Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
What if you're writing web applications that monitor IP addresses? Shouldn't you be making sure that your regexp fits for IPv6 as well? What if you're storing IP addresses and your sanitizing your data? What if you're doing anything at all with IP addresses? Like monitoring logs for abuse? Shouldn't be preparing for the inevitable move to IPv6? What if you collect metrics so you can report to management your country by userbase? I say this because we've started to account for IPv6 in our coding and auditing.
What if you write any sort of firmware or software for network devices?
And if you're a consumer and you're about to purchase something that's going to last you more than three years you should probably make sure it supports IPv6 in case the computer you buy down the line can only handle IPv6 addresses allocated to it.
Go ahead and tell your readers that it's cool, Microsoft's got it covered. I'm going to err on the side of safety whether the armageddonists are right or wrong about the ETA.
My work here is dung.
Torrenting is the killer app. Very unlikely all the spooks have updated to ipv6 snooping.
Many people are already using ipv6 by default without even knowing it!
One important reason to use it is for small devices that you really don't want to have to have a user interface to enable Static IP / Router Info / DHCP configuration on.
Also, if you use use Apple MobileMe's Remote Desktop feature, you are using ipv6 only - MobileMe provides an IPv6 VPN to access all of your devices wherever they may be.
So in fact there are many many users of Ipv6 out there, just not much sending packets over the un-vpn'd internet.
ipv6 is my vpn
Roll it out in the cell phones and the problem is solved! Most of the growth in the adress space is in the mobile space, so if the telecom backbone is made IPv6-compatible and all our fancy iPhones and Android phones resolve IPv6-adresses instead, we won't run out of adresses.
You and many others desperately need to read more about v6 before regurgitating the same old myths.
* Read up on RFC 4941 - Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6
* Their is NOTHING in IPv6 that negates a hardware firewall. You get a prefix routed to your 'router' it can have whatever allow or deny rules you like.
* If you want to use NAT and non-routable IPs for whatever reason, however misguided, there is nothing in IPv6 preventing you from doing so, see also FC00::/7 link-local addresses
* Whether a network is routed or switched has as little to do with IPv4 as it does with IPv6, these topology decisions have nothing to do with the protocol.
I'm still writing my Y2K compliance docs. I want to make sure they're detailed and complete before I turn them in to management. Have to get the font and formatting just right. Too soon to worry about the latest fads.
Anonymity is lost pretty quickly with IPv6
RFC 3041 dated January freaking 2001, assuming you're talking about using MAC addresses in the ipv6 address. Frankly I feel this is paranoia combined with ignorance of current ISP logging technology, in other words you don't have anonymity with ipv4 either.
along with ISPs seeing how many systems you have running on their network
Rates somewhere between 1) who cares 2) See RFC 3041 3) News to me that proxy servers are impossible on ipv6
exposes systems to OS flaws.
I suppose there are / will be bugs in v6 that would not happen in v4.
The logic in fact seems to be nothing but a really big switched network.
Thank god. Die NAT die! Can't happen soon enough. Some people will still want stateful "one way" firewalls. No problemo.
In short, I don't like what IPv6 gives us over what we lose with IPv4.
Given your list of misconceptions and misinformation, I'm not surprised.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Who the hell wouldn't like their toaster to have its own ip unique ip address?
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.
For three big reasons.
a: Its actually ubiquitous in the LAN these days. Both Apple and Microsoft use IPv6 link local operations very heavily, because it Just Works with nice stateless autoconfiguration and multicast.
b: You can have things screw it up if you don't have V6 deployed, and you have to worry about V6 even if you don't 'have' V6: EG, a Windows box with connection sharing and 6to4 enabled will happily try to "share" the 6to4 connection with everyone else on the LAN, so everyone else gets a V6 address that doesn't actually work. And with Apple prefering a 6to4 IPv6 address over a V4 address, the macs on the same network will now see horrible behavior going to any dual-stacked site, as it will try V6 first, take a timeout, then revert to V4.
c: Address space exhaustion is real, and IPv6 + DS-Lite (or even just IPv6 + IPv4 NAT) allows an ISP to get around address space exhaustion in a much cleaner way than the alternatives.
Test your net with Netalyzr
So if you want a NAT router to keep network wormable flaws away from the OS you can still do it.
you're confusing NAT address translation with stateful firewalling. Linux has been able to do that for ages on ipv4 or ipv6.
A side effect of ipv4 NAT is providing stateful firewalling, in that obviously the fw has no idea what to do with incoming traffic that doesn't belong to a flow you've already set up. All you need is one line to do this in v6.
You're looking for a line vaguely similar to this:
ip6tables -i eth0 -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
And try not to forget to drop by default anything coming in thru eth0 that doesn't match the line above, of course.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Sure, ipv4 addresses were a little cumbersome but at least they were numbers and dots. 192.168.0.1. I can type that out on the numeric keypad. 2001:0618:71A3:0801:1319:0211:FEC2:82DC is just awful. Yeah, I know you need to have more characters in there to represent the value and a larger address space means it's going to be a larger number. Keeping the old ipv4 decimal scheme would make addresses look like 128.91.45.157.220.40.0.0.0.0.252.87.212.200.31.255. But I don't really see the hex as an improvement!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
It's not a religious taboo, it's just you not knowing what the hell you're talking about (and this happens every damn time an IPv6 story on slashdot shows up).
Except NAT doesn't do that. PAT does that.
Except NAT doesn't do that. A firewall does that.
You should not be doing any job involving networking with your current level of knowledge. If you don't even understand how current technology works how can you determine what is or isn't better for your customers.
It is? I run hundreds of SIP phones complete with video calling behind NAT without a problem. It only becomes an issue when you have 10s or 100s of thousands of phones.
Why would the phones even need Internet access? You have your SIP proxy on your network which connects to your SIP provider or POTs provider depending how you like to deploy. It's a very simple setup, makes auditing really easy, and allows me to do tricky stuff like divert the video from the gate to the phone so whoever answers can choose whether or not to let them in.
Worms will propogate as they always have, properly firewalled setups have dramatically reduced this in IPv4 and the same will happen on IPv6. I keep hearing people speak of NAT like it's not a firewall but most of those people are forgetting that most NAT devices actually are real firewalls these days unlike the early days of NAT.
I'm not against IPv6 but I have to agree with the parent, it has to start with the ISPs before it really makes sense for the rest of us to change. ISPs are having enough trouble with current traffic levels however that I have no faith in their ability to launch anytime soon on any real scale.
Overloading outbound traffic from multiple machines onto a single IP address (what you call port address translation) *is* NAT, if only because most of the vendors appropriated the name from that other kind of address translator that was hardly ever used and few even remember (RFC 1631).
PAT was never really a correct name for it anyway; that was a cisco-ism. What we call NAT today derived primarily from the stateful transparent proxies of the mid-90's and as the word "stateful" implies, it remains as much a proxy as a translator.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It might not be time for residential networks and ISPs to flip the switch yet. . . but it's *definitely* time for all new home routers, DSL/Cable gateways, etc, to include full IPv6 compatibility. That way, when the ISPs decide it's time to turn on IPv6, they and their customers don't need to replace most of the hardware already deployed. IPv6 support at the vast majority of network endpoints needs to already be present before you can actually make the switch - you can't change the protocol and just force people to suddenly change.
ISPs need to start configuring networks to run in a dual-stack mode (at least as far as the end-user is concerned - once it hits the first ISP owned router, it could be all IPv6 from that point on), so that those who are ready to use IPv6 can start using it (yeah, you can use tunnel providers or 6to4 [which is really another sort of tunnel], right now, but that usually adds additional hops and latency to your connections - basically, if you are tunneling IPv6 traffic over IPv4, why bother using it to begin with).