Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users
alphadogg writes "Yahoo is forging ahead with a move to IPv6 on its main Web site by year-end despite worries that up to 1 million Internet users may be unable to access it initially. Yahoo's massive engineering effort to support IPv6 — the long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main communications protocol — could at first shut out potential www.yahoo.com users due to what the company and others call 'IPv6 brokenness.'"
So 1000000 users can't view Yahoo's Web server...
And nothing of value was lost.
Will Yahoo still have 1M users by year-end to shut out?
Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will have no choice but to upgrade!
From
IPv6 experts say some Internet users will experience slowdowns or have trouble connecting to IPv6-enabled Web sites because they have misconfigured or misbehaving network equipment
to
"IPv6 brokenness."
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
But how will people access that completely useless and tremendously jumbled index page-o-5,000,000 links?
That isn't what they're doing (yet). Although the headline/summary made it sound like they were shutting out IPv4 users, this is not the case. They will be supporting both simultaneously.
What that means is that if a website advertises itself as simultaneously IPv4/IPv6 compliant, and someone's computer/browser thinks they are IPv6 compliant but their attempts to connect via IPv6 don't make it through (ISP? router? modem? who knows), their connection times out and the site is unreachable.
The solution in this case would be to identify the node that doesn't support IPv6 (might be difficult) or force the system on the user-end to use IPv4 (shouldn't be that hard). It certainly shouldn't be the end of the world, and it shouldn't really even affect too many people. And it will be a push to at least support IPv6 (not necessarily require it) at every step of the path so that users whose computers are capable of IPv6 connections can actually connect successfully over it.
Yahoo has been one of the most vocal Internet companies to express concern about industry estimates that 0.05% of Internet users will be unable to access Web sites that support both IPv6 and the current standard, IPv4.
So 0.05% of the internet won't be able to access Yahoo. What % of that actually WANT access to it? In this case, it really is "very little" of value was lost.
Yahoo mail has a nice tab-based interface so you can open multiple emails while writing a few more, which Gmail is missing. It's also hard to migrate 10 years' of emails to a new service (they make it hard, at least) - not to mention getting everyone to use your new email address.
They've got a special article up right now on the latest Racy dress worn by Venus Williams.
Now I've bolstered their network activity by sending half of /. their way.
It's not even a shutout from what I understand. The IPv6 request will timeout after a while and revert to IPv4, so while people will certainly experience slowdowns, I doubt anyone will be actually unable to access the site. Detect this and point people to resources to resolve the problem and things will take care of themselves. And by things taking care of themselves I mean that you will be asked to go fix the internet by your parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, friends-who-are-only-friends-when-there's-a-computer-problem, and your grandma's bridge partner who you once installed a printer for.
Honestly, if it weren't for the army of computer geeks fixing most of the IT problems for friends and family I think the whole thing would collapse overnight.
Is there some operating systems out there which still aren't compatible with IPv6, or is it a problem at the ISPs level?
I suspect Netscape ISP is still using the old V4 addresses. No more downloading of TV shows I missed (like Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch, Conan O'brien, Rachel Maddow, et cetera). Oh well. I'll cancel the netscape and get VirginMobile's wireless deal..... although it is 5 times more expensive.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I feel bad for that 1M, kind of, but any change you make will shut out at least that many with setups that are broken in other ways. I bet there are more than 1M people still on Netscape 4, but I'll be darned if I'll take them into account when planning service or network upgrades.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
yet another article that's skeptical of how ready IPv6 is. The amount of brokenness that is there is not very big. Of all the people that have the full Internet (that is IPv4 *and* IPv6) most will simply connect to any IPv6 website without issues.
And apart from the fact that yahoo seems to be a US only thing, and even there is not so relevant anymore, I applaud them doing IPv6, when they get to it. (and after Google, Comcast, Akamai and many others)
I wish we'd get over this "brokenness" story and simply deploy and then fix it for the 1% that has issues. Would be nice if it gets rolled out to the point of 20% traffic in 2011, the year we'll run out of available IPv4 addresses.
Yahoo still has a lot of good stuff. Mail and calendar work well, there is useful news and finance pages as well. I was playing around with their YUI stuff yesterday, and it is pretty cool and open source.
Sites should probably serve ipv6 from a separate colo to a separate domain name to work the kinks out first, e.g. yahoov6.com. After a testing period they could start moving the support over, assuming the results were good.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Many people still use their instant messaging, but what I see use a LOT is the Yahoo Groups. It is a simple way for average joes to create private mailing lists. I know that at least 4 of the moms groups for creating kids playdates my wife has joined had their mail list/forum hosted on Yahoo Groups. There email seems fine too.
IIRC the problem isn't with computers that don't support IPv6. It's with networks where the computers and DNS software does support IPv6 but there's no IPv6 connectivity. In those cases a name query gets back AAAA records, the computer tries to connect via IPv6, and the connection doesn't go through because IPv6 traffic doesn't have a route off the local network. If your computers don't support IPv6 at all, the problem doesn't happen (the AAAA records never get used). If the DNS software (probably in your router) doesn't support IPv6, it won't do queries for AAAA records in the first place. Note also that at the other end (the DNS servers for the web site's domain) there should also be filtering in place: AAAA records shouldn't be being returned in queries that came in via IPv4. But not all sites do that filtering, so clients have to be prepared to get IPv6-only data back in IPv4 responses and filter it out.
They had their servers respond to both IPv4 and IPv6 on the same domain name for a day. Among one million visitors they only had 5 with a problem. 2 could be solved by rebooting the router and or the computer, 2 had unreleated problems with their internet, and one actually had triggered a bug in the OS.
http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tag-bei-heise-de-Erste-Ergebnisse-1081201.html
People (and ISPs) are never going to switch to IPv6 if it does not affect them directly. If a major website, such as Yahoo, makes the move, then the ISPs will be forced to update, or loose customers. If only Youtube and Facebook would follow suit....
First, it's not really IPv6 brokenness so much as it is an issue with hosts that think they have IPv6 connectivity, but, really don't.
Second, in most cases, affected users will see long page load times, not complete inability to access the site.
The 0.05% number is probably pretty accurate. Several sites have used embedded tests to measure this and come to the same number. However, the good news is that a year ago, this was 0.1% and it is continuing to trend downward.
With IANA running out of IPv4 this month, it's not surprising that Yahoo is moving forward. It's disturbing that so many others appear not to be.
Yahoo Finance is much better than the competition. Yahoo Mail is still the market leader, just slightly ahead of Hotmail, possibly because they were one of the first. Flickr is quite popular as well.
I've been trying to make a Gmail account for the past year. Each time it asks for my phone number, and I say I don't have one (which I seriously don't). It says they'll get back to me, and they never do.
Yahoo never required a phone number, so guess which service I use?
Yahoo Sports highest trafficked sports site on the net
Yahoo Finance worlds better than Google or MSN
Yahoo Stores is a popular interface for web stores
Flickr, Delicious, etc
So 1000000 users can't view Yahoo's Web server...
And nothing of value was lost.
If you had a clue how lame it looks when you write a comment like that about Yahoo.
It may be valueless for you and me but for people making it one of top 10 sites on global market and number 1 in markets like Japan, it does have a value.
One has to be really disconnected from general public to post a comment about a top 10 www site like that.
From
IPv6 experts say some Internet users will experience slowdowns or have trouble connecting to IPv6-enabled Web sites because they have misconfigured or misbehaving network equipment
to
"IPv6 brokenness."
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
As you give plumbing as example, I feel free to give an example from TV World.
Color TV was a success because TV stations didn't have to bother with BW TV sets. Some analogue genius trick allowed BW sets to keep receiving color and display in black and white. So, people weren't forced to replace their sets.
Same goes for FM radio/Stereo. A mono FM receiver can receive and play stereo FM station even if it includes data such as RDS.
One of the reasons why 3D TV will stay some kind of fantasy? Basically, you can't air 3D TV station or data without displaying like a mess on ordinary 2D TV making it useless for 99%.
Perhaps, IPV6 could have better backward compatibility with IPV4 and such stories wouldn't appear at all.
Specifically, couldn't they have some javascript load a one line javascript file from a subdomain with their desired configuration, and just report the time from the script element being added to the script being executed?
Yahoo! has been talking about this at conferences for a while, but I'm not sure they are using good data. Here's a lighting talk from NANOG about it:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Igor_ipv6_recursive_light_N46.pdf
Page 2 has the crux of the issue, Yahoo! claims if you add AAAA records that 0.078% of the user base "breaks", that is they understand a AAAA enough to try IPv6, but they lack IPv6 connectivity to the destination.
There was a time this made sense. A lot of early IPv6 deployments were islands without complete connectivity. Additionally, up until about 18 months ago there was a serious lack of IPv6 interconnectivity between ISPs, they were still figuring out how to turn up peering, filter, and so on.
However, times change. ISP's are now fairly well interconnected, and getting a lot better every day. Almost no one turns up IPv6 as an island anymore. Interestingly, some of the original islands still exist, on purpose, as they are test labs or other non-production deployments. The people use them expect them to be broken in some ways, in some cases to test what the user experience is when various things break. Indeed, I suspect the number of islands is small, and constant, and thus an ever decreasing percentage of the IPv6 user base.
Another large issue with the numbers is that they are only measuring the difference between the status quo and one of the four outcomes. A user could have:
A) Broken IPv4, Broken IPv6.
B) Broken IPv4, Working IPv6.
C) Working IPv4, Broken IPv6.
D) Working IPv4, Working IPv6.
What Yahoo has done is measure the status quo (IPv4 only) to bullet point C.
However, there will be some folks in bullet B. These are folks who can't get to Yahoo! today at all, but would be able to if Yahoo! had AAAA's. Granted, it's probably smaller, but still is an offset. Basically they are trying to scare folks that 470k folks might not be able to access Yahoo with IPv6. However, 470k folks may already be unable to access it via IPv4, they just can't measure that right now because they never see the requests!
There is also the looming issue. As a we run out of IPv4 addresses (likely in late 2011) ISP's will basically be forced to turn up IPv6 only users. Even if you take Yahoo!'s numbers as correct, that 0.078% are broken, then all you would need is a larger percentage than that of the user base to be IPv6 ONLY and it makes more sense to have AAAA's and exclude them. Basically 1% deployment of IPv6 completely flips their argument if the goal is serving the largest number of folks.
My take, some folks inside Yahoo! collected some rather raw data early on in IPv6's life cycle. Folks from Marketing and such read too much into it, and went into a panic that some large number of users wouldn't be abel to get to Yahoo! This created a huge issue for the engineers trying to deploy IPv6, which they have been fighting ever since.
I think it probably comes down to this (or similar):
What's your consumer target? Can you reach it? Is the change economically worth it in terms of your target?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
The summary and to some extent TFA spout off with some FUD ("1M Internet users" not Yahoo users. "potential yahoo.com users" and some other details). I love how the summary says "at first 1M people could be shut out" but doesn't really finish the thought. "at first nobody used computers" ... and then what, the world exploded into hot dogs? dogs started using them? when starting a sentence with "at first" it makes sense to finish the thought instead of leave people hanging with some FUDish thoughts.
The article overall does a decent job of explaining the causes of this initial IPv6 brokenness, but I'm not crazy about how TFA and summary need to exclaim about 1M Internet users in order to draw attention.
I've just assumed that IPv6 is somebody else's issue to deal with. In theory my OS (XP) supports it but that's all I know. Is there a way of pointing my browser somewhere to find out if everything 'at my end' and my ISP connection is fully functional?
I sure hope no one is relying on 1500 byte MTU paths. As I recall, the most anyone can rely on is 576.
Many QoS setups mess with MTU and so does VPN of various kinds.
So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?
No you should blame your plumber if they install your plumbing wrong. You should blame the water company if they install the plumbing service connecting to your house wrong. Unless you are in fact the plumber, it's not your fault.
Also last I checked your water service didn't change the size and standards of pipes every couple of decades.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes. Even the tethering you're going to get from your IPv6-capable mobile phone will delegate a /64 prefix. Most residential providers will delegate at least a /56 and the ones run by SMART PEOPLE will delegate a /48 to each subscriber.
There is no need for residential. mobile and small-office subscribers to use NAT for IPv6.
jhw
Well..we don't need all those obsolete users! :)
Windows Server 2008 R2. Not that IPv6 implementation itself is wrong - its just everything else surrounding it: from dcpromo to the evil Network and Sharing Center and bloody stupid restricted control of firewall profiles.
Most MS technet comments just end up recommending disabling ipv6 as 'the solution'.
Result: hell'va load of windows servers on the web with just ipv4 soon...
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
Others have mentioned they are doing 4 to 6 tunneling. Well that is great if you know how to set it up. 99.99995% of AT&T's or Comcasts customers will not and to even attempt to explain it to them will be a pointless endeavor
6to4 is indeed pointless and counterproductive. If everyone gets crappy unreliable IPv6 connectivity right now rather than putting pressure on their ISPs to provide a low latency, high bandwidth IPv6 tomorrow it will throw a wrench in adoption as content providers avoid it as their customers complain that it is slow.
have said this before and I still believe the best course of action is to simply scrap IPV6 and take IPV4 and simply change the segment size from BYTES to WORDS. Right now we have 254 Class A networks and just going from BYTES to WORDS will give us 65535 CLASS A Networks and that gives us 65281 class A networks to hand out with each one having 281,474,976,710,655 (FFFF.FFFF.FFFF ) unique addresses, except we do it wisely this time instead of doing things like giving a single university and entire class A
The IPv6 train left the station. In every metric that matters: bandwidth, routes, servers and hosts IPv6 is currently following an exponential growth curve. Keeping IPv4 and changing the address length gives you the exact same issues of consequence as IPv6. IPv4 hosts can't talk to a "word" IPv4 host the same as an IPv4 host can't talk to an IPv6 host. What really matters is **addressing** not some pedantic arrangement of fields in an IP header that only routers and operating systems will ever see or care about. IPv6 gives us 2^32 ISPs give or take management/reserve overhead. Each ISP gets a /32 which typically means 32-bits for internal management and partitioning...followed by 64 bits for each lan segment. Many ISPs will each see several /32 allocations.
There are plenty of cranks out there who think 2^32(minus class e, reserved and private addressing) can be made to work with ever increasingly frugal management of the IPv4 space even though this number is significantly less than than the current and projected world populations. Some of them even know how to submit drafts to the IETF.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-terrell-logic-analy-bin-ip-spec-ipv7-ipv8-10
There is a rough estimate of about 4000 ISP in the US and most of those get their address blocks from the really BIG ones, AT&T, Verizon, COMCAST and some others. So if the world wide number of ISP's were say 20,000 we would still have 40,000 or so unused CLASS A networks
Given the world has already switched to accepting 4-byte ASNs your allocation strategy has already failed.
Can anyone seriously really see a day when we will have more then 65535 ISP's? I do not believe this to be true unless ( and I really really doubt it ) the trend of bigger ISP's swallowing smaller ISP's changes
Yea it was projected back in 2005 to occur as early as 2010 by RIPE. Hint: not all ISPs call themselves ISPs.
Careful what we wish for!
All those Yahoo users will just be injected into the Google and Bing bloodstreams. Haven't you noticed that when a website fails on modern browsers and people get tired of refreshing, they just move on to the search widget right next to the URL bar? What's the default search engine on those? How many people use search bar daily because they have no idea what the URL bar to its left does?
Completely changing all devices would be so much simpler than completely changing all devices (Many of which have already been changed)! Brilliant!
What about at&t DSL and IPv6? where are the ipv6 dsl modems? and what about all the routers that don't even have IPv6 how many will get IPv6 firmware updates?
I have said this before and I still believe the best course of action is to simply scrap IPV6 and take IPV4 and simply change the segment size from BYTES to WORDS. Right now we have 254 Class A networks and just going from BYTES to WORDS will give us 65535 CLASS A Networks and that gives us 65281 class A networks to hand out with each one having 281,474,976,710,655 (FFFF.FFFF.FFFF ) unique addresses, except we do it wisely this time instead of doing things like giving a single university and entire class A.
Yeah. All we have to do is keep the Internet down for a year while everyone renumbers everything. Let's take 2013. That way if the universe ends in December 2012, we don't have to do anything.
No large site is going to be accessible only over IPv6 anytime soon. They will keep IPv4 running for years to come. But instead of only accessible over IPv6 let's say accessible over both IPv4 and IPv6. This is going to happen on the 8th of June, and it will last for 24 hours. We'll see after it happens if they will want to do another coordinated trial. Hopefully after the first trial we will see the percentage of problematic connections drop from 0.05% to less than 0.01%.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.
You know one of the worst managed thing at a ISP/Company after DNS? Mail servers. Ask spammers how they are still being able to do business at this age.
They are generally outdated. Now one wonders, if the outdated/misconfigured servers fail to do anything at yahoo.com domain and they start retrying (just like any smtp server), what would happen?
As long as FreeBSD doesn't die, they should.
(Yahoo! runs FreeBSD on their web frontend servers and for backend operations, last I heard.)
Isn't there something a bit 'iffy' in terms of the quality of the KAME reference implementation that FreeBSD uses for it's IPv6 stack? I seem to recall reading something about it not being quite 'complete' or stable, but that may have been in the context of something else.
As far as I know, Yahoo uses both FreeBSD and PHP whenever available and they made huge contributions to both projects, in terms of money too. On the other hand, Apple isn't even listed in FreeBSD contributor companies.
You see the great, thankful feedback they get from /. community :)
If this was done properly no renumbering would be required, the new addresses would be the same in text format as the old addresses. The only difference would be that each number in an IP address could go from 0..65535 instead of 0..255. The old address space would be a logical subset of a new address space, all existing hosts and subnets would have the same addresses (in text format), and so on.
That would be a *much* simpler transition than what we have planned now.
Seems you didn't say it early enough or not to the right people. With your suggestion we would be starting over from where we were 15-20 years ago. That means you will need to upgrade all routers on the Internet to support your proposed protocol, and you have a couple of weeks to get it done. What makes you think that you can achieve in a couple weeks, what the people who build the Internet in the first place couldn't achieve in a decade?
The AS numbers are running out and are being extended from 16 to 32 bits. This is totally unrelated to the upgrade from IPv4 to IPv6 (except of course both are triggered by the growth of the Internet).
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes.
I see. And are those the majority of carriers, or just the early adopters? And, assuming the latter, is it at all possible that the prefixes are there to incentivize you to make the switch (and thereby help them test it)?
> where are the ipv6 dsl modems?
You mean routers. Modems don't deal with IP at all. Unfortunately most DSL modems include really crappy routers which most consumers use instead of the real thing.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I talk with people from the majority of large carriers at IETF meetings fairly on a regular basis. I've yet to meet one who says different. As far as I know, no one in the operational community is complaining about IETF documents that recommend prefix delegation as the best current practice for commercial internet service. The 3GPP standards all assume prefix delegation to IPv6-capable mobile handsets.
Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
jhw
Well to be honest, the Linksys and Netgear routers are also pretty crappy in reality. (But are still much better than the (usually artificially limited) crap included in most DSL and DOCSIS modems).
The Linksys and Netgear (and other similar routers) are with few exceptions underpowered, and have limited configurability with the stock firmware. (Of course the non-stack firmwares like DD-WRT can still be somewhat hit or miss depending on exactly which device you have and which features you are interested in.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
s/non-stack/non-stock/
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
This is bullshit. Every single ISP I know that offers IPv6 service today delegates a prefix. All the ones I know that are preparing commercial IPv6 services will be delegating prefixes.
I see. And are those the majority of carriers, or just the early adopters? And, assuming the latter, is it at all possible that the prefixes are there to incentivize you to make the switch (and thereby help them test it)?
A lot of stuff does not work correctly if you do not get at least a /64 subnet assigned. A IPv6 host is actually not required to be able to function on a subnet smaller than this. For this reason every ISP on the planet will assign you at least a subnet with 2 lifted to the power of 64 addresses. More than you can ever dream of.
Of course, if they for business reasons want to restrict you to just one host there are ways to do that. But it probably wont be by restricting subnet size. More likely they will still give you the /64 subnet but put up a firewall rule that only allows traffic to one of your gazillion addresses.
if MS was willing to do the right thing, I am guessing that Google would go along with it. At that point, users all over will scream to their ISP's that they want IPV6.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... 1 million internet users need to upgrade their shit if they want to keep a working network connection.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The routers don't deal in text format. They work with binary.
It would be about as complex as what we have well underway now, and we'd have to start over. Fortunately, we aren't going to.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
OK, but if I'm sitting behind my firewall/router, like I have for almost 10 years ... I will still be NAT'ed to the outside world, won't I?
I better be. Because I can't imagine that an "upside" of IPv6 is that I'm hanging my ass out on the internet without being behind a firewall. Same goes for larger organizations. So, you're pretty much gonna be NAT'ed no matter what, no?.
Right now on my private network, my local address isn't routable to the rest of the internet, and nothing can come in. Surely I won't use the same address on my own network as I will on the internet.
What does the topology look like in IPv6 that NAT won't apply? And, for that matter, can I still run IPv4 inside my router behind an IPv6 address and still have everything be hunky dory (assuming the router can get an IPv6 address from the WAN)? Or do I need to move all of my machines to be IPv6?
Trust me -- if I don't get how this works, you can bet your ass that Joe User won't have clue.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The routers don't deal in text format. They work with binary.
No kidding. However, millions of not billions of man hours have gone into configuring the current network addressing scheme throughout the world. That will all have to be redone, not to mention maintaining two different addressing schemes in parallel for the next decade or so.
Whatever its downsides, the suggested scheme would be nearly transparent upgrade on the system administration level. It could have all happened ten years ago and most people wouldn't even notice.
No, you're not going to be needing a NAT with IPv6 for normal mobile, residential and small-office usage scenarios.
I grow weary of explaining that A) NAT is not a firewall, B) your private addresses are every bit as routable as your public address when you're using a NAT gateway, and C) that just because you don't have a NAT in your cheap consumer grade IPv6 home router, it doesn't mean you won't have the cheap "simple security" functions that commonly associated with NAT gateways.
Instead, I will point you at the forthcoming RFC 6092 and its predecessor RFC 4864 and hope for the best.
p.s. Yes, you can get IPv4/NAT home routers that also route IPv6. I could recommend several alternatives, but that would be rude of me.
p.p.s. You may assume that the author of RFC 6092 knows full well that Joe User doesn't have a clue. That's the idea.
jhw
I went to ds.test-ipv6.com and was amazed by the clarity of explanations of the various tests. It gave me a technical result and a 'what that result means to you' which I could understand.
Yahoo! mail is the back-end provider of mail for all Rogers internet customers in Canada, and also their default home page.
That alone accounts for 2 million or more homes according to stats I just googled.
I don't know if they are also the back-end provider for any US or EU ISPs but if they are then that is significant. I think they are... they inherited everyone who was an "@Home" ISP back in the day.
Of course, if they for business reasons want to restrict you to just one host there are ways to do that. But it probably wont be by restricting subnet size. More likely they will still give you the /64 subnet but put up a firewall rule that only allows traffic to one of your gazillion addresses.
And...if they did this, the functional difference between that and what I described is?
Of course, if they for business reasons want to restrict you to just one host there are ways to do that. But it probably wont be by restricting subnet size. More likely they will still give you the /64 subnet but put up a firewall rule that only allows traffic to one of your gazillion addresses.
And...if they did this, the functional difference between that and what I described is?
There are also ways to detect NAT and bill you extra for breaking the terms and conditions you agreed to.
But then, in this country I don't know of one single ISP that is limiting you to one computer. It is probably a practice that does not survive in a competive market.
I really pity them for helping PHP and FreeBSD projects if they have that kind of feedback from so called open source community.
What they should do is, cut the crap and move to MS .NET so MS may have a single credible prestigious "demo" in hand.
Speaking directly from TV World, there isn't such a bandwidth to duplicate channels. H264 has become such a hit because it does amazing amount of bandwidth savings compared to MPEG4-SP or MPEG2.
There can't be (without huge costs) a situation like top 16 mainstream channels airing in 2 bands, one in 2D, one in 3D.
If there were a standard in MPEG spec like 3D bits ignored by 2D receivers, just like analogue b&w/colour situation, things would be really different of course.
On my DVR Box,there are 4 movies consisting of 24 GB which I can't watch without buying an 3D TV from "LG". For me, it is waste of space. This is the issue I talk about. Of course, they just spend 7-8 hours of "3rd tuner" and my electricity to put them there. If we speak about actual, live TV on satellite, things really get ugly.
So IPv6 has functional replacements for most of the advantages of NAT, but those functional replacements generate significantly more admin work to implement. For example pseudo-random IP's + local-only addresses to replace NAT's topology-hiding? Gimme a frikkin break. With IPv4+NAT I assign 1 address per machine that's in local DNS/hosts files, is routable across the NAT'd subnet/private network and is fully memorable on smaller networks or any network with standard subnet numbering (.1 is always router, .2 always DNS or some such system). And I can easily track which machines are hitting the internet. With IPv6 I need to assign one ULA IP and then the machine generates its own pseudo-random IP for external access. Neither are human-readable. And tracking internet usage is far more complex since the pseudo-random IP obscures the info from me (a PITA when trying to track down exactly which idiot salesman's laptop is spewing spam out of the network, that's otherwise trivial with a good firewall).
And when working behind a proper firewall running 1:1 NAT I'm now losing one of the main benefits of direct IP-private IP mapping, IE I can bring up a replacement server, get it fully running & tested and then swap it into production with a single, instant change on the firewall to switch it up (and a single-line config change to revert) and I'm back to swapping IP's on multiple machines to do this (and this is one of the two main reasons to use NAT in a data centre application, the other being to hide support servers from the outside, which is less of an issue with IPv6 to be sure).
So yes, IPv6 has solutions. But they're significantly more labour-intensive than under IPv4.
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
I totally feel your pain, but there really isn't cause to panic about privacy addresses and stateless autoconfig... if you don't want your salesmen to be using them, then set A=0 in prefix advertisements and set the DHCP server to hand out temporaries instead.
jhw
Also, as for the argument about data center applications of NAT, I have another point to make:
There is a difference between A) using NAT because it's one of several available solutions to a problem with no perfect solution, and B) using NAT because it's a requirement of the network architecture.
Your data center application is an example of the latter, but my entry into this thread was on a topic that was an example of the former. We can move the goalposts, but let's be honest about why we're doing it, eh?
jhw