Slashdot Mirror
No Business Case For IPv6, Survey Finds
alphadogg writes "Business incentives are completely lacking today for upgrading to IPv6, the next generation Internet protocol, according to a survey of network operators conducted by the Internet Society (ISOC). In a new report, ISOC says that ISPs, enterprises and network equipment vendors report that there are 'no concrete business drivers for IPv6.' However, survey respondents said customer demand for IPv6 is on the rise and that they are planning or deploying IPv6 because they feel it is the next major development in the evolution of the Internet."
I'm beginning to find it hard to believe that IPv6 will ever be implemented. It seems to have been on the verge of it for close to a decade now.
In a world without sharp objects, knives, or sidewalks, there would be no business case for bandaids. IPV6 is a solution to a problem that hasn't asserted itself. How often do you buy cough medicine when you haven't been sick in a while? This goes the same for ipv6. Until ISP's start charging more for ipv4 addresses due to scarcity, nobody is going to switch beyond digital survivalists and people who like to tinker with new technology.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
With the rate IPv4 adressess are running out it is only a matter of time before we will switch to ipv6. It might be 3 years from now or perhaps even more but when ipv4 becomes scarce(and it will), people and (internet)companies will try and make the switch to ipv6.
Don't get started about the turd that is called NAT, that's a problem posing as a solution.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
I demand it because I'm tired of NAT. As I have more devices at home that I might want to access remotely, or that need full inbound and outbound access for full functionality (as jump-in, jump-out games often do), I get more and more tired of dealing with NAT.
And it's not just me. When I'm trying to help my dad with his machine, I can't connect to it remotely to access it.
Even my DirectTV satellite receiver uses IP access now, and due to NAT, they can't count on being able to contact your receiver from their end. So, any centralized service like remote booking has to take special measures to work.
IPv6 makes all this a lot easier, for example if you "request assistance" on Windows Vista/7, the first thing it does is create a Teredo tunnel so that your machine can be accessed remotely to diagnose and fix it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I don't mean customers should want IPv6. I mean that that's what should drive IPv6 deployment. Address depletion is a problem, but it's a problem that has workarounds, and to the extent that customers aren't bothered by the workarounds, there will be no IPv6 deployment.
The main impact of the workarounds is twofold. First, your outward-facing global IPv4 address will go away. Right now, your ISP has probably assigned you a real IPv4 address, not an RFC1918 address. So people can get packets to your gateway directly. That will go away.
The second impact is that we will have more and more layering of NATs. This will make peer-to-peer applications harder and harder. Also, as more users are piled up on single IP addresses, we will start to see port starvation. What this looks like is that iTunes will start acting funny - displaying some things, showing error messages for others. DNS lookups will fail, and you'll have to retry. Google maps tiles won't show up, so you'll see a partial map, and have to reload (possibly to see different tiles not show up).
So yeah, things will keep chugging along. But it will work less and less well as time goes on.
And I think that is what can, and should, be driving demand. If you don't want that, you might want to start fantasizing about how to get IPv6 into your own home. I have it in mine, it works a treat. I think it's too hard for the average person to do right now if their ISP doesn't support it, but that's a problem that we ought to try to solve if we want the internet to keep being a place where peer-to-peer is possible, and where innovation is possible.
Running out of address won't kill the internet. But it will suck the life out of it.
If cell phones turn into real computers, which has probably already happened, then we will need IPv6 if all those phone users want to surf.
There is more than one protocol than http. Try ftp, imap, smtp, irc and https on for size.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Yes, I know. That's what I said it had to take special measures to work as opposed to saying it doesn't work.
There are inward-bound services that are precluded by the lack of incoming access. No, none of these are on the PVRs right now, because there is no such incoming access.
As an example, when you remote book, why don't you get any confirmation? Why does it just make you select "record if possible" (instead of priority record) and then you just go home and hope it recorded? Why can't it contact your box with the request, get a response saying "yes, it will record" or "this won't record, which conflict would you like to cancel?" The reason is because it cannot contact your box as there is no incoming access.
The current feature set is partially determined by what can be done under the current system. With IPv6, the feature set could be expanded.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Want a private net? Unplug the uplink and number your machines any way you want! If you prefer a protected LAN, make your firewall default to DROP, then tell it what you do want. The IETF probably proposed local IPv6 addresses because they were tired of the few holdouts drooling on their shoes when they explained that for the nth time.
I'm going to sacrifice 5 of my mod points to comment here, just because I have to in order to refute your preposterous point.
"Climate change" and "fossil fuel supply" sure sound like big FUD points. We have little of the former, and much of the latter at this time. Thus, at this time, any radical and painful "cure" is not indicated any more than it would be for giving an ultra-aggressive course of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgury to a person who has a potentially pre-cancerous cell.
Could it be real? Yep.
Could it be wrong? Yep.
I guess some people are SO uncertainty-adverse that they would rather guarantee an absolute collapse of the entire world's economy. Absolute collapse is easy and "certain" (properly engineered) and very comforting to the asshats that actually want such a thing to happen.
We can't just up-end an installed base that would cost tens (or hundreds maybe) of trillions of dollars to replace.
Truly clean energy in abundance and cheap enough that even the poorest person can have 10 kW/h sustained in perpetuity? Yes - I'm for that.
Energy so expensive that only the richest among us can have any? Fuck that, fuck it in the ear, and fuck anyone advocating such an approach in the ass with a canon firing a shell at full velocity.
And if a new tax or "cap and trade" law makes my heating bill double, I'll be beyond angry.
The recession occurred because there was no business case for financiers and banks using common sense.
He and the entire 100,000 person corporation he works for are sitting behind half a dozen routable IPv4 addresses on their own private 10net. He is already overworked supporting the infrastructure which is in place already and when an IPv6 rollout is suggested the first thought which comes to mind is "Just how retarded are you?".
IPv6 is neither exotic nor frightening. Admins and programmers have been dealing with differing networking protocols for decades, including IPX, IP, OSI etc. IPv6 is nothing new. It's simply a fuck of a lot of work for little or no gain.
The question is. What is the "killer application"? If you want IPv6 adoption to proceed at faster than a crawl, you're going to have to come up with something as compelling as the WWW but which simply cannot be realistically achieved over IPv4. Maybe some sort of peer to peer mobile phone application might do it, otherwise, go away and come back when you have something worth talking about.
Deleted
And I'm saying the point is irrelevant. You could categorise broadband consumers as (a) those who need more than one computer to access the internet and (b) those who don't. (a)-type users need a router anyway, and (b) type users don't - they can just plug their modem into their PC.
/64, they would still need a router, and would be able to buy one with a firewall on it. Users in the second category don't need NAT, or a router.
Users in the first category only need NAT because their ISP gives them one IP address. If they got a ipv6
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog