Slashdot Mirror
Vint Cerf Calls For IPv6 Incentives In UK
sweetpea23 writes "Vint Cerf, the 'godfather' of the web and Internet evangelist for Google, has highlighted the need for cash incentives to encourage ISPs and businesses in the UK to move to version six of the IP addressing scheme (IPv6). In response to the UK government's stance that its role in the transition will primarily be advisory, Cerf suggested a system of tax credits for upgrading equipment to v6 capability — similar to the 'cash for clunkers' scheme in the US. 'You'd have to do the math to see what impact it would have, but creating some business incentive might be helpful,' he said. His words echo those of Axel Pawlik, managing director of the RIPE NCC, who warned last month that that the IT industry is adding unnecessary risk and complexity to Internet architectures by ignoring the availability of IPv6 addresses. the Internet authority IANA is expected to assign its last batch of IPv4 addresses in June 2011."
Less carrot more stick from the government. Companies get too many benefits as it is.
How about they switch over to IPv6 and then lease their existing v4 blocks to the highest bidder?
Dear citizens of UK
to speed up IPv6 adoption we created backwarder tax.
You pay 50 pounds per year for every IPv4 address you use that year.
Payment is by wire order to account 2349564322/3432
I wonder if Berners-Lee cringes when he sees Cerf described as "the Godfather of the web" :-)
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I still think they should have solved this in the early '90s by switching to a byte-extensible addressing scheme.
Something like defining x.x.x.1-127 as four byte and x.x.x.128-250.y, y 128 as five byte, and so forth.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Bit by the markup.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
It's Einstein not einstein, Einstein.
Where's the 'Like' button when you need it.
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
For one, the protocol defined address specifically as 32-bit. Functions processing IPv4 generally use unsigned integers for the address. Functions to do a variable length address would take longer to process/route. The routing tables would likely be atrocious even if it theoretically could work.
In short, it only does better at backwards compatibility at the extremely superficial aspect of entering addresses textually looking more usual and making a more specific effort for an existing IP to map trivially to a new scheme. Existing IPv4 stacks would have had no easier time trying to talk to 192.168.2.250.2 than fd7e:691a:da42::1. Besides, having the high values magically become reserved on the host portion of existing networks would conflict with existing host addresses in use.
IPv6 can work but has been subject to three major pitfals:
-It looks scarily different. People treating addresses like phone-numbers and not doing DNS in a ubiquitous has exacerbated the problem.
-They completely omitted a strategy for v4-only to v6-only communication until this year. For a long time they didn't want to endorse anything with the letters 'NAT' in them and delayed a sane interop strategy hoping the problem would magically disappear so the 'evil' NAT wouldn't become a pillar of v6. I'm optimistic that the results of this year paves the way for meaningful progress.
-v6 and associated protocol largely chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater on many fronts. v6 for a long time declared DHCP dead, then when DHCP was revived for v4, they threw out the existing behavior and started from scratch, eliminating many option codes and changing client identifier behavior to be hard for existing DHCP admins to deal with. This has in some cases rendered workflows in IPv4 simply impossible and in many more exacerbates the first problem in that a *lot* of relearning and reworking is required to acheive the same results with IPv6 as in IPv4.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It's Vinton Gray "Vint" (also, Cerf, not Einstein :-) )
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
Your solution involves the government telling businesses how to run. Consequently you'll get the free market nuts complaining about the unwarranted government intrusion and sabotaging the committees that are actually trying to write the legislation. Running on an anti-government platform has got to be the greatest scam of all time. Even if people do eventually see through it, you just go work for a lobbying firm and make huge sums of money screwing up the government even more.
So I navigate around IPV6 sites. What is there different to see or do? Not much. Some IPV6 brownie points, carrots, or something is needed. Sixxs installed rather easily on Ubuntu, just had to issue a command line. The magical-gui installer almost did it though.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I think all you need is to distribute some goodies on IPV6-only sites.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Anyone know if all the millions of home cable and DSL modems are going to be compatible with native IPV6?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I'm sick of all the noise about IPv6. ISPs already have monetary incentives to switch to IPv6: If they don't adopt it, eventually they will fall behind their competitors and maybe run out of bussiness. Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway. It's not like these companies are like the financial sector, which can bring down the economy when it fails. The IPv6 bussiness incentive will create itself eventually. The "IPv4 apocalypse" will not exist.
The IPv6 Mess.
I heard there are some IPV6-only torrent trackers setting up. Makes sense to reduce the numbers to leechers. Found only one so far though. http://ipv6.torrent.ubuntu.com/
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Or, a bunch of overworked networked admins that don't want to start a big project for a problem they are not feeling yet... Switching over my office would take a lot of time I do not have for absolutely no payoff. And my 10-12 hour days are full already.
Why all the fuss about getting the government involved and giving them handouts?
If you don't switch to ipv6 soon, then your clients will either be disconnected from the internet, or unable to connect to ipv6 compliant websites. Do we NEED any more reason? You're going to piss off customers = loss of profits. Make the damn switch already.
VINT Cerf he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
OK. I don't sell Internet service, I sell Internet ACCESS via my limited, filtered and propitiatory method; IPv4 and NAT. You can't force people to move to something they do not think they need, that easily.
Great, just what we need. More corn subsidies.
Why do they need incentives?
How about the incentive not to lose their connection to the internet?
Why does everyone 'deserve' something for conforming to a technology standard? Shit or get off the pot.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Profit motives always ruin things.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I suspect that the UK has enough of free market so that if the established companies can't provide the service, others will step in. I also suspect that if established companies can't provide the services, it may very well be cheaper to nationalize them, pay for upgrades, and then recoup costs from the profits.
It annoys me that private firms always holds the perceived public goods hostage in order to extort public funds. In the US the nuclear and fossil fuel industry are refusing to move forward without huge sums from the taxpayers, yer cry foul when wind and solar do the same thing. According to what I have read over the years, the Chevy Volt has been in some state of readiness since late 2007, but we are only seeing it now, after GM has swollowed a few billion of taxpayer money.
The way to innovate is to simply allow firms to fail that do not. There are too many people, at least in the US, who just expect to have a job yet never expect to have to do anything new at that job. Things change. Customers expect new things. A firm should not be expcted to survive if they do not produce new things.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Yes, i believe you are correct. Obfuscation security is removed. It has to be re-implemented with new IPV6 firewalls if it is desired. The main objective of IPV6 is exatly that however, give everything on the network a public, globally-routable IP address, which is, yes, reachable. That makes it reachable by friend and foe, but there is a possible, rational way for p2p programs, SIP, games, etc to connect, no more wacky port-forwarding and NAT-traversing weird and proprietary code and intermediating servers and lack of connectivity when desired. However the computer is connected directly to the internet, just as any user at home with their router plugged into their computer, and IPV6 implementers have to enable security on each host.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Moron. Google is your friend.
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
Cash for clunkers scheme in the UK was part of a near-global initiative to save the auto industry at a time when it's collapse would have been it's most damaging to the economy and society - during a global economic crisis. The scheme did cost quite a lot of money, but did save industry and jobs that were viable in the long term*. It also helped move people towards greener and more fuel-efficient cars. Furthermore the money was basically going straight to consumers/tax payers.
In TFA no such arguments are given; in fact he even states that he hasn't even "done the math" as to how it'd help fast-forward IPv6 adoption. At best he seems to believe that tax payer's money needs to be given to encourage corporations to do exactly what they're in the business of doing. If you want my tax payer money you have to detail what benefit us tax payers are getting from paying them to do now what they're going to have to do anyway?
* American readers may have Chrysler and the like in mind, who have fundamental problems of their own making and throwing cash at them may be more questionable. The situation is not the same in Europe.
Does he have a daughter getting married soon? I have a wish I'd like granted.
So are we going to be drilling holes in the old routers to make sure they are never used again?
not customer facing because that's a much bigger job.
Farmville is giving players free virtual cash for anyone connecting over IPV6. That will get users banging on the ears of the ISP companies.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I've had no trouble with Hurricane Electric. They're a commercial outfit, but their tunnel broker service is free. They even have a support forum.
The leader in this case being Microsoft. Windows XP only partially supports IPv6 with some test drivers installed. Vista was the first actual IPv6 ready OS from Microsoft so before that there was a big question of: what is the point of going through the trouble of being IPv6 ready when 99% of your customers couldn't use it?
I've seen a lot more action now that Win7's numbers are moving up.
first, the government will offer limited money on a limited-time basis for this. the corporations will have the paperwork in months before it occurs. those companies - corporations and telcos, mostly - will use up said funds.
then, the corporations and telcos will 'offer' consumers the opportunity to upgrade 'ahead of the curve' once their own infrastructure is on ipv6. they will, of course, 'pass the cost on to customers'.
the smaller shops - the ones which don't qualify for the government assistance, don't hear about it, or simply don't have the resources (no telling the handout will cover the full cost of a migration) to implement ipv6 will be saddled with the bulk of the cost. there will be shysters who will prey on the uninformed with high prices for something which is, essentially, free.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The legal system is designed to keep such loopholes from rendering statutes toothless. There wouldn't be much point in passing them in the first place if it didn't.
The article really means subsidies, which imply that the real incentives to switching don't actually quite make sense compared to the costs of switching. But Cerf thinks he knows best than other people involved, ignore or override the economics of the reality, and looks for ways to get his way without having to solve the costs problem or having to convince people. Convincing politicians to spend money that is not theirs (or Cerf's) is special interest lobbying,which only invites further special interest lobbying.
The problem is just not with ISP. It is the web at large that is not IPv6 ready and not connecting to the IPv6 network.
Here is a good example.
ping6 -c 4 slashdot.org
unknown host
In this case as so many. The motivator for IPv6 switch over is only going to happen after everything goes to hell IPv4 wise.
If IPv6 had not been horribly misconceived in the first place there would be no dual stack and there would be a much less painful transition path. By extending IPv4, not by trying to leave it behind.
It is in fact not too late to go back to IPv4 and extend it. Maybe the time is about right to do that.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Doesn't adoption of IPv6 remove one of the more effective layers of security we have today, the obfuscation layer, being hidden behind the router?"
Please read Local Network Protection for IPv6 [RFC 4864].
jhw
That, at least, should get ISPs looking really hard at what isn't IP6 capable at this late a point in time.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
My understanding is that Windows XP simply doesn't support DHCP6 at all (even if you enable the "Microsoft TCP/IP version 6" protocol). I worked around this by installing the Dibbler DHCPv6 Client. IPv6 including DHCP6 work fine on Vista and higher.
OK. I don't sell Internet service, I sell Internet ACCESS via my limited, filtered and propitiatory[*] method; IPv4 and NAT. You can't force people to move to something they do not think they need, that easily.
[*] Specifically, blood sacrifices to propitiate the network daemons.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I always had a hard time understanding IPv6 until I read the Running IPv6 in practice howto on Debian-administration and tried it at home. The next move is configuring the office where I work to use such a tunnel, then a friend's colo server, then our hosting environment. It's really not hard. Get over the adressing scheme. IPv6 is much easier to manage than NAT.
Tunnelbroker by Hurricane-Electric also does a great job of making IPv6 easy to use and fun to learn (the "certification" games). They also throw in free DNS hosting, and announcing IPv6 addresses using BGP is possible.
Now stop whining and bite the bullet :-)
Damn... I had to look up my own word. Spell check makes of interesting times. :)
Switching over my office would take a lot of time
Really? Took me about 20 minutes to configure a tunnel to HE.net. Every host on the LAN that supports IPv6 automatically started using it, to the point that Windows machines update their hostnames on the domain controller to resolve via both IPv4 and IPv6. Everything Just Worked without any manual intervention. What sort of monumental problems are you anticipating?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If IPv6 had not been horribly misconceived in the first place there would be no dual stack and there would be a much less painful transition path. By extending IPv4, not by trying to leave it behind.
It is in fact not too late to go back to IPv4 and extend it. Maybe the time is about right to do that.
IPv6 is exactly that: IPv4 with an extended address field.
You do realise that if you change the size of the address field of IPv4, then by definition, it's a whole new protocol, right?
There's no way to add more addresses to IPv4 without breaking compatibility.
"Godfather of the web" ? (facepalm)
As for V6... I dunno. There's a non-zero chance something else will pop up and get used, we're in our second decade o this turkey and the only poeple that believe in it are the ones with a vested interest in its success.
If noting else we can use the multicast space. There's a gazillion V4 addresses "reserved by IANA" that are never going to be used for multicast and can be recycled.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Why not tax addresses at the owner level?
If it cost you $10/month to have IP4 address, you would see a mad scramble to get to IP6.
In order to create some order out of chaos:
1. The tax would start at $1/month, and increase by $1 per month. This way someone with a large block is only paying 16 million a month initially.
2. Releasing currently unused addresses gives you a 1 year credit on your used addresses.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Oh, yes, I summarily removed the firewall to expose our hosts to the Internet. (rolls eyes)
Also, dynamic DNS is a standard (maybe even default) setup for Active Directory. I'm not the Windows guy at my office so I can't tell you for certain. I do know, though, that nothing broke when we went live with IPv6. Services that could use it started using it, and everything else kept chugging along with IPv4.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
IPv6 is exactly that: IPv4 with an extended address field.
Incorrect. An IPv4 packet is not recognized as a valid IPv6 packet, therefore IPv6 is not just extended IPv4. It is a different, incompatible protocol. That was a huge mistake and the resulting epic fail inevitably followed.
Throwing out backward compatibility. Rule number one: just don't do it.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?