Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Over IPv6 Coming Soon

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the what-no-ipv5 dept.

fuzzel writes "Today Google announced Google over IPv6 where ISPs can sign up their DNS nameservers so that their users will get access to an almost fully IPv6-enabled Google, including http://www.google.com, images and maps, etc., just like in IPv4. Without this only http://ipv6.google.com is available, but then you go to IPv4 for most services. So, start kicking your ISPs to support IPv6 too, and let them sign up. Check this list of ISPs that already do native IPv6 to your doorstep. The question that now remains is: when will Slashdot follow?"

17 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by Atrox666 · · 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.

  2. Wait for it.... by growse · · 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
    1. Re:Wait for it.... by growse · · 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
    2. Re:Wait for it.... by squiggleslash · · 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.
    3. Re:Wait for it.... by eln · · 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.

  3. tried google in ipv6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it's eerily similar to google in ipv4

    1. Re:tried google in ipv6 by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

      Really? The extra addressing overhead should have made it a little slower.

  4. Is it just me by jandrese · · 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.
    1. Re:Is it just me by squiggleslash · · 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.
    2. Re:Is it just me by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...use 6to4...

      And, if you're on a WAN in Chicago, the choice could be: X.25 or 6to4?

  5. One quetsion by slugtastic · · Score: 4, Funny

    What ever happened to IPv5?

    1. Re:One quetsion by compro01 · · 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
  6. Re:Try it! by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google over IPv6 is crisp and clean, with good intensity and a hint of citrus on the nose

  7. Re:The problem with IP6 is... by AlXtreme · · 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
  8. What's in it for me? Nothing! by wvmarle · · 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.

  9. Re:Oh great by troll8901 · · 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?)

  10. This reminded me of something... by RudeIota · · 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.