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

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.

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.