Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

nk497 writes "While it's definitely time to start thinking about IPv6, it's not time for most to move up to it, argues Steve Cassidy, saying most can turn it off in Windows 7 without causing any trouble. Many network experts argue we're nearing network armageddon, but they've been saying that for years.'This all started when Tony Blair was elected. The first time. Yep, that's how long IPv6 has been around, and it's quite a few weeks ago now.' He says smart engineering has avoided many of the problems. 'Is there an IPv6 "killer app" yet for smaller networks? No. Is there any reason based on security or ease of management — unless you're running a 100,000-seat network or a national-level ISP — for you to move up to it? No. Should you start to do a bit of reading about it? That's about the stage we're truly at, and the answer to that one is: yes,' he says."

Comments

Beware

[Un pobre guey]

Word on the street is that some major cable/internet providers and content delivery networks (CDNs), and I do mean major, are quickly moving to get limited availability online to major customers within the next 12 months or so, and general availability by early- to mid-2012.

Procrastinate at your peril.

Re:Excuse me?

[Again]

And here is a nice looking countdown until the moment the sky finishes falling. http://inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/en-us/index.html I don't know how accurate it is but it is fun to watch.

Re:I have read it...

[mlts]

The sooner we get to IPv6, the better. If not, if someone wants a static IP, much less a /29 subnet with five usable host IPs, they will be paying through the nose, for it just due to artificial scarcity.

I just fear that companies are going to spend big bucks for routers that can do NAT traversal (dev subnet gets NATted to another subnet which then gets translated to the outside IP), as opposed to going to IPv6 where one can keep firewalls up and the traffic isolated and secure, but keep NAT is an option, not a must-have. If a company is worried about the IPv6 stack having issues, just use IPv6 as an edge routing protocol and keep the internal network on v4 and use Toredo. Yes, this is still not optimal, but it is better than dealing with having to bid for v4 statics so one can have their own webserver online.

From end-user perspective

[wvmarle]

Is there really anything to worry about?

Afaik all modern Linux distros are fully up to the task of IPv6. TFS mentions even Windows can do it.

At this moment I am connecting my computers to the Internet via a wifi router/firewall - not likely this is going to change. Router is old, may not do IPv6 yet. My ISP also doesn't. But I guess the time will come that ISPs start to switch.

Will it really make a difference for me as end-user? Is my browsing going faster? Will I get less spam in my mailbox? Will it be easier to find the information I am looking for on the net? Probably none of the above.

At the moment I know I'm on IPv4 but on a daily basis I don't care as it just works. I don't know my IP address, it's not important to me what it is really. My home and office networks are internally IPv4, wouldn't make a difference if it's IPv6 except that addresses get harder to enter in BIND but that's one-off only. I suppose my uplink there also uses IPv4, not v6. I always approach my web site and mail server by entering an URL, not entering an IP address. Again what would I care? Let DNS take care of that part.

Don't get me wrong I understand it's time to move on: we run out of address space, soon there are more devices/networks connected to the Internet infrastructure than that there are unique addresses to find them. But from an end user perspective... I say let the ISPs take care of that. It's their job. Get me the connection, make sure your hardware works, preferably understands both IPv6 and IPv4 (backwards compatibility; and mostly it's not broken in the first place), and use on your network whatever works best.

There is always the talk of IPv6 will give any ISP subscriber a complete range of addresses instead of just one, so you can connect every computer, printer, whatnot directly to the Internet. I don't understand why an end user would want to connect their printer directly to the Internet. Their second computer maybe if they have one (makes torrenting easier) but then you lose the benefit of a hardware firewall in between. Simply because of security for my home network I prefer a single point of entry, not a dozen. Much easier to keep an eye on. So one external IP address is simply enough for most of us.

So while IPv6 is important for developers and ISPs, for the end user it's not. I totally agree with this Steve Cassidi that it's simply not something to worry about. He says not yet, I'd argue not ever, unless you're developing network gear/software or work for an ISP or so.

Re:Ah, Yes, 'Let Someone Else Worry About It'

[hairyfeet]

Actually I'd say that in this case "Microsoft has it covered" hits the nail square on the head, and for the reason many here bitch about MSFT in the first place...backwards compatibility. I know lots of folks here like to bitch their asses off about "all the cruft" caused by backwards compatibility, but here is a damned good reason why MSFT has it, because many businesses keep older hardware for quite awhile and MSFT by and large was and is a business OS first and foremost.

Thanks to backwards compatibility I can give my business customers Windows 7 Pro with XP Mode and that ancient software they use in accounting keeps right on ticking. Thanks to backwards compatibility I can play most of my old games even on Windows 7 HP X64, and thanks to backwards compatibility when IPV6 is the norm those with older IPV4 stuff will be just fine, MSFT has got you covered.

It is all about picking the right tool for the job. You want bleeding edge? Go with a Mac. Jobs HATES old tech and tosses it quicker than anybody else. Need to squeeze that last point of performance out of that server? Take Linux, strip that sucker down like a used Buick and turn it into a hot rod. Need to be able to run your old stuff as well as the new? Go MSFT, who knows businesses will hang onto older shit much longer than average folks and therefor supports it longer. Considering how many routers we have out there that won't run IPV6 and whose companies will likely never give a firmware update to (why should they? It makes you buy a new one if they don't) I'm all for backwards compatibility.