to migrate from ipv4, it is not the only advantage ipv6 has over what you currently use. As you yourself commented, you may not want all your systems to have globally routable IP's, so there will still be a (niche) demand for NAT even when ipv6 is ubiquitous.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Wait for it.... by growse · 2009-01-08 10:01 · Score: 1

How will a single "deny all" rule be complex? You want to run a webserver, open the port for that ip address. You want a mailserver too? open port 25 for that ip address. I don't understand how that's complex?

--
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
Re:Wait for it.... by BobMcD · 2009-01-08 10:02 · Score: 1

We do have problems now. Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection
This is crap, and if you know what NAT does you should know that already.
Let me list for you the reasons people use NAT at home:
1) Cost. ISP's charge extra for additional drops. Hint - this isn't because they're out of addresses.
2) Cost
3) Cost
4) Cost
5) Security. This is number 5 because few people think about it, but NAT makes a damn-fine ingress filter for 99% of home applications.
Bring on IPv6 if you absolutely must, but this will not change the motivations to use NAT, because again, ISP's aren't really out of addresses so none of their behavior has changed based on that little tidbit.
Re:Wait for it.... by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:08 · Score: 0

I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT doesn't provide security,
It does however provide privacy.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Wait for it.... by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:12 · Score: 1

Lots of people and organizations use NAT when they don't want their connected networks to have a full understanding of their address space (like I don't want my ISP to know I have four computers, or as a company I don't want the rest of the world to see the addresses of all my workstations)
I have the same problem between Engineering and IT at my workplace. Sometimes it is easier not to expose all your test machines to your IT people.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-08 10:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not sure that I even want all my machines to have globally routable IPs.
NAT doesn't provide security,
It does however provide privacy.
No it doesn't.
To most people it provides, at most, privacy between the number of computers in your residence. If you thinking about work or school, well, then you gain nothing, even assuming your access to the internet isn't filtered and logged wholesale, your IP assignment almost certainly is.
If you're actually concerned about privacy, you should be using something like Tor that was designed to provide privacy. NAT absolutely was not.
Re:Wait for it.... by Austerity+Empowers · 2009-01-08 13:51 · Score: 1

No, it hasn't escaped my attention. It's just not really necessary for the network I deal with, so I'm wondering why I want to go out of my way for it.
One of the reasons cited for leaving IPv4 is not needing to NAT. I'm not sure how many people would really benefit from that.
Individuals do it to present a single IP to their ISP, who are known to be draconian and oppressive and may think they're entitled to money per machine used. Sure you can NAT with IPv6 too, but all you've done is make me buy a new gateway/router and given me no advantage. The day will come, but I'm not sure why I want to bring it on.
Corporations often funnel us all through single proxies or NAT servers just to keep tabs on us, not routing anything they don't approve of. They also will prefer the privacy NAT offers. I'm not sure how IPv6 improves your average corporate network.
The only advantage I see is for schools and data centers who need a large number of global IPs. I'm not sure anyone else wants to get excited about it.
Re:Wait for it.... by mark-t · 2009-01-08 19:45 · Score: 1

I don't think it's so much something to get excited about as much as it is just an inevitable requirement for the Internet, as a whole, to adopt if it is not to become stagnant. As ipv6 start to become more common, people who have not migrated to it yet will not be able to access facilities offered by the servers at those sites.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:Wait for it.... by Hucko · 2009-01-08 19:50 · Score: 1

Why on earth would an extra ip address require another line from my isp?

--
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Re:Wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 20:07 · Score: 0

No, most ISPs will probably give you an entire block of IPv6 addresses, but they'll only route packets to one of them, unless you pay $5/month for more (it's too lucrative a stream of cash - like text messaging).
You are aware that each ISP will receive at least one /48 subnet to give to their clients? That means 80 bits of addressing space to give away per ISP. Contrast this with the 32 bits of address space we now use globally: even if an ISP would give out an entire IPv4 address space to every device currently connected to the Internet, it would take over 65,000 planets before the address space of even one ISP will be exhausted.
Now I understand what you are saying about ISPs charging per address, but I don't think it will happen. I expect consumer routers to support prefix delegation (IA_PD), which will mean that the ISP will not assign (nor route) on the host-level: every consumer will receive a subnet for themselves to populate. What I don't expect, however, is that ISPs will give costumers an entire /64 subnet, as is intended and required (?) for IPv6 autoconfiguration, but even if an ISP would give out /120 subnets, that would still mean 256 devices per consumer. However, that would explode the ISP's routing tables.

we'll still see deployment of NATv6 boxes, and since firewalls aren't going away anytime soon (if people don't deploy NATv6), end-to-end protocols will still break.
Have you ever tried to play online games from two PCs connected behind the same NAT'ing router?
Re:Wait for it.... by petermgreen · 2009-01-08 23:24 · Score: 1

Any reasonablly major (own AS) ISP will get at least a /32 from the RIR.
IIRC current reccomendation is to give out something smaller than a /48 bit bigger than a /64 to small customers allowing for a small number of subnets all using autoconfiguration.
I'm not aware of any IPV6 ISP that gives out less than a /64 . Most seem to give out either a /48 or a /64 .
Of course IPV6 is too niche for the moment for the customer screwers to have got interested.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Wait for it.... by profplump · 2009-01-09 01:01 · Score: 1

Why not? What will it hurt?

Sure, there may be hosts that you don't want to accept incoming connections. Luckily we've invented this technology call the "firewall". A standard connection-tracking firewall provides exactly the same protections as NAT, and is available in IPv4 and IPv6 flavors in any OS you'd reasonably consider as the basis for a router. There's no more configuration required than with a standard NAT router, plus the non-NAT system is faster and breaks less things, because it's not mucking with data in-flight.

If you're really trying to isolate your hosts from the world -- trying to keep them from talking outside the network entirely -- you still have the option to use link-local or site-local addresses that would prevent communication with the outside world.

Other than connection blocking -- which is easily handled by non-NAT means -- why do you care whether your machines have globally routable addresses? Do you really care that your outbound packets have more than one source address?
Re:Wait for it.... by profplump · 2009-01-09 01:22 · Score: 1

What features does NAT provide to users who don't know much about networking, other than the ability/hinderance of hiding more than one host behind a single address (which by the way, does not require any change in physical connectivity).

Zero-configuration connection blocking only requires a connection-tracking firewall, not address translation. Network auto-configuration only requires DHCP (or with IPv6, not even DHCP), not address translation.
Re:Wait for it.... by profplump · 2009-01-09 01:26 · Score: 1

It's not just full-on mergers that cause problems -- there are cases of simple interoperation that require unified address spaces between companies. For example, I have several clients that need a VPN up to transfer HIPAA-covered data between hosts that do not support encryption (like printers). It's simply not feasible to coordinate the private address space of several companies with different IT providers -- we *must* use globally routable addresses.
Re:Wait for it.... by profplump · 2009-01-09 01:34 · Score: 1

NAT doesn't have any special ingress-filtering properties. Any connection-tracking firewall could provide exactly the same protection with exactly the same amount of setup (none).

I'm also not sure about your reasoning on residential IP address allocations. If you've ever bought a more expensive Internet connection, you'd know that IP address quickly approach "free" once you've spent enough on the connection -- given that I'm inclined to believe that a lower cost per address would encourage low-cost ISPs to provide more addresses to their customers. You're probably at least partly right -- there are certainly ISPs that would ration out a single IPv6 address to each subscriber -- but I think you'd see more ISPs willing to hand out more addresses.
Re:Wait for it.... by BobMcD · 2009-01-09 01:40 · Score: 1

Right, but I'm imagining the casual user of the internet here. They're going to go to Walmart/BestBuy and everything they're going to see in the 'router' section will be a NAT device. Every single one of them, even the ones labeled 'Firewall'. They're going to have one of those, to provide wireless connectivity or what-have-you, and unless the default settings change, they'll all be using NAT whether we're on IPv6 or not.
That kind of user makes up the vast majority of the home market, believe it or not.
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-09 03:47 · Score: 1

So basically you just stated you have a vague understanding of what NAT is and some edge cases where it makes some poorly educated people feel better about their security.
If some people think obscuring your IP address is an important security "philosophy" fine, but let the rest of the world move on.
As if a hacker gives a damn what your private IP address is, you've probably already setup a static route to several servers on ONE IP! It's more like a honeypot.
Re:Wait for it.... by denmarkw00t · 2009-01-09 05:23 · Score: 1

My bad, not another line, but definitely paying for a second IP from your ISP. True a NAT itself isn't required, but NATs tend to be the most commonly produced solution for this problem that I have seen, and ISPs hand them out like "whoa."
Re:Wait for it.... by Geoff-with-a-G · 2009-01-15 05:09 · Score: 1

So basically you just stated you have a vague understanding of what NAT is and some edge cases where it makes some poorly educated people feel better about their security.

If some people think obscuring your IP address is an important security "philosophy" fine, but let the rest of the world move on.
Nope, read it again. I'd say I have a rather comprehensive understanding of what NAT is, and the cases I mentioned are hardly edge cases. The practice of separating secured network segments by NAT, not just firewall rules, is quite prevalent in large enterprises. Many, many large organizations will have some production segments in the 10/8 range NATed to secured segments in the 192.168/16 range - not because the mere 10/8 is insufficient addresses, but because they like it that way. And ISPs don't always limit their customers to one address because they're short on CIDR blocks, but rather because charging for additional addresses (additional computers connected, as far as they're concerned) is a revenue stream.
So it's not that I'm "not letting the rest of the world move on", it's that I'm agreeing with your dislike of NAT, but saying that plenty of people in the world might choose not to move on.
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-15 06:56 · Score: 1

My point is both of those reasons for using NAT are wrong-headed. Network segmentation doesn't require NAT, put your backend servers behind a strict firewall and only let them communicate with your hardened, front end proxy or web server or whatever server. What does NAT add to this scenario other then a warm, fuzzy feeling?
As for multiple IPs, ISPs must start giving out more addresses with the transition, I think everyone should demand as much. My point is, this transition wont work as well as it should if security "philosophy" isn't changed at the same time.
Re:Wait for it.... by Geoff-with-a-G · 2009-01-15 07:15 · Score: 1

My point is both of those reasons for using NAT are wrong-headed. Network segmentation doesn't require NAT, put your backend servers behind a strict firewall and only let them communicate with your hardened, front end proxy or web server or whatever server. What does NAT add to this scenario other then a warm, fuzzy feeling?

As for multiple IPs, ISPs must start giving out more addresses with the transition, I think everyone should demand as much. My point is, this transition wont work as well as it should if security "philosophy" isn't changed at the same time.
And without technically disagreeing with either of your points, my points are:
1. Millions of people and lots of large organization do many things that are wrong-headed. Surely you've noticed this. If they're doing it wrong-headed now, why do you assume that they'll suddenly become enlightened, just because IPv6 is deployed?
2. You're right, this transition won't work as well as it should. If you honestly believe that security philosophies everywhere are going to suddenly change, just because new technology enables more address usage, I think you're being naive.
I'm not trying to make any points about the technology, but rather about the imperfect actions of those humans implementing the technology in the real world. Just because they won't need NAT, doesn't mean everyone will stop using it. Plenty of people using it today don't need it for what they're doing with it.
Re:Wait for it.... by glennpratt · 2009-01-15 07:29 · Score: 1

Not vying for the last word, but it certainly isn't a rare situation to need NAT today. Extra IPs are expensive or unobtainable for most people. Very few have only one device on their network, I'm thinking game consoles, iPhones, Blu-ray players, and on and on. Even single people probably have multiple network devices - and almost everyone want the flexibility of allowing guests to use their network. All things requiring NAT in most situations on IPv4, but it shouldn't be that way on IPv6.

Soon ? by mbone · 2009-01-08 02:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

I got ipv6.google.com the night the IETF turned off IPv4, and that was
over 9 months ago.

Re:Soon ? by dave420 · 2009-01-08 03:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe you should read the summary again.
Re:Soon ? by mbone · 2009-01-08 09:20 · Score: 1

Yes, I did, and the article too.
I think that a better title would be "Google will bypass AAAA records."
And, as I read it, if you want to use IPv6 and are roaming (on WiFi or other networks), you won't know if it will work until you try it. This isn't really how dual stack is supposed to work.

tried google in ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:36 · Score: 5, Funny

it's eerily similar to google in ipv4

Re:tried google in ipv6 by timeOday · 2009-01-08 04:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Really? The extra addressing overhead should have made it a little slower.
Re:tried google in ipv6 by buchner.johannes · 2009-01-08 06:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Where do I download?

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:tried google in ipv6 by admcd · 2009-01-08 07:42 · Score: 1

Except for the bouncing Google logo you get on the IPv6 version.
Re:tried google in ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 10:45 · Score: 0

Where do I download?
Me too!

Is it just me by jandrese · 2009-01-08 02:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or is that list of ipv6 capable ISPs depressingly short? All I see on there are a handful of tiny mom and pop shops and perhaps some larger foreign ISPs. Until Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, NTT, Telekom, or any other major ISPs start showing up on that list all of this IPv6 stuff is going to remain a research toy. I would use IPv6 now if my ISP supported it. I'm not really interested in setting up a complicated tunnel for effectively no benefit. That IPv6 porn site never even got off of the ground.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

Re:Is it just me by MacColossus · 2009-01-08 02:43 · Score: 1

I noticed that only 5 US providers were listed. Kind of answers why Slashdot hasn't ran out and signed up as suggested by the post. Becomes a question of which comes first. The chicken or the egg?
Re:Is it just me by squiggleslash · 2009-01-08 03:12 · Score: 4, Informative

It is tiny and that sucks.
You can, unless you're using an ISP that specifically blocks it, use IPv6 now however. Either use 6to4 (if you've rolled your own router, then check the web for implementation specifics - start here if you can't find a better page. Another possibility are the Apple Airport routers, that generally have this built in. But before spending time on 6to4, ensure your ISP doesn't block it by ensuring you can ping 192.88.99.1. If you can, go right ahead), or use a Tunnel Broker. Hurricane Electric is a good example.
If you can't ping 192.88.99.1, please let your ISP know.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Is it just me by Above · 2009-01-08 03:35 · Score: 1

Many don't advertise well.
NTT/Verio has some of the best IPv6 support out there.
Hurricane Electric has made a point of being an aggressive IPv6 deployer.
Verizon Business (UUNet) now offers IPv6 on a "beta" basis.
Level 3 has some sort of offering, but I have no details on it.
It's true none of the consumer ISP's offer it to the consumer yet (Comcast, Cox, CableVision, Verizon FIOS), but then that may be premature at this point. Several of them have stood up in public forums and talked about the planning and prep they are doing, so its not like they are sitting around doing nothing.
If you have a "business" connection to a major ISP, ask them about IPv6. You may be surprised.
Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:57 · Score: 0

It's true none of the consumer ISP's offer it to the consumer yet, but then they haven't figured out how to charge customers more for it and how that affects their routing and revenue...
Re:Is it just me by greg_barton · 2009-01-08 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

...use 6to4...
And, if you're on a WAN in Chicago, the choice could be: X.25 or 6to4?
Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 05:01 · Score: 0

Yeah, I thought so, too. At first, I was actually happy to see that a significant number of companies on the list were German (since I'm German, too), but then it of course turned out that all of them are small, local ISPs that a) nobody will ever have heard of and that b) cater mostly to businesses, not regular people who just want to get on the Internet, like my grandma (or me, for that matter).
Give us another holler when a large ISP switches, Slashdot.
Re:Is it just me by Luyseyal · 2009-01-08 06:53 · Score: 1

You just made my day. HA!
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:Is it just me by TooMuchToDo · 2009-01-08 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Comcast isn't able to support IPv6 at the CPE until DOCSIS 3.X is rolled out, which is currently in progress. Once people have IPv6-capable CPE/DOCSIS, they could use either stack (or Comcast could just give them IPv6 and tunnel the IPv4 back).
Re:Is it just me by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-01-08 07:45 · Score: 1

Or is that list of ipv6 capable ISPs depressingly short?
You must be in North America, like me. Providers in Europe, Asia and Africa seem to be leaving us in the dust here. Then again when I check what free.fr is offering their customers in general, I feel we are being left in the dark ages in North America.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Is it just me by nschubach · 2009-01-08 07:56 · Score: 1

Kind of related, but I wonder...
Will someone create 4to6? (or have they already) The router would map IPV6 external addresses to v4 addresses internally? Not that I can think of a reason for it besides some kind of convoluted security or remapping or ports to specific internal addresses.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:59 · Score: 0

I don't get it.
Re:Is it just me by squiggleslash · 2009-01-08 08:10 · Score: 1

Despite the slightly misleading name, 6to4 is really about getting your own routable netblock, regardless of whether your ISP supports IPv6 or not. The IPv4 address is used to create a /48 network prefix, and every address under that prefix will be routed to the IPv4 address over the IPv4 Internet. The name suggests its a way to get IPv6 machines onto IPv4 networks, but actually IPv6 only machines will be still unable to access IPv4 addresses regardless of whether 6to4 is in use or not. So as an opposite of 6to4, "4to6" doesn't make much sense. An IPv6 address is too big to be used as the basis of creating a block of IPv4 addresses.
What I suspect you meant, and what various people have experimented with, is mapping IPv6 addresses to private IPv4 addresses so an IPv4 machine can access the IPv6 Internet. This isn't that simple, as you essentially have to map a virtual IPv4 address to every IPv6 address that machine is likely to ever connect to. You can kind of do it using an integrated DNS and mapping system, so every time a DNS name is resolved by the IPv4 machine, if it's a new IPv6 address an entry is added to a mapping table for the NAT router, mapping the next available IPv4 address to that IPv6 address, with the IPv4 machine given that mapped number, but it's a fairly nasty hack.
In the end, almost all modern operating systems natively support IPv6, and will start "talking" IPv6 as soon as they make physical contact with a network that routes IPv6 and has a route advertisement daemon to prove it. Only a few closed devices, often focussed on local routing, really require IPv4 access to the outside world. Those devices generally require access to other, specific, IPv4 machines rather than general access to arbitrary nodes on the network. So the use of a NAT "Give IPv4 devices access to the IPv6 Internet" device is fairly limited.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 09:01 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_or_6_to_4
Re:Is it just me by bberens · 2009-01-08 09:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

I could imagine a large corporation (or government) using IPv6 internally and then needing to pretend to be IPv4 at some proxy or something so that they can connect to the interweb. Of course, I don't really know what I'm talking about so someone will likely correct my thinking for me.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:Is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 09:36 · Score: 0

The egg. It's ALWAYS the egg, because the egg did not arrive with the chicken.
Re:Is it just me by Guyver3 · 2009-01-08 13:21 · Score: 1

Somehow I doubt /. operates on a residential network, which is mostly what appears to be listed on the sixxs link.
There are US based colo/transit providers, not listed on that page, that already make IPv6 natively available to customers.
Re:Is it just me by petermgreen · 2009-01-08 23:38 · Score: 1

Proxies are certainly a possibility. a Proxy can quite happilly sit between a V6 client and a V4 server or vice-versa and if you have a socks proxy or a http proxy with "connect" enabled (afaict most proxies are by default configured to allow connect to port 443 only, browsers use this to support https over http proxies) than applications can use this to connect to other services too .
Many corps like to tightly control interactions between thier equipment and the internet anyway so proxies are probablly quite a good soloution.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Is it just me by Cato · 2009-01-09 04:43 · Score: 1

How about Comcast? They have already deployed IPv6 in their core and aggregation networks, and will be using it for all-IPv6 homes (if they aren't already). Search for 'durand ipv6' for more about this.
Re:Is it just me by Cato · 2009-01-09 04:45 · Score: 1

Comcast will give homes IPv6 only, because if they use dual stack they still need far too many IPv4 addresses - they've already exhausted the 10.x address space so NAT is not an option unless you have multiple instances of the same address within Comcast, which makes it painful to manage the set top boxes and cable modems remotely. Search for 'durand ipv6' for more about this, there's a good presentation available.

Meh by pondermaster · 2009-01-08 02:38 · Score: 1

Singularity is just around the corner. With all those nano machines wanting to go online, we're screwed anyway.

Try it! by Fear+the+Clam · 2009-01-08 02:38 · Score: 0

I upgraded to Google over IPv6 and the whole thing just seems snappier.

Kudos, Google.

Re:Try it! by sakdoctor · 2009-01-08 02:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Google over IPv6 is crisp and clean, with good intensity and a hint of citrus on the nose
Re:Try it! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:49 · Score: 0

Yeah, I've been using Google over IPv6 for couple months now and search results are much better than over IPv4.
Re:Try it! by Hatta · 2009-01-08 03:09 · Score: 1

How exactly? I've read the howto, but it's not clear to me how to get a valid ipv6 address assigned to me. I understand that I can just use ifconfig, but I use dhcp to get my ipv4 address. Does dhclient support ipv6?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Try it! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 04:18 · Score: 0

Short answer: 10-1 odds says you can't, because your ISP will not offer you an IPv6 address.
Long answer:
Last I looked (which is over a year ago), the dhcp v6 specification was not even finished, and dhclient 3.1 (which is shipped with all distributions I know of) does not support it. A year ago I experimented with a client based on the DHCPv6 draft specification, Dibbler, but ISC has now released dhcp 4.0 (and 4.1) which can act as both dhcpv6 server and dhcpv6 client. However, it will not help you to switch to dhclient 4.x, because your ISP probably does not offer you an ipv6 address.
One of the advantages of IPv6 is that should not really need a DHCP client, because IPv6 has a lot better autoconfiguration than ipv4. If your (or your ISP's) router correctly advertises that it supports IPv6, current OSes (Vista, Linux, OS X) automatically set up an IPv6 address for you.
If you're really up for it, and you have a globally visible IPv4 address, you can also configure your PC to use IPv6-in-IPv4 routing, which gives you IPv6 connectivity using only your IPv4 address. Look up 6to4 routing, but don't expect any miracles. If implemented correctly, you should not (yet) notice any difference between using IPv4 and IPv6.
Re:Try it! by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-01-08 05:34 · Score: 3, Funny

Google over IPv6 is crisp and clean, with good intensity and a hint of citrus on the nose
Even more importantly, MP3s over IPv6 have an open, airy feel that is notoriously lacking over IPv4. It's even enough to compensate for the jitter they pick up when going over WiFi.
/stands back to watch audiophiles trample each other to get IPv6.
//plans to market IPv6 "enhancers" to audiophiles, both speeding adoption and lining my pockets with "stupidity tax".

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Try it! by jandrese · 2009-01-08 05:36 · Score: 1

Well, if your ISP supports IPv6 you won't even need to run something like dhclient, autoconfiguration is built right into the protocol. You'll just suddenly have an address when you connect. Downside: your ISP does not support IPv6.

The other option is to set up an IPv6 tunnel on top of IPv4, which is complicated (especially if your IP is dynamic, which it is) and means you get to send all of your data through some node somewhere before it goes out to the internet at large (adding hops). Basically it's a fair bit of work to get you access to the same internet you already have access to, only slower.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Try it! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:14 · Score: 0

You can try it on a "dark net" first of all, if you like.
http://anonet.org/ has started rolling out v6 now.
Re:Try it! by StikyPad · 2009-01-08 07:30 · Score: 3, Funny

If you think that's good, you should try using a network cable designed for IPv6. A proper cable will allow you to enjoy the full richness of IPv6 sites without the harshness that results from using inferior cables. I'm developing one such cable, which demonstrates proper directional signal alignment with minimal crosstalk, providing the full digital experience so that you can finally see websites the way their creators intended them to be viewed.
Originally designed to provide maximum quality for streaming media, these cables offer an uncompromising blend of digital audio, video, and data transfer capabilities in an IPv6 protocol. They are also fully backward-compatible with IPv4, so you can use them to view websites replete with the aliveness and snap that you expect, with none of the soggy, diffuse, syrupy qualities that are a plague among cheaper imitation cables. Imagine a pure white background with the full flavors of the multispectral Google logo, each delicate cherry, azure, and emerald letter almost coming alive before your eyes.
My cable utilizes the latest in hermetically sealed insulation to provide years of reliable service with minimal degradation of the pure, solid silver conductors. As a bonus, our cables have already been put through a specially tailored burn-in process, ensuring that you receive maximum signal integrity from day one. These cables are not yet available to the general public, but through a special offer, I'm allowing a limited number of people to sign up for the beta-testing process. Rest assured that these cables have already been tested to ensure 100% compliance with our exacting quality standards, but we're looking for real-world users to verify our astounding results. As part of this program, you will receive a special discount on the proposed retail price of these cables:
Solid-Core Conductor, Hermetically Sealed, with Specially Molded Connectors -- 1 Meter: $16,000
Solid-Core Conductor, Hermetically Sealed, with Specially Molded Connectors -- 2 Meters: $26,000
Solid-Core Conductor, Hermetically Sealed, with Specially Molded Connectors -- 10 Meters: $99,000
If you require longer runs, custom lengths may be ordered at the special price of $9,000 per meter, for lengths greater than 20M only. We highly recommend that you do not couple multiple cables together, as there is currently no way of compensating for any fuzziness or wishy-washiness which may be introduced by the coupler. In the future, we plan to offer 100% compatible couplers in the low 5 figure price range.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Try it! by StikyPad · 2009-01-08 07:35 · Score: 1

Seriously.. I'm going to get in on the audiophile market. I just need to find a manufacturer who can make awesome-looking cases for the guts of a Sony receiver. Disable half the features and inputs, and voila.. one Specialized Blu-Ray Audio Amplifier and Sound Distribution System.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Try it! by chromeshadow · 2009-01-08 08:20 · Score: 1

Good, but until you use the phrases 'mil-spec' or 'laboratory-grade', it all sounds a bit off-the-shelf :-)
Re:Try it! by redxxx · 2009-01-08 08:46 · Score: 0, Redundant

//plans to market IPv6 "enhancers" to audiophiles, both speeding adoption and lining my pockets with "stupidity tax".
Introducing Premium IP 6 Rated, Gold Clad, Monster Ethernet Cables: Get the most out of your digital audio experience. $99 3 foot cable. 6 foot cables only $150.
Re:Try it! by StikyPad · 2009-01-08 09:05 · Score: 1

Good point, but in all seriousness, there is no MIL-STD for ethernet cables, and Military Standards in general are obsolete as of the Perry Memo of 1994. They generally follow commercial and/or ISO9000 standards when possible:

...use performance and commercial specifications and standards in lieu of military specifications and standards, unless no practical alternative exists to meet the user's needs.
- Perry Memo
MIL-STDs generally stated exactly how to accomplish a task, such as a watertight connector which shall be 25mm in diameter, with two opposing studs on the receiving harness, 7 pins, rubber seal, blah blah. These days, they just specify what they want -- a watertight connection -- and let the contractor present his solution, except in relatively rare instances like Level I components (which are mostly just fasteners like bolts produced and tested with a high degree of confidence in materials and workmanship).
Anyway, yeah.. laboratory grade cables. That's what they are. CERN* has already placed an order** for 20,000 cables. Hurry before they're gone!
* CERN, or Create Entry Right Now, is the name of our test record in our inventory management database. No relation to the European Council for Nuclear Research is expressed or implied.
** Not actual orders.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Try it! by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:24 · Score: 1

$99 3 foot cable. 6 foot cables only $150.
Thats not expensive enough to be really good.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Try it! by value_added · 2009-01-08 10:44 · Score: 1

/stands back to watch audiophiles trample each other to get IPv6.
Not likely. MP3s over IP4 have a warmer sound.
Re:Try it! by Jay+L · 2009-01-08 13:16 · Score: 1

I completely disagree. Maybe it's the backlight on my LCD, but I noticed a certain warmth on IPv4 that's distinctly lacking from IPv6. True, the soundstage is more distinct, but the highs are brittle. That said, I've found that setting the "unused" bits to 1 instead of 0 - in the analog domain, of course - really helps bring out the vocals.
Re:Try it! by petermgreen · 2009-01-08 23:46 · Score: 1

but it's not clear to me how to get a valid ipv6 address assigned to me.
If you use an IPV6 ISP (either directly or via a tunnel, there are a number of free tunnel providers out there) your ISP gives you an address block. Stingy ones give you a /64 (only enough for one subnet if you want to use the stateless autoconfiguration system), better ones give you more.
If you use 6to4 then the addres of your block is formed from your V4 address ( 2002::::/48
IPv6 does have an autoconfiguration mechanism which selects the machines address from a combinaion of announcements of the networks address and the machines mac address. I've no idea what program linux distros use to handle this though.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

One quetsion by slugtastic · 2009-01-08 02:39 · Score: 4, Funny

What ever happened to IPv5?

Re:One quetsion by compro01 · 2009-01-08 03:26 · Score: 4, Informative

The Internet Stream Protocol (RFC 1819) used 5 in the protocol version field.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:One quetsion by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:49 · Score: 3, Funny

it was a development-only version. Some parts of it were backported into v4, but once it was stable enough to be released it was renamed to v6.

Great IPv6 song! by Euzechius · 2009-01-08 02:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Great IPv6 song! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

Great News by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 02:44 · Score: 0

This is great news for the staggering 5 US ISPs with IPv6 support.

Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by Danathar · 2009-01-08 02:47 · Score: 3, Informative

One BIG carrot for Universities and Labs that use google (gmail, docs, etc) is that this means that all that google traffic can be routed over their Internet2 connections which are MUCH faster and of lower latency than their commercial internet connections.

As an IPv6 user, I would LOVE to use google over IPv6.

I smell the hand of Vint Cerf at google...

Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by betterunixthanunix · 2009-01-08 02:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

"One BIG carrot for Universities and Labs that use google (gmail, docs, etc)"

Those universities should lose their access to the Internet if they are using Google apps. In the past year, I have seen several leaks of student information (SSN, financial, etc.) caused JUST by the use of Google docs. Maybe if their students are using Google, they will reap some benefit, but even that is a bad idea -- a recent leak at Columbia was caused by a student using Google docs for a research project involving Columbia undergraduates, and thousands of SSNs and financial records were exposed to the world.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by grommit · 2009-01-08 03:01 · Score: 1

Except that the traffic won't be going over the I2 unless Google decides that it wants to pay for connections between their data centers and the I2. Even then, I'm not sure the I2 group would allow it unless Google could bring something of value to the research effort other than faster searches, gmail and google docs.
I2 != IPv6
Sure, you can use IPv6 on the I2 but most people are still only using IPv4 on the I2. The I2 runs on completely different fiber than the regular internet. You aren't all of a sudden on I2 when you switch to IPv6.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by Danathar · 2009-01-08 03:14 · Score: 1

Check your data.....google is a member of I2.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by afidel · 2009-01-08 03:18 · Score: 1

Hmm, I wonder if that doesn't also get them some cheap redundancy, just update DNS if their I2 connection goes down and then the Google traffic goes out the commercial pipe.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by grommit · 2009-01-08 03:24 · Score: 1

Being a member and having connections to the I2 are two different things.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by evanbd · 2009-01-08 03:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why did the student have access to those records? The breach occurred when the student got the financial data. To be sure, it got worse when it spread beyond them, but I doubt there was a reason a student needed to have that data in non-anonymized form.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by Danathar · 2009-01-08 03:45 · Score: 3, Informative

My IPv6 connection is over I2 only, tracerouting to ipv6.google.com works.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by bruce_the_loon · 2009-01-08 03:56 · Score: 1

Google has direct peering to quite a number of IPv6-capable NREN's around the world.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by ionix5891 · 2009-01-08 05:02 · Score: 1

thats no hand your smelling...
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by pseudochaos · 2009-01-08 07:09 · Score: 0

How are documents stored on Google docs vulnerable, beyond being stored on other machines whose operators can at will look at them (locally)?

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions by SgtChaireBourne · 2009-01-08 08:59 · Score: 1

"One BIG carrot for Universities and Labs that use google (gmail, docs, etc)" Those universities should lose their access to the Internet if they are using Google apps. In the past year, I have seen several leaks of student information (SSN, financial, etc.) caused JUST by the use of Google docs. Maybe if their students are using Google, they will reap some benefit, but even that is a bad idea -- a recent leak at Columbia was caused by a student using Google docs for a research project involving Columbia undergraduates, and thousands of SSNs and financial records were exposed to the world.
And just why is it ok to ignore the other universities which willingly provide illegal access to third parties via the licenses (and illegally via holes) for the M$ components their administration uses?
Illegal access is not alway also unauthorized...

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

IPv6 on Slashdot? by MiniMike · 2009-01-08 02:51 · Score: 3, Funny

The question that now remains is: when will Slashdot follow?

I heard that Taco is skipping IPv6, and going straight to IPv7.

Re:IPv6 on Slashdot? by slugtastic · 2009-01-08 02:55 · Score: 1

The hardcore hackers are already on IPv16.
Re:IPv6 on Slashdot? by jo_ham · 2009-01-08 03:26 · Score: 1

IPv6?
No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame.

CES2009: no consumer routers by golfbum · 2009-01-08 02:52 · Score: 1

I hoped that Linksys, et.al., would intro consumer routers at CES2009 with IPv6/IPv4 dual stacks. So far...nada. When are they going to wake up? gb

Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by jamus · 2009-01-08 02:58 · Score: 1

Apple's Airport line supports IPv6 and 6to4 for those on IPv4.
Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by rxmd · 2009-01-08 03:12 · Score: 2, Informative

I hoped that Linksys, et.al., would intro consumer routers at CES2009 with IPv6/IPv4 dual stacks.
As I wrote elsewhere, you can get IPv6 on Linksys (et al.) routers at present as well, but you have to use custom firmware, meaning OpenWRT or DD-WRT.
Unfortunately this means that it can be quite difficult to configure. OpenWRT is not really suitable for non-technical users anyway, so for their userbase it won't be much of a problem. For DD-WRT, IPv6 was supported quite well in v23, but has been having problems for some years in v24 out of the box. If you want IPv6 in recent DD-WRT versions (v24 or higher), you need some manual configuration as well as a custom build, but then it's possible.
This arguably doesn't really qualify as a consumer solution, though.

--
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:21 · Score: 0

It seems dlink's DIR-615 supports IPv6.
Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by golfbum · 2009-01-08 03:34 · Score: 1

curious they don't mention ipv6 on their web page for that product... gb
Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by entrigant · 2009-01-08 08:37 · Score: 1

My linksys wrt610n provided 6to4 functionality out of the box. I didn't even know it was working perfectly for weeks until I connected to an ipv6 efnet irc server and say the ipv6 address in my host mask.
I didn't know what was going on. IPv6 was turned on by default in my OpenSUSE installation, but I had not configured a tunnel or anything. It even crossed my mind that maybe comcast was doing it. I didn't even know what 6to4 was.
Everything worked though, the dancing turtle, ipv6 irc, websites, etc. All I did was plug in the router and voila, fully working 6to4.
Was very cool :)
Re:CES2009: no consumer routers by Cato · 2009-01-09 04:48 · Score: 1

Personally I would avoid DD-WRT v24 completely as it has proved quite unreliable for me (couldn't get several laptops to work with WPA using this version). Either use v23 or preferably Tomato 1.19 (not sure if it does v6 but it has great QoS setup including nice bandwidth graphing by class of service).

The problem with IP6 is... by Viol8 · 2009-01-08 02:57 · Score: 3, Informative

.. that for quick and dirty use the numeric address are just too complicated. Sure it has benefits wrt security, routing and a load of other behind the scenes stuff. But for people who are used to using numeric ip4 addresses when DNS is slow or for testing purpose or setting up various IP tables or 101 miscellanious things , ip6 is a royal PITA.

Ok , thats hardly a reason for not using it but I suspect its perhaps one reason why people are relunctant to try it. Half a line of hex is not user friendly.

Re:The problem with IP6 is... by AlXtreme · 2009-01-08 03:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ok , thats hardly a reason for not using it but I suspect its perhaps one reason why people are relunctant to try it. Half a line of hex is not user friendly.
When was the last time you used an IP address instead of a domain name? The only thing I could think of was setting up my DSL modem a year ago, but I'm not a network admin.
The reason why nearly nobody is using IPv6 is because it doesn't offer any direct benefit to those who need to deploy it.

--
This sig is intentionally left blank
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by fbjon · 2009-01-08 04:37 · Score: 1

for people who are used to using numeric ip4 addresses when DNS is slow or for testing purpose or setting up various IP tables or 101 miscellanious thing
Just as a guess, you won't really care in the end when you get v6-ified. And what kind of DNS service are you using if you resort to typing addresses? You might want to make some improvements.
On a similar note, why is there so much FUD surrouding IPv6 here on slashdot? It's as if it was invented by Microsoft, by the sound of it sometimes.

--
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Viol8 · 2009-01-08 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative

"When was the last time you used an IP address instead of a domain name"
About 30 minutes ago ftp'ing to one of the many boxes here than arn't assigned a DNA name on the local network.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Viol8 · 2009-01-08 05:19 · Score: 1

"And what kind of DNS service are you using if you resort to typing addresses? You might want to make some improvements."
Here in many firms I've worked in they don't bother assigning even auto generated DNS names to internal desktop workstations. They get an IP number from DHCP and thats it. If you have to access the box from elsewhere in the building its via the numeric address only.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Wildclaw · 2009-01-08 05:35 · Score: 1

On a similar note, why is there so much FUD surrouding IPv6 here on slashdot? It's as if it was invented by Microsoft, by the sound of it sometimes.
Slashdot is filled with BoFH wannabees. And NAT is one of the tools that the BoFH invented to have maximum control while insuring that noone would get an easy working internet experience. As one of the main advantages for IPv6 is to remove the need for NAT it is not strange that you get many protestors.
Atleast that is my theory, and I am sticking with it.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-01-08 05:40 · Score: 1

About 30 minutes ago ftp'ing to one of the many boxes here than arn't assigned a DNS name on the local network.
Honestly, if your admins are too damn lazy to set up local DNS, then that's their (and your) problem. You can't generalize that incompetency into a reason for the rest of the Internet to suffer.
It's nothing personal, but I keep hearing that same dumb excuse every time the subject comes up. Average people don't ever type addresses. New network admins type addresses quite often because global DNS doesn't cover them. Experienced admins almost never type addresses because their internal zone is accurate. Yell at your guys for not doing their job, but don't use that as an excuse to keep the status quo.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by INTERNET+EXPERT · 2009-01-08 06:04 · Score: 1

In some situations it's easier to use addresses instead of DNS. I'd rather use 10.1.2.3 instead of client-2-3.city.state.example.com.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by TheRaven64 · 2009-01-08 06:27 · Score: 1

For a small local network you don't need to bother with DNS, just put the addresses in your hosts file. The shortest IPv4 address is 7 characters, and the shortest in a non-routable subnet (10/8) is 8 characters. You can make up a lot of memorable hostnames that are shorter than 8 characters.
For public addresses, if they are too long for you to want to type then you need to learn about search domains - the machines of mine that I most commonly connect to are all in domains that I've got in my search domains list so I don't need to specify a fully-qualified domain name. In your example, I would just enter client-2-3. This is 10 characters, so 2 longer than the shortest possible 10/8 IP but shorter than most public IPs, which are 11 characters.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:57 · Score: 0

I connect to my home machine from work by IP because the web proxy blocks *.homelinux.org but allows direct IP requests. I just ping the DNS to resolve it and connect to that IP in the browser.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by denmarkw00t · 2009-01-08 07:03 · Score: 1

True that - some people never touch IP addresses, some of us use them daily, and some - like me - use them a few times a week. The last time I used an IP address instead of a domain name was two days ago to log in to my router and add a laptop to the mac filtering table. Before that? SSH'ing to a work machine that we purposely have not given a domain name. Sure, I could edit /etc/hosts to give names to these places, but at the same time I do not have trouble with a couple of IP addresses every now and then.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

5 minutes ago.
'ping 4.2.2.1'
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by lucifuge31337 · 2009-01-08 08:03 · Score: 1

When was the last time you used an IP address instead of a domain name? The only thing I could think of was setting up my DSL modem a year ago, but I'm not a network admin.
Obviously not. Because that's something I do many, many times each day. Not to say that a small minority should hold this back, but we also happen to be the people who would have to implement it to begin with.

--
Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by slimjim8094 · 2009-01-08 08:20 · Score: 1

By that you mean client-2-3 as your default lookup zone is city.state.example.com.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 09:57 · Score: 1

slimjim8094
By that you mean client-2-3 as your default lookup zone is city.state.example.com.
If your site is *not* configured in this manner, your sysadmin needs to be fired.
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 09:58 · Score: 1

XD
*imaginary up-mod!*
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 09:59 · Score: 1

If you have to access the box from elsewhere in the building its via the numeric address only.
That's a pity. They might want to fix that sometime in the future. ;)
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:02 · Score: 1

it doesn't offer any direct benefit to those who need to deploy it.
Oh but surely those who need to deploy it will see the benefits! ;)
(Yes, I know what you meant.)
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:05 · Score: 1

So, the increased length of v6 addresses doesn't matter to you? Or if it did, you'd start adding entries to your hosts file?
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:06 · Score: 1

Why not grab a .dyndns.org domain?
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:28 · Score: 1

When was the last time you used an IP address instead of a domain name?
Half an hour ago. IT where I work have stuffed up name resolution for internal web pages so it only works for windows clents. It just means I have to use the IP address to get the main internal web page from linux.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:31 · Score: 1

Yell at your guys for not doing their job
I do, all the bloody time but it never changes anything.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-01-08 11:40 · Score: 1

When was the last time you used an IP address instead of a domain name?
This morning when I was testing one of my printers that is directly connected to the lan.

--
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by j+h+woodyatt · 2009-01-08 12:59 · Score: 1

Would someone please explain to me how this comment got moderated "Score: 5. Informative" ?

--
jhw
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by j+h+woodyatt · 2009-01-08 13:01 · Score: 1

...because multicast DNS zero-configuration networking is just TooHard for some people to use.

--
jhw
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 18:18 · Score: 0

I'd lpve to see any firewall configured with DNS names rather than IPs in the CLI... see how long that works for you...
Re:The problem with IP6 is... by AVee · 2009-01-09 00:13 · Score: 1

Who needs DNS when your IP can be 2001:1234::DEAD:BEEF?

Hygiene? by haapi · 2009-01-08 02:58 · Score: 1

Are you implying Vint has a hygiene problem?

--
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.

Re:Hygiene? by Hordeking · 2009-01-08 06:14 · Score: 1

Are you implying Vint has a hygiene problem?
Maybe his secretary has the hygiene problem, from the sound of it. Or both of them.

--
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci

Routers? by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-01-08 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sweet, so I have Google doing IPv6, my OS doing IPv6, yet there are still a finger full of gateway/routers, targeted at the home market, providing IPv6 support. The only router claiming IPv6 support in their specifications is the Apple Airport. Linksys and D-Link apparently have plans, yet nothing in the user documentation. For me, if the manufacturer doesn't document IPv6 in its user document or specification on its web site, then it is as good as not supporting IPv6 - after all I doubt their support team would be any more clued in.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for IPv6, its just that I am fed up having to deal with tunnels because certain parties are dragging their feet.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

Re:Routers? by samkass · 2009-01-08 03:27 · Score: 1

So... buy the Apple product, and be sure to let them know that IPv6 support is why you did it. Vote with dollars. The Apple wireless hardware is actually some of the best ones out there anyway feature-wise, they're just a little hard to configure without the special client admin software.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Routers? by Eil · 2009-01-08 05:03 · Score: 1

Linksys and D-Link apparently have plans, yet nothing in the user documentation.
OpenWRT and DD-WRT are third-party firmware for a rather large variety of consumer-level routers and both of them support IPv6.
Re:Routers? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 08:16 · Score: 0

Do you even need a router if you use IPv6? Assuming you have a modem from your ISP, i.e. cable or DSL, you'd just need a switch.
What you do need however, is a firewall.
Re:Routers? by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:46 · Score: 1

You *really* shouldn't need a firewall, either. Correctly written programs should not accept connections from unwanted hosts. We *really* need to try harder when writing networked apps.
Re:Routers? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 11:05 · Score: 0

Also, the phrase "supports IPv6" is somewhat of a moving target. There is still way too many caveats.
Just a couple of examples:
1) I've run into problems getting firewalls to run active-active under IPv6 when the code works just fine with ipv4.
2) I've also had problems with libpcap tools as a ":" under IPv4 precedes a port specification, now its also is used in the address space. Plays hell when you try and leverage the spec saying you can leave out leading zeros in an address.
3) The RFC says extension headers should be processed in order but does not give a priority for the different headers. Found some interesting security issued when you start playing with the header order.
Problem is its a catch-22. People don't want to deploy IPv6 because vendor support is tricky at best, but vendors don't want to put the $$$ into R&D till they see it will affect product sales.
Re:Routers? by WarJolt · 2009-01-08 13:13 · Score: 1

The problem isn't hardware. It is software. I use DD-WRT on my linksys router and if I want IPv6 support I need to recompile with some fixes. It quite frankly would take too much time and I already get IPv6 connectivity through my sixxs tunnel.
The only benefit to having my router support IPv6 is that 6to4 tunneling is faster.

This is true by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:15 · Score: 0

It's a perfectly valid reason. Larger addresses will NOT solve problems.

IPv6 supporters are the type of people who think the solution to the recession is to print more money.

Re:This is true by Surt · 2009-01-08 06:58 · Score: 1

Printing more money would help quite a bit. It would deflate the inequity between the rich and poor at the heart of the problem, so it would very quickly improve the situation.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Google HD! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:32 · Score: 0

Yay! Finally end users can enjoy Google as it was meant to be! I mean, standard IPv4 is fine and all, but it has been around ever since we switched to broadcasts in color, over 40 years ago. Such ancient technolology has no place in the 21st century, except in a museum. So now, with the help of our supportive ISPs, you can finally have the Sensational Internet Experience (tm) you so desperately need! ...

Now if only there would be a single consumer ISP in my country that would serve HD Internet addresses... right now, the only one that even acknowledges its existence is xs4all, and they offer only a 6to4 tunnel.

Not fer sarious... looking for mods! by DarkHorseman · 2009-01-08 03:32 · Score: 1

Does Comcast have IPv6 Support yet?

IPv4 vs IPv6 by DarkHorseman · 2009-01-08 03:34 · Score: 1

You know, is IPv6 really necessary for the home user. What I mean is couldn't you just have a router that has a WAN port on IPv6, and then keep the same old IPv4 network at home? It's much easier to ping 127.1, than to ping some odd hex thing with : : : : all over the place...

Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by R0UTE · 2009-01-08 03:45 · Score: 1

Of course, because pinging ::1 is loads more difficult than pinging 127.1 .....
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by INTERNET+EXPERT · 2009-01-08 03:46 · Score: 1

IPv6 is compatible with IPv4. Your 192.168.1.1 would be ::FFFF:192.168.1.1.
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-01-08 04:26 · Score: 1

I am not sure there is much benefit in pinging the localhost ;)
Joking aside, the colon form is probably a pain the butt, but it is one of the side-effects of more available addresses. You should learn to deal with it. At the same time, I would like to see stuff like 'Bonjour' become more common, so that local networks don't even need to use numbers. For example if your router supports Bonjour, then you would simply need to point your browser to router.local, or something of the sort.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by j_sp_r · 2009-01-08 04:41 · Score: 1

Your router can also run it's own DNS (as most do) and you can just type in it's name. I have to type http://speedtouch.lan/
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by TheThiefMaster · 2009-01-08 05:11 · Score: 1

If the ISP has a web proxy, it could quite easily take connections from the users with IPv4 and connect to the destination server with v4 or v6 as appropriate.
But there is no generic way to connect to an IPv6 address from an IPv4 network, so you couldn't have an IPv4 network at home and play IPv6-only games for example.
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by JesseMcDonald · 2009-01-08 05:28 · Score: 1

How exactly do you expect the IPv4-only hosts behind the router to indicate which IPv6 addresses their packets are to be sent to? It's relatively easy to go the other way around, since all IPv4 addresses map to IPv6 addresses -- /48 subnets, actually -- but having an IPv4-only local network would limit you to accessing the IPv6 web via a proxy server.
Anyway, you can already access both IPv4 and IPv6 local hosts by mDNS names (hostname.local) rather than IPs provided they're running Avahai (on Linux) or Bonjour (on Mac OS X or Windows). The former two are standard, and Bonjour for Windows is available as a free download. You're not expected to memorize IPv6 addresses, or type them in by hand.
P.S. The IPv6 localhost address is just ::1, which is actually somewhat easier to remember and type than 127.0.0.1.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 05:42 · Score: 0

Joking aside, the colon form is probably a pain the butt
... I'm not sure if I *can* put joking aside...
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:13 · Score: 0

"127.1" 5 chars
"::1" 3 chars
The defense rests.
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 08:03 · Score: 0

Pinging ::1 seems pretty easy to me.
Of course, you might have to remind yourself to type ping6 instead of ping for now.
Re:IPv4 vs IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 23:45 · Score: 0

That's 127.0.0.1, not 127.1
And in IPv6 it's just ::1
Much easier.

Do not want by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 03:40 · Score: 0

ipv6 is a sham

What's in it for me? Nothing! by wvmarle · 2009-01-08 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

see subject: spoken as a consumer/end-user/Joe Sixpack.

Looking at my Internet connection: it works fine.

Looking at my small office network: it works fine.

Does ipv6 bring any improvement in this? Not that I am aware of!

From a consumer pov there is no reason for the change. It's purely technical. And even technical there are obviously very few reasons (at least at the moment) to move to ipv6. It ain't broke, so why fix it? Why should I really care anyway? NAT works fine, and anyway I really don't want my networked printer to be reachable from the outside world, unless I very very specifically say so.

Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by fbjon · 2009-01-08 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sixpacks don't really get a say in IPv6, any more than Sixpacks have say on anything else about the inner workings of the Internet.

--
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-01-08 05:46 · Score: 1

Looking at my Internet connection: it works fine.
No, it doesn't. It's probably broken by NAT, so a lot of cool peer-to-peer stuff is impossible without going through a broken (which makes it no longer peer-to-peer). What this means to you, Joe Sixpack, is that you can't use fun things like BitTorrent without either manually configuring your router or enabling a security-killing protocol like UPnP.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-01-08 07:17 · Score: 1

Looking at my IP telephony -- it "works", but pretty much only Skype, because no one else does the tunneling hack required.
Looking at any other peer to peer connection: It works, but it's much more difficult than it needs to be. Want to transfer files from home to work, over the Internet? You need a VPN, or you need to upload them to a third party (dropbox, etc) and download them at work, or you need to forward ports...
Oh, and there's the built-in ipsec -- opportunistic encryption.
From a consumer pov, there's actually a lot to like about everyone having their own IP. But it's a chicken and egg problem -- ISPs have reasons (not good ones) not to like it, so consumers don't have it. So there's not many applications for it, so consumers don't see why they should care.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:50 · Score: 0

okay - let's try one step inside: the ISP perspective:
Looking at client IP address allocation: it works fine
Does ipv6 bring any improvement in this? Not that I am aware of!
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by marmoute · 2009-01-08 08:08 · Score: 1

spoken as a consumer/end-user/Joe Sixpack. Looking at hosting a game online : it's broken unless specific router configuration preventing my flat-mate to do the same. Looking at video chatting : it's broken unless specific router configuration working only for me. Looking at sharing holiday movie with children and my pR0n with my friend : it's broken unless specific router configuration working only for me. Looking at using peer to peer to download the previously-cited pR0n : Not seeding, poor performance unless specific router configuration. Technically speaking, ipV6 allow static DNS for roaming machine, QoS (to handle Sixpack pR0n dl and VOIP at the same time), Useful broadcasting. (I'm aware some point have been already cited but I decide to sum them up in this post)
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:13 · Score: 1

*nods* Marmoute makes a good point. If Joe Sixpack is of a participatory bent and does more than just email, he's gonna have to jump through hoops (even if it is "just" enabling uPnP) to do what he wants.
With IPv6, you *could* have routing devices that provide an OOB firewall setup that's identical to the one that NAT "provides". You would have the option of "DMZing" more than one PC, though. As more Joe Sixpacks start participating in the Internet, the demand for such a feature will grow.
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-01-08 11:42 · Score: 1

What about two-fours?

--
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by wvmarle · 2009-01-08 14:32 · Score: 1

You (with most of the crowd, me included) are a techie that wants to connect multiple computers to the Internet over a single connection.
I don't have statistics, but I do suspect that most households even in the USA have only one computer. No need for NAT at home. Or, see my other post, like my ISP where I happily get multiple IP addresses at home.
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by wvmarle · 2009-01-08 14:33 · Score: 1

True, this is a major disadvantage of NAT. At home I don't use it (my ISP uses PPPoE, so I can connect two computers to their router and get two different IP addresses that are not only dynamic, but actually changing roughly by the day), no need for that.
In office I do use NAT, and have portforwarding configured so my server is DMZ, and my server port-forwards incoming bittorrent and bittorrent only to a single client. The rest of the office is not supposed to be reachable from the Internet in the first place. The server should be, and is reachable. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Re:What's in it for me? Nothing! by idfubar · 2009-01-17 20:37 · Score: 0

Every six-pack has a say... just, not from his couch... the standards are all created by working groups with RFC's released to the public and with the public's best interest in mind, no?

--

Rishi Chopra
www.rishichopra.org

No, the real question is by VincenzoRomano · 2009-01-08 03:47 · Score: 1

When my USD 50 router will be upgradeable to IPv6?

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

And, moreover, IPv6 Google by VincenzoRomano · 2009-01-08 03:52 · Score: 1

Looks prettier than IPv4 counterpart!

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

Other stuff available over IPv6 by larz · 2009-01-08 03:54 · Score: 1

There's a fair number of sites available via IPv6 besides Google.

Word is that OpenID Provider 87ideven gets a good percentage of traffic via IPv6.

Just because Americans are using it doesn't mean it's not being used.

Re:Other stuff available over IPv6 by aos101 · 2009-01-08 06:36 · Score: 1

http://sixy.ch/ also has quite a few IPv6 enabled websites.

It works rather well! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 04:31 · Score: 0

I've already set this up when my ISP started offering this service a few weeks ago. Nobody in the house noticed a thing.

I suggest everyone to try this if their ISP is participating.

Re: "Research Toy" by jc42 · 2009-01-08 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Until Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, NTT, Telekom, or any other major ISPs start showing up on that list all of this IPv6 stuff is going to remain a research toy.

The phrase "research toy" strikes me as an excellent opportunity for the canonical auto analogy:

Imagine that all the commercial transport vendors had "standardized" on the Ford Model T (a very good car in its day). Your chain of stores needs to deliver tons of material from suppliers to warehouses to retail outlets? Organize a fleet of millions of Model Ts, each one carrying maybe 1/4 ton of material. Worldide shipping would be done by having the Model Ts board small ferries that would carry them across the oceans. You have 1 100-tone product? You simply break it down into 1/4-tone pieces, send them via Model T fleet, and assemble them at the customer's site. Maybe there would be some special 1- or 2-ton "extended" Model Ts, for use on the few highways that could support them.

Meanwhile, in academia, they would be using "research toys" like trucks, trains, airliners and huge ships to transport 100-ton objects (or packets of smaller objects) between campuses and research stations. The commercial world would look at this, and dismiss it as untried and unreliable. They wouldn't be willing to make the admittedly huge investment on giant vehicles and infrastructure (rail lines, superhighways, airports, and container seaport facilities) that it would take to change over. Customers wouldn't be demanding it, because they wouldn't understand the technology or economics, and this would be further grounds for the corporate world to "do what the customers want".

The nerdy tech types would be off at the side, discussing amongst themselves what the world might be like if these research toys could be somehow introduced to the public. But commerce would remail slow and crippled relative to our world. The commercial system would refuse to take such wild proposals seriously, because the current system works just fine for them. After all, the Model T is so much better and faster than the horse- and ox-drawn vehicles used by previous generations.

I'm sure that others here can extend the analogy. Maybe we could work out the details and turn it into a fun "alternate history" novel or video game.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Stupid question by maino82 · 2009-01-08 04:49 · Score: 1

I apologize if this is a ridiculously simplistic question, but how do you have a LAN with IPv6? If I want to connect to my file server from my laptop now, I just use a local 192.x.x.x address now and it goes straight to my server. Is there something like that for IPv6 so that I don't have to go all the way out to the internet to get back to my file server? I'm assuming there is but I'm a novice when it comes to some of this networking stuff.

A Google search for "LAN over IPv6" turned up the following, but it's mostly a lot of technical jargon that I don't really understand:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2464.txt
http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/ipv6_basics/x84.html

Re:Stupid question by mikael_j · 2009-01-08 05:32 · Score: 1

Well, I have my own /64 so I just use the public IP addresses of my machines but you could also use the "link local" addresses of your machines (fe80::/10) or "Unique local addresses" (fc00::/7). The best way would probably be to use public addresses though...
/Mikael

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:Stupid question by TheRaven64 · 2009-01-08 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative

What do you mean by a 'LAN'? If you mean a subnet connected to the Internet, then you just plug in a router, configure the subnet, and let every other machine use autoconfiguration. If you mean a network that is not connected to the Internet then you do almost the same thing, but use the fc00::/7 subnet which, like 192.168/16 is not routable over the public Internet. Oh, and if you're using 192/8 for a NAT'd network then you might have some problems since most of that subnet is publicly routable, only the 192.168/16 subnet is private.
If this is too full of 'technical jargon' for you, here are some definition:
A subnet is a part of a larger network (borrowing some conventions from set theory, the whole network is also sometimes called a subnet, just to be confusing). IP addresses are a string of bits, 32 with v4 and 128 with v6. For routing purposes, each subnet is identified by a subnet mask. The first n bits of an IP address identify the subnet and the last 32-n or 128-n identify the machine on that subnet. When you see something like 10/8, this means the subnet that starts 10.x.y.z, where the first 8 bits identify the subnet. Sometimes the subnet doesn't fit on a byte boundary. The medium-sized private address range is 172.16.0.0/12. In hex, this is AC100000 - the AC1 is the subnet, and all of the zeros ignored until the packet is on the subnet.
Subnets can be hierarchical. For example the 10/8 subnet might be used by a big site with the 10.1/16 subnet used by one building, 10.2/16 by another, and so on. The first building might use 10.1.1/24 for one floor, 10.1.2/24 for the next floor, and so on. When you send a packet from the second building to 10.1.1.12 it will be routed to the 10.1/16 subnet, then to the 10.1.1/24 subnet, and then delivered within this subnet by ethernet (the router will use ARP to look up the MAC address that corresponds to that IP address and the ethernet switches will handle delivery on the last segment).
Bak to your question, you can use a publicly-routable address on a LAN, using v4 or v6. This doesn't mean that data will go over the Internet. If both machines are on the same subnet then packets will never make it to the router, they will be delivered by the local ethernet (or whatever) directly. IP routing is only needed when packets go outside the local subnet.
In summary, yes it's a ridiculously simple question, it's only the answer which is complicated...

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Stupid question by MyHair · 2009-01-08 07:13 · Score: 1

Short answer: No problem. You will have many addresses to use in your LAN, and your packets will not enter the internet to go to a local file server.
Slightly longer explanation: IPv6 routing is quite similar to IPv4 routing. I think you might be misunderstanding what is keeping your current local traffic from bouncing over the WAN link.
Re:Stupid question by SanityInAnarchy · 2009-01-08 07:54 · Score: 2

Is there something like that for IPv6 so that I don't have to go all the way out to the internet to get back to my file server?
That actually is a really stupid question, for someone who knows how Internet routing works.
Very simply, your computer is always configured to know which addresses are "link-local", which ones must go through a gateway, and what the gateway (router) is. So, for your local address, you've probably got 192.168.1.* as "link-local", 192.168.1.1 is your gateway, and everything else is "on the Internet".
But that's arbitrary. I like to use the 10.0.0.0/8 network, which is also defined as "local", for that purpose. And all of that assumes NAT -- while at college, all computers had their own, real, Internet-routable IP addresses. But of course, if you had two of them hooked up to the same switch, they would be assigned IPs on the same network, meaning they would connect directly to each other, rather than going "out to the Internet".
So, you'd build a LAN the same way. If you need to protect it from Internet access, you stick a firewall in front of it, not a NAT. And even if it's a real live Internet address, your computer will know it's local...
But all of that -- what is LAN, and what is WAN, and what is Internet -- that's pretty arbitrary. It's really more about physical lines than any network addressing. Perhaps the truest thing we could say about it is your local switch (or hub, or router) is part of the Internet, so yes, it has to go a few feet "out to the Internet", even if the signal never leaves your house.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Stupid question by iburrell · 2009-01-08 09:04 · Score: 1

You can have a LAN with public addresses. The only difference is that instead of having a NAT box that translates between your local private addresses to public addresses, you just have a router that routes. NAT is required with IPv4 because most ISPs only hand out single public IP addresses. To have a local network, you need to use NAT. With IPv6, the standard assignment is a /64 subnet. That means you can have effectively unlimited public addresses on the local network.
Re:Stupid question by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2009-01-08 13:40 · Score: 1
Some other people have given you decent answers, but I'll add another simple answer.

I apologize if this is a ridiculously simplistic question, but how do you have a LAN with IPv6? If I want to connect to my file server from my laptop now, I just use a local 192.x.x.x address now and it goes straight to my server. Is there something like that for IPv6 so that I don't have to go all the way out to the internet to get back to my file server?
I think this can be broken into three subquestions:
1. How do I assign IP addresses to computers in my LAN?
2. How I keep traffic between computers in my LAN inside the LAN?
3. How do I prevent unauthorized computers outside my LAN from connecting to computers into my LAN?
For the first question, there are two possible answers: (a) if your LAN is connected to the IPv6 internet, your ISP assigns your router an IPv6 address range, and your LAN clients autoconfigure themselves on startup with an IPv6 address in that range; (b) if your LAN is not so connected, then you need to pick one of the private address ranges that another poster mentioned, and have your LAN clients use that.
The second question boils down to how routers work. A router connects two separate networks. Your LAN will have a router at the border between the LAN and the WAN. The router and the devices in your LAN, once they have their IPv6 autoconfiguration done, will figure out automatically which traffic is destined to the computers inside the LAN and which is for computers outside the LAN, so that LAN-to-LAN traffic will flow only over your internal network.
The answer to the third question is to use a firewall. The one thing that might be confusing you here is the notion of "public" addresses. IPv6 is designed to allow every single machine connected to the Internet to have a unique, "public" address. Thus, in the case where you have a LAN connected to the IPv6 Internet through your router, your router automatically gets an IPv6 address range from your ISP, and your LAN clients automatically get IPv6 addresses from your router. "Public" in this context just means that each computer in your LAN is guaranteed to have an IPv6 address that no other computer in the Internet has.
That doesn't mean that any computer in the Internet can initiate a connection to any of your LAN clients that have a "public" address; your firewall is responsible for deciding which traffic is allowed in and out of your LAN. The way a stateful firewall will handle it is to allow packets from outside into your LAN when they are responses to connections that your LAN clients initiated. Thus, in a typical configuration, a computer outside your LAN will only be allowed to send packets to a computer inside it when those packets are a response to a connection that your clients initiated.
--
Are you adequate?

Public DNS Servers? by cybaz · 2009-01-08 05:00 · Score: 0

Are there any public DNS servers that are using this? I have to use a tunnel to get to the IPv6 Internet, so I'm pretty sure my ISP is not interested.

Re: "Research Toy" by Nevyn · 2009-01-08 05:12 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, in academia, they would be using "research toys" like trucks, trains, airliners and huge ships to transport 100-ton objects (or packets of smaller objects) between campuses and research stations.

Terrible analogy, those trucks are interoperable if companyA moves to using trucks/trains/etc. then they can use those to ship to companyB. If any company moved to be ipv6 only they'd have the same effect as if they powered down their data center.

I currently pay ~$100 for a /29, and given I'm not a business I'd at least consider moving to ipv6 for economical reasons ... except the last time I asked my ISP they said they don't offer it as it'd be more expensive. And I'm also pretty sure it wouldn't "just work" even on outgoing connections, like playing on my PS3.

IPv6 will happen when they make the pain of moving less than the pain of not moving. One obvious way is to make it fully backwards compatible for 5 years, or so, and have it be at least a little cheaper/better than using IPv4 only. The next most obvious way (and my guess for what will happen) is that IPv4 will hit a wall that will be massively painful, at which point the POS that is current IPv6 will be the lesser of two evils.

--
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B

Teh futur! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 05:15 · Score: 0

This was supposed to be a seamless upgrade that should've happened years ago. Instead it's world news when one big search engine finally gets around to taking the technology seriously. Coincidence?

I think it's safe to say we botched this one, folks. Yes, all of us. It's a fail, Jim, we just don't know it.

DNS , not DNA. by Viol8 · 2009-01-08 05:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Though DNA addresses could be the future!

Re:DNS , not DNA. by ion.simon.c · 2009-01-08 10:03 · Score: 1

Though DNA addresses could be the future!
IDK... If you think that IPv6 addresses are long...
Re:DNS , not DNA. by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-08 10:29 · Score: 1

Though DNA addresses could be the future!
But they are not unique!

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

NOW ! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 05:34 · Score: 0

http://www.dd-wrt.com/

Thanks to Linux and Busybox !

Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by grahammm · 2009-01-08 05:35 · Score: 1

Why only respond to an AAAA DNS request if it comes from a DNS resolver whose IPv4 address is on a whitelist? Surely it would make sense to allow any connection capable to IPv6 to make use of it. I am lucky in that my ISP is on the list of those providing IPv6, but I use my own DNS resolver which will not be on the Google whitelist.

Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by praseodym · 2009-01-08 06:44 · Score: 3, Informative

From Google:

To qualify for Google over IPv6, your network must have good IPv6 connectivity to Google. Multiple direct interconnections are preferred, but a direct peering with multiple backup routes through transit or multiple reliable transit connections may be acceptable. Your network must provide and support production-quality IPv6 networking and provide access to a substantial number of IPv6 users. Additionally, because IPv6 problems with users' connections can cause users to become unable to access Google if Google over IPv6 is enabled, we expect you to troubleshoot any IPv6 connection problems that arise in your or your users' networks.
Simply said, some networks may have borked IPv6 which would mean that users will be unable to access Google. I can understand that they're doing this before rolling it out to everyone. Maybe there could be something like OpenDNS for IPv6 so that more advanced users have a choice?
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by MyHair · 2009-01-08 07:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Why only respond to an AAAA DNS request if it comes from a DNS resolver whose IPv4 address is on a whitelist? Surely it would make sense to allow any connection capable to IPv6 to make use of it.
Some clients may erroneously think they have working IPv6, get an AAAA address and timeout trying to use it before falling back to IPv4. This really annoys users. It wouldn't be Google's fault that this happens, but their sites would be perceived as very slow and they'd lose users.

I am lucky in that my ISP is on the list of those providing IPv6, but I use my own DNS resolver which will not be on the Google whitelist.
It is not clear to me exactly what they're doing. They might be whitelisting networks and not individual resolvers. If so then your home resolver may work when your ISP signs up with them.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-01-08 08:16 · Score: 1

They've rather borked this rollout though. They state that you need to register the *resolver*. Which means the end user must register. However then they state that you must have multiple users/multiple connections, which excludes end users.
eg. I have a solid routed ipv6. There's no point in my ISP registering because they only run the DNS, which I don't use anyway. There's no point in me registering because I don't fulfill the criteria.. hence no ipv6 google for me.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by praseodym · 2009-01-08 08:22 · Score: 1

No; your DNS server resolves the domain names at Google, so technically they're correct (although it may be a bit confusing). The idea is that ISPs with proper IPv6 can register their DNS servers so that Google will give out AAAA records to those DNS servers. Google can't help a single user since there's no way for them to influence the DNS query.
I still think that it'd be great if maybe OpenDNS or a similar service would provide an option to get AAAA records for Google.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by Chang · 2009-01-08 08:31 · Score: 1

Based on the description, it sounds like they are simply presenting a different DNS view for resolvers hitting their DNS servers from a whitelisted netblock. The view probably has AAAA records listed alongside A records rather than only A records for everybody who isn't on the whitelist.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-01-08 08:42 · Score: 1

Resolvers sit on the end user machine. Resolvers talk to Servers... that's how DNS works.
Having talked it over with the ISP and some others none of us can work out what the hell google are asking here, so have emailed for clarification. The opinion of the ISP is the way it's written end users need to register (and since most of us run our own DNS anyway we'd have to).
Why the heck they just didn't advertise AAAA records in the first place is beyond me. So the 1% of users with borked networks don't get upset? Let them fix their damned networks..
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by iburrell · 2009-01-08 09:00 · Score: 1

It is because there are bugs in OSes and applications that will use the IPv6 address even when there isn't a good IPv6 connection. One cause is OSes automatically giving interfaces link-local addresses without wider IPv6 connectivity. This either leads to no connectivity when using the IPv6 or a long delay until it falls back to IPv4 address.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by praseodym · 2009-01-08 09:02 · Score: 1

Well, I think Google would rather not lose that 1% market share because users that can't figure out how to fix their network. Try explaining your grandmother that because of her IPv6 connectivity Google isn't working while she can go to CNN's site perfectly.
Re:Why not respond to all AAAA DNS requests? by Fastolfe · 2009-01-08 12:07 · Score: 1

When Google says "resolver", they're taking about your ISP's recursively-resolving DNS server. In other words, ISP customers normally have their local DNS resolver configured to point to the ISP's DNS servers. These servers then go through the act of recursively resolving your name. It is these resolvers (DNS servers) that need to be whitelisted in order to deliver you (the ISP's customer) AAAA records for names. If you run your own DNS server, and choose to resolve names yourself instead of via your ISP, then this won't work for you.

EXACTLY, use DNS by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 05:49 · Score: 0

I can access my router by typing in http://router or just router in the address field. My DSL modem is locked down so I got to type in the Ip address manually.

Re:Wait for it.... We do have problems. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:02 · Score: 0

Totally Agreed.

Issue though is not the introduction of IPv6 but how will we ever get rid of all this worldwide bunch of double/triple/reverse/NAT/traversal, in order to use IPv6 with plain addressing (security aside).

50 years to launch? 150 before the last ipv4 address goes offline? Just my guess. Until then: NAT hell forever for everybody.

D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by dananderson · 2009-01-08 06:48 · Score: 1

> The only router claiming IPv6 support in their specifications is the Apple Airport. Linksys and D-Link apparently have plans, yet nothing in the user documentation.

D-Link and Cisco support IPv6. The D-Link-supported routers (a firmware update may be needed) are: DI-784 abg, DI-524 bg, DI-624 bg, WBR-1310 g, WBR-2310 g rangebooster, DIR-615 n. See p. 16 of Ref: http://www.ipv6.org.tw/summit2008/doc/1-4-4.pdf

On p. 15, they say: "Not only [does D-Link] meet IPv6 Ready logo requirements, but also upper layer IPv6 connection mechanisms: Static IP, DHCPv6 (Stateful), DHCPv6 (Stateless), PPPoE, IPv6/IPv4 Tunneling, 6to4 Tunneling, Autoconfiguration, Link-Local connection."

Personally, I use a free IPv6 tunnel service from http://www.tunnelbroker.net/ provided by Hurricane Electric.

I don't use Cisco at home, but IPv6 information is at http://www.cisco.com/ipv6/

Re:D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-01-08 07:56 · Score: 1

D-Link and Cisco support IPv6.
Certainly, but I see nothing on D-Link's site. If it is not documented on their site, then it is not supported, ie I wouldn't be able to complain that the feature is broken, since their support team would claim their hardware doesn't support it. Remember the difference between capable and supported.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-01-08 08:12 · Score: 1

IPV6 Ready Logo is meaningless. They can get that by making one internal build to 'prove' that their router can do IPV6. If they never release an ipv6 capable firmware *ever* they still get to keep the logo.
Re:D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by Guyver3 · 2009-01-08 13:36 · Score: 1

ftp://ftp.dlink.com/Gateway/dir615_revC/Manual/dir615_revC_manual_300.pdf start at their page 48, does native, pppoe, 6to4, 6in4
Re:D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by Midnight+Thunder · 2009-01-09 01:28 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:D-Link and Cisco routers support IPv6 by Cajal · 2009-01-09 03:51 · Score: 1

The DIR-615 rev C1 supports IPv6 in firmware version 3.00. According to D-Link's support site, that firmware is shipping.

I'm not sure about that by Trepidity · 2009-01-08 06:54 · Score: 1

There are at least a few protocols that I suspect were designed after some sixpacks.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

You suck: mobile phone static IP by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-01-08 07:01 · Score: 1

Allows for more interesting mobile internet apps.

All Switches are IPv6 Compatable by mdmkolbe · 2009-01-08 07:22 · Score: 1

Maybe you have a reason you want a router but if you can live with a switch it should be compatible since switches operate at a lower level and are oblivious to the IP protocol being used.

I have a solution! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 07:41 · Score: 0

Lets demand China give back all its IP space and switch there Great Firewall over to a NAT solution. This way, the government can host all content and police the internet for there users.

We would gain additional "time" and China's government would be happy. Its a win win!

So Google wants to be in China by SlOrbA · 2009-01-08 07:52 · Score: 1

Many times it is hard to see why we need development, when we already have invented all the things in the world.

Luckily IPv4 address space has been allocated unfairly for Asia and Africa so they will have the first IPv6 users and most of the IPv6 experts. I believe that IPv6 makes Internet somewhat born again. Because it brings back some of the we all peers way of networking that was the main drive for internet development in the early 90's.

why not enable it for everyone? by Cronq · 2009-01-08 08:08 · Score: 1

Why google doesn't add ipv6 addresses to their nameservers and then respond with AAAA records if a question is asked over ipv6?

Few root nameservers have ipv6 addresses already so it should work for google, too.

Re:why not enable it for everyone? by Tony+Hoyle · 2009-01-08 08:19 · Score: 1

Yes that would make more sense.. ask over ipv4, no AAAA record. ask over ipv6.. return AAAA record.
Then it's just up to the end users and ISPs to get their networks sorted out.
Re:why not enable it for everyone? by slimjim8094 · 2009-01-08 08:25 · Score: 1

If users have IPv6 enabled (most do) and otherwise incorrectly set up networks, the connection will time out or take a reeeealy long time.
Google doesn't want the middling-but-still-incompetent users who don't understand routing badmouthing Google.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:why not enable it for everyone? by Cronq · 2009-01-08 08:37 · Score: 1

So why this doesn't happen now? Do you know that few root dns servers is IPv6 enabled already? Well, there is posibility of not having this list updated...
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:503:BA3E::2:30
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:500:2f::f
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:500:1::803f:235
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:503:C27::2:30
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:7fd::1
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:500:3::42
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 AAAA 2001:dc3::35
Re:why not enable it for everyone? by slimjim8094 · 2009-01-08 12:54 · Score: 1

The problem comes when the browser sees IPv6 enabled, thinks it's on a supported network, and tries to connect to the AAAA.
DNS is (by nature) hard-coded to an IP - if only v4 works correctly, that'll be an IPv4 address.
That, and the fact that no ISP I know uses the root servers directly. All have their own caching resolver.
Your list is irrelevant.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:why not enable it for everyone? by Cronq · 2009-01-08 21:26 · Score: 1

resolver you are using (own or at ISP) would have to be IPv6 enabled and have IPv6 connectivity to get AAAA record in first place.
"That, and the fact that no ISP I know uses the root servers directly. " - lol, caching resolvers ARE using root servers for queries. That's why every caching resolver has list of root dns servers IPs.

Hiding IPv6 internal network behind NAT by troll8901 · 2009-01-08 08:12 · Score: 1

So you want to hide your internal IPv6 network behind a NATv6 facade?

It's currently under discussion/development.

IETF Draft: IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66) (Nov 2008).
6net.org: IPv6 Network Architecture Protection (Jan 2005) - see 4.4 Privacy and topology hiding using IPv6 section.
Cisco white paper: IPv6 Local Network Protection with Cisco IOS Routers and Switches - see Topology Hiding section.

Re:Hiding IPv6 internal network behind NAT by petermgreen · 2009-01-08 23:18 · Score: 1

Apparently the linux kernel devs have point blank refused to implement V6 NAT. Since a large proportion of home routers are linux based these are unlikely to support it either........

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

DNS? what? by Punto · 2009-01-08 08:51 · Score: 1

why would the ISPs need to use a special DNS server to get ipv6 google? can't they just add the dns record for ipv6 addresses (I think 'AAAA') on their DNS?

--

--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

Re: "Research Toy" by QuestionsNotAnswers · 2009-01-08 11:05 · Score: 1

Why not use the standard 20 foot container for your analogy? Sounds like you wanted to write a straw man argument.

--
Happy moony

This reminded me of something... by RudeIota · 2009-01-08 11:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Windows is a 32-bit extension to a 16-bit graphical shell for an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

--
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.

Nobody wants to go extra mile to migrate by strangepics · 2009-01-08 12:36 · Score: 1

Nobody's going to bother unless they're forced to do so. The reason, and most seem to miss the point, is the migration path from v4 to v6 is not automated. If it were automated, with the sysadmins essentially doing very basic or zero configuration, we'd all be running v6 already.

Only When... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 15:27 · Score: 0

Only When the Last Tree Has Died and the Last River Has Been Poisoned and the Last Fish has Been Caught, Will We Realize That We Cannot Eat Money.

and Only when the last ip has been assigned will we realize that we cannot route 192.168.x.y ;-)

264 comments