Slashdot Mirror


Internet Groups To Stream Live IPv4/6 Announcement

revealingheart writes "On Thursday, 3 February 2011, at 9:30 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) [14:30 UTC/GMT], the Number Resource Organization (NRO), along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) will be holding a ceremony and press conference to make a significant announcement and to discuss the global transition to the next generation of Internet addresses. We invite all interested community members to view the webcast of this event."

185 comments

  1. Seamless by bbqsrc · · Score: 1

    The transition is so seamless that there has to be a massive function to signal that change must occur now, not just should have. Pretty good fail there.

    --
    Disagree != mod troll.
    1. Re:Seamless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who claimed it would be seamless? Anyone who knows anything about it is aware that it will be quite painful, that's why it hasn't happened over the last 12 fucking years that the standard has existed.

    2. Re:Seamless by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The shit did not hit the fan yet. No one really cares about IANA's pool running out -- but not being able to obtain them from RIPE will be a serious problem.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:Seamless by Esospopenon · · Score: 2

      No one really cares about IANA's pool running out

      RIPE probably cares a lot about IANA's pool running out and they will surely spread all their troubles downstream to all of the account holders.

    4. Re:Seamless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YET being the operative word. I'd like to get ipv6 going. It's been on my radar for years, and developing the associated skills and knowledge makes a lot of sense for me, if only to maintain my status quo of knowing how to admin a network. However, IPv6 is currently pretty messy to get involved with. You either need an ISP that supports it, or to start begging asshat elitists for IPv6 accounts, setting up tunnels and bridges etc. I don't even think the (major) hosting company I'm using provides IPv6 yet, so it'd have to be tunnelled/bridged/etc. there too. I think I'll just wait 'til the higher-tier services figure out their end.

    5. Re:Seamless by smelch · · Score: 1

      Everybody talks about how big of a pain in the ass IPv6 is going to be to deploy, but I'm pretty sure I've had a public IPv6 address and private IPv6 addresses for over a year. Doesn't seem like a problem for me, except I'll have to learn the new equivalent of 127.0.0.1. Be honest, is this all another Y2K where everything is just going to be smooth and a bunch of idiots that aren't talented enough to do the work but smart enough to know there is some kind of an issue are going to scream about the sky falling?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    6. Re:Seamless by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Seamless? The transition was not seamless! The scarcity of IPv4 addresses has been breaking things for YEARS, ever since the first NAT deployment. Now it will just get worse at a faster rate, until v6 is popular enough that we can reliably address packets to any host on the internet (firewall permitting) and see them get there without needing any "forwarding" nonsense.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:Seamless by cskrat · · Score: 1

      try ::1

      --
      My God! It's full of eval()'s.
    8. Re:Seamless by GeorgeS · · Score: 1

      ::1/128 ftw :)

      --
      "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
    9. Re:Seamless by davew · · Score: 1

      To be honest, this is a fair comment. It *should* be a seamless transition, and evidently it's not going to be. My one concern is that, on the internet, this sort of change can't be laid down from on high. The kind of people who should be working on this transition are... pretty much the target audience of slashdot, actually.

    10. Re:Seamless by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      YET being the operative word. I'd like to get ipv6 going. It's been on my radar for years, and developing the associated skills and knowledge makes a lot of sense for me, if only to maintain my status quo of knowing how to admin a network. However, IPv6 is currently pretty messy to get involved with. You either need an ISP that supports it, or to start begging asshat elitists for IPv6 accounts, setting up tunnels and bridges etc. I don't even think the (major) hosting company I'm using provides IPv6 yet, so it'd have to be tunnelled/bridged/etc. there too. I think I'll just wait 'til the higher-tier services figure out their end.

      Getting IPv6 isn't that hard. Tunnel brokers are mostly easy to get on with, it's totally unfair to call them 'asshat elitists'. The obvious problem is everyone is waiting until everyone else does their bit. Few people are just getting on with it. Yes the whole idea of tunneling 6 over 4 sucks but it's only meant to be a temporary thing.

    11. Re:Seamless by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      You have a few options for getting IPv6 connectivity if your ISP doesn't support it.

      1: 6to4 , this is availiable to anyone who has a public v4 IP and requires no special agreements or accounts or anything like that. Downside is that routing between it and native v6 is less than perfect.
      2: teredo, this sucks even more than 6to4 and I won't go into it here. The only reason to use it is if your system doesn't have a public v4 IP and even then a tunnel is probablly better
      3: free tunnel providers, freenet6 doesn't even require an account and if you do want an account (main reason for this is if you want to connect a whole network rather than just a single IP) it's no hassle to get one, their performance used to be shit but things seem better now (though still not as good as a native connection). HE require an account but I haven't heard of anyone having problems getting one . sixxs is apparently the fastest but suffer from the "asshat elitists" problem.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:Seamless by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Everybody talks about how big of a pain in the ass IPv6 is going to be to deploy
      The big problems are

      1: the chicken and egg problem. While everyone can access v4 servers there is little point in adding v6 to them and while a susbstantial portion of servers are v4 only ISPs won't want to make users v6 only.
      2: infrastructure equipment, older home routers often don't do IPv6 at all and some older proffesional routers only do v6 in software which is much slower than doing v4 in hardware.
      3: application software support. To support IPv6 apps must do certain things differently from with v4, it's not hugely difficult to port an app if you have the source but if you don't it's an extreme PITA to hack support in.

      Be honest, is this all another Y2K where everything is just going to be smooth and a bunch of idiots that aren't talented enough to do the work but smart enough to know there is some kind of an issue are going to scream about the sky falling?
      What is almost certain to happen is that home lusers will be pushed behind ISP level v4 nat to free up IPs for more important/lucrative uses. They may or may not also offer IPv6. If you use anything other than traditional client apps (NAT traversal techniques get flakier the higher the load on the NAT and is incompatible with certain types of NAT so don't rely on apps that use it continuing to work) on a home connection you should expect to have problems and should press your ISP for information on their plans and/or make contingency plans for a situation where the only apps you can run on a home connection are traditional client apps.

      Further anyone trying to expand their public IP networks is going to be in for a lot of pain. While ISPs will be able to provide IPs by recovering them from home lusers that is a lot of effort for the ISP and is almost certain to come at a price.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:Seamless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just take all the IPs back from Iran, Egypt, China. They just abuse human rights anyway.

    14. Re:Seamless by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lack of adoption is partly (mostly?) to blame on the standard being pure shit... designed by committee, by academics who have never run a real world network. Too many personal political agenda's are wired into this thing... NO NAT! No DHCP -- SLAAC fixes everything (except it doesn't) MUST include full IPSec. No attention on privacy or security.

      What was RFC'd over a decade ago is not what IPv6 is today. And it will continue to change until the seemingly endless mountains of stupid are corrected.

    15. Re:Seamless by Cramer · · Score: 1

      NAT was a real mess in the begining due to various protocols assuming they knew what the host's IP address was and rolled it into the data flowing between systems. That assumption caused problems long before NAT existed; there just weren't enough people with multi-homed systems to scream about it. NAT made that assumption wrong 100% of the time, for everyone. Protocol helpers are required to deal with those things. In the era of NAT, protocols are designed without making such assumptions. Unless, of course, you're an idiot. (see also: SIP)

      What we're going to see in a world sans-NAT, is a return to the 80's and 90's where the internet is "naked". As anyone should well know by now, NEVER connect a windows box directly to the internet. People will not be smart enough to setup firewalls, or even realize they need one. NAT is their firewall today. And despite the religious wars, NAT IS their firewall.

    16. Re:Seamless by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      No NAT officially, does not mean it cannot be done.

      In fact, since the whole of IPv4 address space is contained within IPv6 address space, that means the IPv4 private addresses are also within the IPv6 space.
      I don't see any reason why this can't be used to NAT IPv6, unless there's some weird aspect of the spec that is fundamentally incompatible with NAT. (I admit, I haven't read the spec at all.)

      Also, you contradict yourself.
      You bitch about "MUST include full IPSec," then the very next sentence is "No attention on privacy or security."
      Well, IPSec is about both privacy _and_ security. If you don't understand this, then maybe you're not in a position to be bitching about the technical aspects of a protocol.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    17. Re:Seamless by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > NO NAT!

      There can be NAT if you want it. It just isn't necessary any more.

      No DHCP

      Yes there is. Of course, neither NAT or DHCP has anything to do with the standard.

      > MUST include full IPSec. No attention on privacy or security.

      You contradict yourself.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    18. Re:Seamless by Cramer · · Score: 1

      DHCP was a bolt-on compromise. In it's current form, DHCPv6 is a bad joke. Look at what you can do with DHCPv4. Now look at what you can do with DHCPv6.

      IPSec does not mean the protocol (IPv6) has been designed with any thought given to privacy (hello, SLAAC) or security. IPv4 has IPSec but the protocol itself still has had numerous problems in both areas. Plus, IPSec alone makes the network stack over a megabyte just about everywhere. This isn't a problem for Windows(tm), but is a huge issue for the millions of tiny devices found everywhere today (TV's, STB's, clocks, blu-ray players, phones, cell phones, cable modems, dsl modems, routers, switches, etc., etc., etc.)

      Face it. IPv6 is a failure. We're going to be forced to use this mistake for many decades. It was designed by idiots who were more concerned with their own religion and political agendas than building the next gen protocol to be useful for many decades (centuries?) IPv4, in contrast, was designed by very bright minds. The technology they designed is still in use 30 years later with very little modification. An IPv4 ethernet device built in 1982 still works flawlessly in modern IPv4 networks. An IPv6 device designed just 10 years ago doesn't fair so well in today's IPv6 networks -- for one, SLAAC is a 64bit prefix now; it was 80 then.

    19. Re:Seamless by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Again, IPSec is end-to-end encryption. It does NOT mean the protocol itself (or even how it does IPSec) is remotely secure. Forcing every IPv6 stack to contain a full IPSec layer is bloat at it's finest. Btw, just because the stack has to support it doesn't mean applications will use it.

      IPv4 and IPv6 are entirely different protocols. They cannot talk to each other. PERIOD. Technically, it's possible to write a v6 stack that can understand a v4 packet, but the reverse is impossible... IPv4 stacks cannot make sense of v6 packets. v4 and v6 are as alien to each other as IPX and Appletalk. This is why the transition is such a horrible fucking mess. You have to run both, everywhere. Or resort to application specific protocol proxies. In case you missed it, IPv6 compatible IPv4 addressing has been depreciated for years. (so long ago my Cisco 1760 (long past EOL) won't let me enter such an address.)

      NAT is gone in IPv6. Period. Anyone attempting it will be facing a never ending battle of broken applications. End to end transparency is fundamental to IPv6. IPSec will make sure you cannot screw with an application's traffic.

    20. Re:Seamless by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Do you know why Y2K wasn't such a big deal? Because lots of very talented people worked for a very long time updating lots of code to handle the event. It's not like it was predicted by your "bunch of idiots" and then no one did anything and it turned out to be nothing. If the workers hadn't spent years fixing everything, there would have been chaos in many places and in many industries.

    21. Re:Seamless by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      NAT is not a firewall. Want a firewall? Run a firewall. Windows comes with one. So does linux. Modern ISPs even build them into their broadband modems. Welcome to the world of tomorrow, kid.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:Seamless by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Pure NAT -- what linux calls "simple nat" -- is not a firewall. What all the linksys's, netgears, and d-links of the world do is a firewall. Connection tracking and protocol helpers are every bit the same as a pure firewall; they're just rewriting addresses as well. SPI happens in both cases.

      Right. Trust the buggiest OS in the world to be your firewall. I guess you've missed the memo's about the various bugs that foul up windows even with the firewall on. Linux has had a few as well, for that matter. Cisco's router and firewall products have had similar problems, too.

      As much as it is your religion that "NAT is not a firewall", NAT is what protects 99% of the internet today. People will not realize they need to take steps to protect their computers -- or even know what a firewall is.

    23. Re:Seamless by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      If you want a firewall, run a firewall. This is not complicated. Using NAT for a firewall is like hideously disfiguring your face as birth control because you're too dumb to use condoms.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    24. Re:Seamless by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Are you listening to yourself?

      "IPSec does not mean the protocol will be secure."
      "IPSec will make sure you cannot screw with an application's traffic."

      If you can't screw with the traffic, then it's secure. You really need to make up your mind here.

      You're right in that a v4 stack can't understand v6 packets, but the rest of what you're saying seems to be regurgitated buzzwords and rumours that you don't really understand.

      And as far as NAT goes, it's done at a networking level underneath where IPSec/SSL is handled, so if NAT isn't possible with IPv6, it has nothing to do with IPSec.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  2. Last post by bothemeson · · Score: 1

    the robotic overlords invite us to the news of the millenia!

    1. Re:Last post by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new 6-digit overlords.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  3. Time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is 14:30 GMT (At time of posting, it will start in 45 minutes).

    1. Re:Time. by gnapster · · Score: 1

      And for those (like me) who just discovered this announcement, it has now ended, at 16:00 GMT. The last thing they said is that they will be uploading a recording of the ceremony and the news conference as soon as they can.

  4. The internet (IP4) is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    long live the internet (IP6)

  5. will this include... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    ...the issue of a Papal Bull declaring that NAT Is Evil, perhaps with an international treaty to ban it? It's a shame Princess Diana isn't still alive - she'd probably have more consensus with that than tackling land mines.

    (Too soon?)

    1. Re:will this include... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Not all NAT is evil. NAT64 and DNS 64 are useful transition mechanisms so that you can connect with v4 hosts while running v6.

      --
      SSC
    2. Re:will this include... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2

      Well, NAT64 is like purgatory. You left earthly IPv4 in God's grace but you receive punishment for continued involvement with 32-bit sinners. And, yeah, I suppose purgatory needs a sunset period.

    3. Re:will this include... by Morth · · Score: 1

      Useful as long as you have software that runs on IPv6. There's a lot of software that will never be upgraded, so most likely dual stack will be around for a long long time.

    4. Re:will this include... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      But the better long term solution would be a global IPv6-only addressing scheme. If some software on a particular machine only understands IPv4, let it talk IPv4 locally and a gateway (separate hardware or on the machine itself) can translate packets to IPv6 appearing from machine's unique IPv6 address. MTU discovery will respond appropriately.

    5. Re:will this include... by Canazza · · Score: 1

      a bit like Internet Explorer 6 then

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    6. Re:will this include... by rainmayun · · Score: 1

      and if this machine needs to connect to another machine beyond its LAN, how would you address it?

    7. Re:will this include... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      If the IPv4-only software on that machine needs to do so, a DNS lookup would set up a mapping, no?

  6. Let me summarize... by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yes, we have no bananas."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  7. Typical east coast sensibilities by JasonM314 · · Score: 2

    No awareness of timezones whatsoever.

    It's going to be 6:30 in California, people!

    Sheesh, if you want people to watch your announcement live, you need to schedule it when as many folks as possible are AWAKE.

    1. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's what they did by aligning it with night in the pacific ocean. There are a lot of people outside the american continent, you know?

    2. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by doherty · · Score: 1

      You know, there is this thing called the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fantastic! Finally, my habit of waking up before 5 AM for no apparent reason for the last several years will finally bear fruit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by silverglade00 · · Score: 2

      It's going to be 6:30 in California, people!

      <troll> What's the problem? You Californians will be up at 5 drinking your wheat grass meth smoothies before your pilates anyway.* </troll>

      I agree, that is way too early for anything. Nothing should go on at 6:30am except the clock showing there's 4 hours of sleep left.

      *I am a native Californian. Even WE think we all do this.

    5. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      > I am a native Californian. Even WE think we all do this.

      Whereas in fact you sleep in until 11 and then "do lunch", consisting of raw fish and margaritas.

      BTW I was up at 6:30, but then I live on a farm in Wisconsin. Here in the Midwest we all get up early to milk the cows. In the East they're all up early for the three hour commute to their office jobs in the city.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical east coast sensibilities
      No awareness of timezones whatsoever.

      Strange, I've always had the same "fun" with West-coasters trying to schedule calls for 7PM EST.
      Or during lunch when you lazy bastards finally get to work :)

      Sheesh, if you want people to watch your announcement live, you need to schedule it when as many folks as possible are AWAKE.

      I'm assuming they're trying to hit Europe as well, so there's a short window when they'll be conscious and sober.

    7. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      youre complaining about 6:30, how about doing at 01:30 watched it - awesome & awe-full

    8. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Have a look at a globe some time ;)

      California is not the centre of the world (although it depends on your frame of reference). The time is set so that as many people as possible *are* awake.

    9. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      The time is set so that as many people as possible *are* awake.

      [citation needed]
      my google-fu couldn't bring up an adequate answer for the dynamic consciousness centroid of the Earth accounting for timezones

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    10. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost 2/3 of the worlds population live in Asia. Europe has a higher population than N. America. Statistically speaking it probably should have been earlier, but I guess they've compromised.

    11. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Binestar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Middle of night over the PACIFIC. Less people live in the pacific ocean than elsewhere, so conversely, less people to be asleep at that time. Sorry, no citation, just common sense.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    12. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      There are ever so slightly more people in Asia and Europe then there are in California. It's already being held too late if they wanted "as many folks as possible are AWAKE" is the main criteria, but waiting for California would just ensure even fewer people were "AWAKE".

    13. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just people not 'east coast sensibilities'.

      I many times have people on the west coast scheduling things for 9pm my time (Uh dipstick I went home 4 hours ago...). I cure them of it by scheduling things for 8-9am my time and they must attend. They get the point very quickly.

      What it is, is people do not think. They just find an open spot and put it wherever is convenient for them. Taking in no consideration of who their audience is. It also shows what sort of meeting it is. It is not one where they care to hear what you are saying and are doing it to hear themselves talk. It is an announcement. No questions please.

      Also 9:30AM EST gets you all the way to India which will be around 10-11PM. You know Europe one of the larger population centers around?... So maybe they did put some thought into it?

      Also get over yourself. Watch it after the fact. I am in EST and I will maybe watch it a few weeks from now... It does not affect me right now anyway whatever they are announcing.

    14. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of the world are awake on EST 9:30-- its when the NYSE opens -- all the finanace people in Cali are at work @ 5:30 or before because the world of finance starts with 9:30

    15. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Webcasts for worldwide companies are often done in different languages because of the obvious regional differences, so there is no attention paid to a center-of-consciousness because business processes don't 100% hinge on announcements, and we have timeshifting via recordings, written summaries and so on.

      The only panopticon-type announcement we experience is the none-too-unexpected arrival of New Year's day every year --dozens of newscasts throughout the day will post the arrival of new year's starting from Polinesia, going through Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Russia, the Pope's Vatican, and eventually the US's East Coast. 6AM is 3AM East Coast, and around 5PM in Japan. They are targetting the announcement to reach further west, where it REALLY matters and is already in aggressive implementation when compared to the wait-and-see trials in the US. After all, natting for them would be a big problem.

      Regardless, Apple has been doing just fine with event publicity for decades. They prefer to unveil their worldwide phones and gadgets at 1PM ET, which means European markets are already closed... no biggie --there is always the nightly news and "the day of tomorrow" for everyone else to hear it. Financial markets react regardless of time of announcements to more important things than something that will get implemented at varying times, depending on the budgets for every company.

    16. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOops. Messed up the calculations with time. 6AMWest Coast == 9AMET, so it's 11PM in Japan and 10PM in Hong Kong --unlike what I stated for them, it's not very comfortable for the IP-starving Asians at all, and pretty much nerd-food that isn't relevant to the monetary interests of the apparent target timezones --the snail-pace-adopter giants of the USA. For the timezone-curious, have a look at your own destinations

    17. Re:Typical east coast sensibilities by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Have a look at a globe some time ;)

      The globe is a chimera created by the leftist elite. The world is flat - you know it, and I know it.

      I've seen many Japanese people leave here (Seattle) and fly west - none of them have ever come back. They obviously fell off the edge.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  8. Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    At least, that's what the ISPs have largely been thinking on the ipv4 / ipv6 switch. And it's completely understandable why - ipv6 is a significant investment, while sticking to ipv4 is short-term more profitable. In addition, they may be thinking that they can make the other ISPs or even other countries do all the work for them.

    The economics of it are probably no different than any theoretical global environmental problem: It affects everybody, but nobody wants to pay to fix it, and nobody will until either the situation is dire or they're forced to (typically by treaties and government action, but possibly an industry association in this case).

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  9. Audio by cskrat · · Score: 1

    Can somebody tell them to kill the buzz on the audio?

    --
    My God! It's full of eval()'s.
    1. Re:Audio by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Indeed, somebody just noticed and fixed it.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:Audio by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Can somebody tell them to kill the buzz on the audio?

      Man! Those vuvuzelas are everywhere now.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Audio by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Great, can you post some comments telling us what it says? I mostly can't load the page and when I can I still can't access the stream.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Audio by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      So far it's just a ceremonial handing over of the last blocks, and the recipients are giving brief speeches. The guy from Asia Pacific commented he expected to run through his final allocated addresses in three to six months.

    5. Re:Audio by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Ceremonial allocation of the last blocks, now a pause. There will be a press conference at 10:00 local time.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    6. Re:Audio by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks! Maybe they will have a coordinated text PR release then. Given their incompetence delivering the stream I'm not betting on it, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Special offer, for a limited time only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two IPv6 addresses for the price of one (allocation only. Domain name services extra).

    1. Re:Special offer, for a limited time only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would still be expensive; obtaining a Provider Independent IPv6 allocation costs several hundred euros per year if you are in the RIPE extortion zone.

      Don't even think about becoming an LIR unless you have 3000 Euros per year to burn on "membership".

      The sooner the geographic RIRs die, the better. Let's have real competition instead of monopoly exploitation.

  11. Not-for-profit Freeloaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of the representatives of these public-funded organisations are attending using teleconferencing and how many took an all-expenses trip to Miami

  12. Prosperity reigns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Free IPs for the masses! A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and a routable IP for every device!

    1. Re:Prosperity reigns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just want the peace of the world... and a blowjob.

    2. Re:Prosperity reigns by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      I think you mean a 56,958,650,000 routable IPs for every gram of matter on and in the earth.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  13. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    A lot of small ISPs are on the edge as it is, and they simply cannot afford to make a switch to IPv6. A lot of them are just AT&T resellers so no great loss, but a few of them also provide services that the death star won't touch, like multihop microwave links to serve obscure neighborhoods.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. started early :( by tlund · · Score: 1

    I wanted to watch it, but it seems they started early :(

    1. Re:started early :( by chrism238 · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad - you didn't miss anything!

    2. Re:started early :( by gh0st1nth3mach1n3 · · Score: 1

      From my perspective, they started late. I tuned in at 9:30am EST to be greeted by background music and no video. I left it on while I went to do other work and heard voices start up around 10:00am. All-in-all, it was informative, but more for the average joe than for the networking types.

    3. Re:started early :( by Chang · · Score: 1

      It was recorded so you'll be able to catch it later.

      You didn't miss much. Extremely boring speeches by some not very talented speakers.

  15. Error establishing a database connection by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Past that, can't view on Firefox 3.6 or 4 on Linux amd64. Tried it in Firefox on Windows XP in VMware Player 3 and my system became unresponsive (thanks, VMware!) Didn't hang, I could see occasional disk activity. Windows media stream link is 404.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Error establishing a database connection by sjames · · Score: 2

      What you didn't know is that the presentation is a performance art piece. It depicted just about what will happen in a few months if you ask for a block of v4 addresses.

  16. inwertnet v2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do i hav2 download smething? it wil still wrk on my comp right?,,,i mean inetrnet?

  17. It's so bittersweet... by telekon · · Score: 1
    *sniff*

    It's like watching your baby grow up and leave home...

    I couldn't help crying a little when they gave APNIC 103.0.0.0/8

    --

    To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

  18. Overloaded? Slashdotted? by lamber45 · · Score: 1

    I was planning to watch it since yesterday, but all I see right now is "Error establishing a database connection".

    1. Re:Overloaded? Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. Damn.

    2. Re:Overloaded? Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched to "low bandwidth" video stream hoping it would stop the video stuttering, but no luck. I got maybe every third word of the event. I still have no idea what anyone said, or what the big announcement was.

    3. Re:Overloaded? Slashdotted? by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      I get a piano sonata and the ICANN logo. Just now I heard someone clicking their fingers so I guess that's a test card while they fix something.

    4. Re:Overloaded? Slashdotted? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      The low bandwidth streaming in Germany was near-perfect. It is a matter of luck, or rather, network topology and current congestion on all intermediate hops that determines the quality.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    5. Re:Overloaded? Slashdotted? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      That's because the announcement is over. It will resume in 3 or so minutes with a press conference. At least I hope they'll stream it too.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  19. Windows Media Sream URI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://windmedia.merit.edu/arin

    1. Re:Windows Media Sream URI by Sq · · Score: 1

      that one didn't work, it was actually http://winmedia.merit.edu/arin

  20. Choppy Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would think that the people "running the internet" could make sure the video didn't cut out every 3 seconds.

  21. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The economics of it are probably no different than any theoretical global environmental problem: It affects everybody, but nobody wants to pay to fix it, and nobody will until either the situation is dire or they're forced to (typically by treaties and government action, but possibly an industry association in this case).

    Actually, the address space problem is real, so it isn't like the Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Change at all. You will be too busy calling me a heretic (denier, in your dogma) to see that though...

  22. Out of IPs? by nmalinoski · · Score: 1

    What's the point in streaming an announcement if NOBODY HAS AN IP? :P

    1. Re:Out of IPs? by olau · · Score: 2

      What's the point in streaming an announcement if NOBODY HAS AN IP? :P

      Ahem. Some of us got an IP while there was still time. Of course, seing you have a 7-digit Slashdot id, I can see where you're coming from.

    2. Re:Out of IPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnily enough - broadcast is coming on IPV4 only...

  23. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're literally handing over tokens of the last IP blocks to the representatives of the regional registries... The mood is like that of a graduation ceremony: Looking back on the work they've done together, but with a sense that things will change and this date marks both the end of a bygone era and the start of a new era.

    "On behalf of ICANN and IANA, I am out of IPv4 addresses..."

    Interesting times.

    1. Re:LOL by thsths · · Score: 1

      TLooking back on the work they've done together, but with a sense that things will change and this date marks both the end of a bygone era and the start of a new era.

      Like the end of the Lord of the Rings? :-)

      I have to admit that the showmanship was a bit sub par. But this was a historic moment, and we will remember it. I just hope that they have some decent HD footage, so that we are not going to embarrass our kids with home video quality.

      How well we will remember this will also depend on how painful the transition will be, which depends mostly on how much pain it takes to start it. And judging by the very minimal efforts put into IPv6 so far, that could be a lot of pain.

  24. What did I miss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, for those of us with connectivity problems/missing the announcement/it started early, what happened?

    1. Re:What did I miss? by pdragon04 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed a token ceremony of them handing out the last IPv4 pools to the RIRs. That's it. It was like a cheesy award ceremony

    2. Re:What did I miss? by noc007 · · Score: 1

      They did a ceremony for that? That's like handing over the keys to the last land-only vehicle and no other vehicle that touches the ground will be made again. Couldn't get in when one could be bought? Sorry. But don't feel completely SOL; there's this new thing called the "flying car" that is meant to replace land-only vehicles and it's so much better. It's not too difficult getting one either. The only problem is there are only a handful of air-roads and you can only get from point A to point B if there are air-roads with the flying car. If there aren't any air-roads at your home and destination, you can't use the flying car. Never mind that in the next subdivision they have an air-road, yours doesn't and there's nothing you can do about it.

  25. Starting Shortly.. by realperseus · · Score: 1

    It is 9:55 AM EST. On the conference call number they just announced that they will be starting shortly.. .

    --
    "Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the smartest thing we ever did.." Homer Simpson
  26. NRO IANA ISOC IAB - we are dying! by dch24 · · Score: 1

    What's the point of IANA, now that they've given out all their numbers?

    Seriously, the holders of the various /8's can form a new organization to govern themselves now. And I can imagine they have a few good reasons to do it.

    The only thing that will keep IANA relevant will be IPv6.

    1. Re:NRO IANA ISOC IAB - we are dying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that will keep IANA relevant will be IPv6.

      And AS numbers, and address family numbers, and BGP parameters, and character sets, and DNS parameters and ...

      IANA has quite a bit more on its plate than just IP addresses.

    2. Re:NRO IANA ISOC IAB - we are dying! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > What's the point of IANA, now that they've given out all their numbers?

      Who do you think gives out IPv6 numbers?

      > Seriously, the holders of the various /8's can form a new organization to govern themselves now.

      I can think of no good reason for them to do that.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  27. Go Uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Classic comment in a call from the uk... If the last blocks of ipv4 have been assigned already... What's the actual news today?

  28. I Want to have a multicast address by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    Why aren;t the adresses in 224.0.1.0- 238.255.255.255 made available? Are there any implementation that actually USE these adress (Yes, i know a lot of firewall block these as not supported ... but why?)

    1. Re:I Want to have a multicast address by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Any extra /8 or smaller we free up will only help IPv4 last for a few months at most.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:I Want to have a multicast address by Sq · · Score: 2

      See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
      224/8 to 239/8 are actually used for multicast. We use them in our company for example (makes for *great* bandwidth saver for media streamings and stuff)
      240/8 to 255/8 (so called E-classes in old days) however were "reserved for future use".

      The problem with reusing them is exactly what you state -- way too many firewalls and routers around the world drops those, and so they are effectively unusable for global (Internet) routing - you would need to fix the whole world before you could safely use them (who'd want IPv4 adresses that won't work on 99% of the Internet?), and apparently fixing the whole world is much much more complicated than just deploying IPv6.

    3. Re:I Want to have a multicast address by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      It would cost more and take longer to fix all the stuff that blocks the reserved addresses than to convert that stuff to IPv6.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:I Want to have a multicast address by lamber45 · · Score: 1

      224.0.0.0/4 is already in use ... for multicast traffic, of course. 224.0.0.1 is link-local all-hosts; 224.0.0.251 is mDNS; 224.0.1.1 is NTP. 233/8 and 234/8 are for use by organizations with AS numbers or /24 IP address allocations, respectively. 239/8 is for private use by an organization, just like the RFC 1918 blocks for unicast.

      Did you mean to ask about 240/4? That's "experimental", in other words for traffic that is neither unicast not multicast. I'm not sure what that would be, and I've never heard anyone try to explain it. I'd say it's safe to use those addresses to encode other information in a 32-bit field that previously only held IP addresses; because it's very unlikely that they will be ever be used for unicast. However, you only get 28 bits to work with ... not enough for, for example, complete IPv6 addresses.

      On popular modern OSes (notably Linux and Windows), the unicast/multicast/experimental split is enforced at a very low level, so you couldn't even use those addresses on your LAN without a custom-rewritten kernel and other software. For instance, on Debian Etch the command "ifconfig wlan0:1 254.1.1.7/24" fails with the error message "SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument".

  29. Sooo....what happened? by wandazulu · · Score: 1

    According to my clock, it's now 10:45 EST. I checked the links above but nobody as posted what the "big announcement" was all about.

    1. Re:Sooo....what happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the last IP blocks were given out to the regional groups.
      Some talked over their addressing policies for it.

      Some talked about why we need to convert over to IPv6 as soon as humanly possible since even these IPs will only extend it for so long before it all collapses and we will be forced to upgrade, or try reclaim unused IPs on an individual basis.
      The internet will remain the same usual internet as always.
      Well, that is unless the ISPs move over to even more NAT and restrict people to private IPs with a limited port range to share private IPs, or even worse things along those lines. (and sell more port ranges / public IPs for those who need it)

      The videos will be uploaded on their website and other places (youtube) later at some point hopefully.

    2. Re:Sooo....what happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did not catch the webcast, but here is a new headline:

      Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted

      http://www.nro.net/news/ipv4-free-pool-depleted

      Montevideo, 3 February 2011 – The Number Resource Organization (NRO) announced today that the free pool of available IPv4 addresses is now fully depleted. On Monday, January 31, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocated two blocks of IPv4 address space to APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for the Asia Pacific region, which triggered a global policy to allocate the remaining IANA pool equally between the five RIRs. Today IANA allocated those blocks. This means that there are no longer any IPv4 addresses available for allocation from the IANA to the five RIRs.

      ----

      this should get it's own slashdot entry

  30. The Last of the Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    185/8 allocated to RIPE

  31. Idiot! by GeorgeS · · Score: 1

    OMG Olaf just told everyone they should not even notice the change over when asked what people needed to buy or do to get on IPv6!!

    --
    "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
    1. Re:Idiot! by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      Yes, he is not right! Many people (at least in Europe) run ADSL modem routers that they have to manage themselves. And a switch to IPv6 means either hoping for a firmware upgrade and applying it or buying a new one. Unless you have one that already supports IPv6 out of the box. (I think only some of the AVM Fritz!Box modem routers do).

    2. Re:Idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true, for the most part, unless you have ancient / cheap hardware.

      Most stuff even from 5 years ago has IPv6 connectivity.
      Most stuff can have firmwares updated to introduce IPv6.
      Almost all OSes have supported it for 10 years or more. (even Windows)

      The whole network COULD be made 100% transparent if the edges of ISP networks were addressed with IPv4, and everything internally was done with IPv6.
      An IPv4 address range for every IPv6 address, essentially. (an extremely large number)
      Or, perhaps something like that, but also sending along an IPv6 address too. (for those that support it, they will be happy, for those that don't, it should be ignored unless the hardware / software was created with little effort in to error handling)
      But this goes away from the end-to-end nature that we want to get back to, away from NAT and over such methods to extend it.

    3. Re:Idiot! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And he is correct. I'm not sure what your issue is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Idiot! by GeorgeS · · Score: 1

      I have no issue( I've been using IPv6 just fine for the last 2 years and have an IPv6 cert from he.net) but, the millions of people that may/might be required to Flash their own hardware may have plenty of issues.
      and he is not correct....there may be plenty of ISP's that ask/require an end user to make changes to the settings on a cable modem or router...this is trouble...always will be...Period.

      --
      "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy."
    5. Re:Idiot! by Junta · · Score: 1

      My WRT54G doesn't have IPv6 baked in unless I go to a third-party firmware that has it (I plan on doing that, but still no IPv6 in sight for Time Warner customers so I don't know what they'll do when the time comes). Note third-party firmware, not something that mom and pop would generally apply. A whole *LOT* of people have devices like that as their gateway. Besides, a firmware update is not exactly automatic.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  32. Typical USA sensibilities by pahles · · Score: 1

    No awareness of the world whatsoever.

    It's going to be 15:30 in Europe, people!

    Sheesh, if you want to talk about the internet: since when is the internet bounded by the borders of the USA?

    --
    Sig?
    1. Re:Typical USA sensibilities by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > ...since when is the internet bounded by the borders of the USA?

      Who said anything about the USA? He's on about California.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  33. Job Opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hire me! Hire me! I just passed the IPv6 CCIE R&S written! No don't check my credit history you mother effing HR F**K!

  34. It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hearing the IANA IPv4 address pool is now completely depleted, but neither of the 2 ISPs I use (cable & dsl) provides v6 connectivity.

    When are big ISPs going to adopt ipv6 ?

    ipv6 connection support check here : http://ipv6-test.com

  35. Engineer Panel - not the most charismatic by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    I feel like they did a pretty poor job explaining to the layman what exactly the difference is between IPv4 and IPv6.

    They really need to stress that sticking with IPv4 isn't an option, its not like 6 is some new hotness that we're trying to sell to them. 4 has a limited number of addresses, and we're running out. If we do run out, then we have big problems. The internet stops working the way you want. However, most people are already IPv6 capable, and its just the ISPs and major online services which need to adapt.

    I get the feeling from most of the questions that people were really lost.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  36. We want NAT-PT! by Chemisor · · Score: 2

    Bring back NAT-PT! It was prematurely obsoleted due to scalability concerns. Those concerns are indeed valid, but only for large networks. On a home network with a couple of users it is a perfectly viable solution. Put NAT-PT on a router appliance, give it an IPv6 address, and it will let the home network transparently pretend that IPv6 does not exist. Yes, there are a few obvious problems with the few protocols that send IP addresses, like bittorrent, but a simple client fix can easily send hostnames instead. Otherwise, it will just work, and nobody will have to care about IPv6 except ISPs.

    Many of the transition problems arise from the insistence that everybody want IPv6. Normal people don't care about IPv6, don't want IPv6, and couldn't care less what it is. Instead of starting to convert from the bottom up, with users going IPv6 first on their home networks, and then the ISPs and backbones switching when everybody has moved, do it the other way around. Convert the backbones to IPv6 down to ISP level. Then the consumers can use NAT-PT appliances to pretend that that did not happen and keep on going without any disruption.

    1. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we fix it right instead of using another hack that will haunt us for decades?

    2. Re:We want NAT-PT! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the problem. The vast majority of home users just want the Internet to "just work" - and if you want to transition them to IPv6, you need to basically offer a box they can replace their existing Linksys with.

      IPv6 is a pain to deal with because it changes a lot. Now try telling your mom how to differentiate between the 2 IPv6 addresses she'll have on her PC (link-local and the routable one), when before she just handled that 192.168.1.xxx one and everything worked.

      And when my ISP decides to give me a new prefix, the IPv6 devices on my network also have their IPs changed - which is a severe PITA - what, we expect everyone to set up a DNS server? Or I assign them a THIRD IPv6 address (FC00::/64 is the private range) so I can always refer to my router as FC00::1, my NAS appliance as FC00::0101, etc?

      Management headaches - you shouldn't need to be a network engineer just so you can share your internet with everyone else in your family.

      Easy deployment of IPv6 comes with transparency. Offer a box they can replace their existing firewall/NAT router and most enterprises, businesses and home users can continue using the Internet the way they always have and they'll stop caring and we'd have moved to IPv6 years ago.

    3. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Sq · · Score: 1

      NAT-PT was obsoleted due to quite a few problems, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4966

      Anyway, you would still need support for both IPv6 and NAT-PT on router appliance (and if you have working IPv6 on it, you can run dual stack quite easily on most OSs and many devices already). And NAT-PT was only intended as temporary IPv4 to IPV6 transition mechanism, not as "solution" anyway. So you'd have to do transition sooner or later anyway.

      However, if you insist on leaving local network on IPv4 (which will actually make your problems worse as time goes by, but whatever, your choice) you can implement 4to6 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473) instead of NAT-PT.

      But I really would recommend some other transition method - either classic Dual stack, or perhaps DSlite or NAT64+DNS64.

    4. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      "Convert the backbones to IPv6"

      They already are and have been for the past at least 5 years. The earliest back-bone provider was IPv6 certified back in 2001 and everyone from Sprint to AT&T to Level3 have been 100% IPv6 ready on all of their back-bone links since 2004-2006.

    5. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      DNS server? I've been able to ping any device on my network by name for years without having DNS. There are other protocols for local network name resolution.

    6. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      NAT-PT was obsoleted due to quite a few problems, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4966

      Yes, I read that. None of those problems are important on a home network (except bittorrent, but I already mentioned that you can fix it by sending hostnames). A home user contacts a couple of hundred sites at most, so there are no problems with scalability.

      NAT-PT was only intended as temporary IPv4 to IPV6 transition mechanism, not as "solution" anyway. So you'd have to do transition sooner or later anyway.

      My point is that the home user need never transition to IPv6 at all. Ever. We do not need persistent internet addresses. We already have DNS for that. IPv6 is an ugly solution for a nonexistent problem. I hate it. I hate the API, I hate that the address doesn't fit into an integral type, I hate that sockaddr_in6 is not a power of 2 in size and the address is not aligned. The kernel API is a pain with it. The autoconfiguration protocol is a pain and much more complicated that DHCP. And finally, there is the plain fact that there is no way I'm running without NAT. NAT is the right thing to do, both as a layer of security, and as a reminder that the contents of my home network is nobody's damn business.

      A much better solution is to keep IPv4 on the leaf networks and implement a translation protocol on the backbone. The internet is not a network of equally important hosts. You have content servers and you have users. The former is few in numbers and is easily handled by NAT-PT DNS proxy. The users don't talk to each other directly, but through some server, so don't need to be globally routable.

    7. Re:We want NAT-PT! by NoSig · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that if you are running IPv6 and the server you are connecting to doesn't, you won't get a connection. You could fall back to IPv4 in that case, but do you then wait for a time-out on the IPv6 attempt? In that case your surfing will be extremely slow. Worse, if you CAN fall back to IPv4 then you must have an IPv4 address and so you've actually done nothing to solve the problem of address exhaustion.

    8. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      if the server is not running Ipv6, I should hope it doesn't have an IPv6 DNS entry.

      I think what you mean if a hop between you and the server doesn't support IPv6, so your attempt to use it will fail.

      All Teir1 back-bone providers are IPv6 ready, so the only time this should happen is a mis-configured router or the customer has a Teir2 provider that doesn't support IPv6 yet. If their provider doesn't support IPv6, then they shouldn't advertise an IPv6 address for DNS.

    9. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      Average users don't see IP addresses at all, so I can't see any of those issues applying. Autoconfiguration is essential for those users anyway, and that shouldn't be any harder for V6.

    10. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That whole end-to-end principle thing just passed you by, eh?

    11. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > That whole end-to-end principle thing just passed you by, eh?

      On the contrary, the whole end-to-end principle has got to go away. End users don't need to connect to other end users. They connect to content servers, which are few in number. The only exception today is P2P protocols, the reasons for which are political, not technical. Fix the politics, and the internet will work just fine without IPv6.

    12. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Try telling Blizzard that P2P is "only political" when trying to push a 4GB patch to 12mil users.

      I don't care what kind of internet connection you have, P2P will easily rival anything a "content" server can push.

      What we need is a locality aware P2P protocol that prioritizes fewer hops and/or less congested hops.

    13. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      Are you trolling? Do you really want a "walled garden" internet where we're limited to being passive consumers of big content?

      Things "end users" may require end-to-end connectivity for:

      p2p, voip and video communications, games, hosting servers, remote logins.

      And that's just what I've done personally. Who knows what applications the future will hold? An "end to end" internet works just as well as NAT for connecting to central servers (better in fact, due to reduced complexity), but is much more flexible.

    14. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And finally, there is the plain fact that there is no way I'm running without NAT. NAT is the right thing to do, both as a layer of security, and as a reminder that the contents of my home network is nobody's damn business.

      That's wonderful if you feel like doing it. The rest of us want to use BitTorrent, Skype, SSH, and plenty of other protocols in which multiple computers inside our home networks have very good reasons to be globally addressable. NAT is a headache that most people do not want to deal with.

      A much better solution is to keep IPv4 on the leaf networks and implement a translation protocol on the backbone. The internet is not a network of equally important hosts. You have content servers and you have users. The former is few in numbers and is easily handled by NAT-PT DNS proxy. The users don't talk to each other directly, but through some server, so don't need to be globally routable.

      Ew, ew, ew. Yes, you're right, the internet is not a network of equally important hosts, but it should be. There is a philosophical divide here. I do not want everyone's content on centralized servers because that causes privacy and security concerns as well as having to worry about what those groups controlling those centralizing servers are getting out of hosting my content. I want content to be scattered across the internet, everyone serving their own content and mirroring their friends' and/or popular content. The protocols for doing that cleanly may not exist (BitTorrent is a step in that direction), but if the lower level protocols do not allow it, it will never happen.

    15. Re:We want NAT-PT! by bbn · · Score: 1

      I do not know why you need a private subnet. Just use the link local address that you just bitched about if you want an address that does not change.

      But if you do want a private subnet, please take a clue and stay away from using fc00::/64. That is wrong. You need to pick up a random subnet in the range. Here is a tool that will do it for you: http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/

    16. Re:We want NAT-PT! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, the whole end-to-end principle has got to go away. End users don't need to connect to other end users.

      After all, the Internet is just another kind of television, right? And centralized systems are so much easier for governments to control.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    17. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > Do you really want a "walled garden" internet where we're limited to being passive consumers of big content?

      Walled gardens require central servers, but they are not created by them. You can rent a server for less than you're now paying for your broadband connection and host whatever you want.

      > Things "end users" may require end-to-end connectivity for:
      > remote logins

      No they won't. I've never needed to login to my home computer, and will never need to. I couldn't do it anyway, since I turn it off when I don't use it, like most people do. Geeks who login to their home computers from conferences are so extremely rare, there is no way it can justify designing the internet around them. Besides, you can do that through an ssh proxy, like your probably do already.

      > hosting servers

      It is much better to rent a server at a data center. You get a much better connection there, and it's cheaper.

      > games

      Games already require central servers.

      > voip and video communications

      Already go through a central server.

      > p2p

      P2P is used almost exclusively for downloading pirated content. As I said before, this problem is political in nature. It would have been much more efficient to let ISPs mirror any content their users download. This would take so much traffic off the backbones, we could host ten whole other internets over them. All it would take is for people to stand up to the government and change the law they disagree with. We're supposed to be a democracy, right? Instead, people are content to keep breaking the law and invent things like P2P that make it easier to not get sued. You think that makes it harder for the government to control you? Think again. The only power the government is supposed to have is to crack down on criminals, and all you've done is give it the excuse to do so whenever it dislikes you for some reason. You can't solve a legal problem by technical means.

    18. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      It is much better to rent a server at a data center. You get a much better connection there, and it's cheaper.

      Well, that depends what you want. I hosted a telnet-based BBS for a while, for example, where it wasn't easier to do it your way. And an end-to-end network still has your option, of course.

      No they won't. I've never needed to login to my home computer, and will never need to

      So because you don't need something, nobody else does?

      voip and video communications

      Already go through a central server.

      Which ones? That's inefficient and relies on someone being prepared to host a bandwidth-heavy service. How is that any better than sending the communications directly from one person to another? It also reduces innovation - with an end to end network, a hobbyist or small company can develop a new protocol and deploy it without extra costs. But not if they have to pay to set up a high bandwidth central server.

      Games already require central servers.

      I've played plenty of multiplayer games without using a central server, so no they don't. Or rather, one of the players was hosting it. Some games may do that now, but would they if NAT wasn't so prevelant? Your way imposes dependence on someone else setting up a service. Fine for big selling games while the owner can make money from the service, but not in general.

      And as I said, an end-to-end internet does all of the things you want just as well. The key point is that a NAT-based internet has no advantage over an end-to-end one, even if all you do is connect to central servers. However it does reduce innovation and flexibility of the network.by limiting new services to big players. Also, NAT scales poorly because it's stateful.

      You think that makes it harder for the government to control you?

      No, if the government want to do something then network design won't stop them. And I wouldn't care too much if piracy was impossible, since I don't do it as a rule. I just want the most flexible network possible.

    19. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Junta · · Score: 1

      For 99% of applications, I don't see the difference between v6 and v4 at the API layer as being particularly large.

      Now if you are doing your own mask calculations and such, yes you have a mild amount of work (mostly mitigated by arbitrary precision math libraries for low-performance applications) to cope with the fact that it doesn't fit into a 32 bit int. I don't understand the beef about sockaddr_in6 not being a power of 2 or aligned.

      If you feel a lot of performance is lost by going to non-int addresses, I think it's fairly obvious that massive NAT based solutions would impact performance more.

      Another problem with your vision is it presumes all users want to be mindless consumers. I like hosting my services. I like being able to ssh into my box without having to sign up for some inefficiently implemented hosted proxy for that sort of thing.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    20. Re:We want NAT-PT! by Junta · · Score: 1

      Now try telling your mom how to differentiate between the 2 IPv6 addresses she'll have on her PC (link-local and the routable one), when before she just handled that 192.168.1.xxx one and everything worked.

      Most 'mom's that can't tell fe80:: from anything else don't even know what an IPv4 address is at all. *If* there is more than one computer on the network, they access via NETBIOS name service today.

      And when my ISP decides to give me a new prefix, the IPv6 devices on my network also have their IPs changed

      I would wager it will be a lot less likely for an ISP to change your prefix than it is for them to change your IP today. Within your house, you have invariant link-local addresses baked in (and you won't want to remember any addresses, but thanks to mDNS you don't have to anyway).

      Or I assign them a THIRD IPv6 address (FC00::/64 is the private range) so I can always refer to my router as FC00::1, my NAS appliance as FC00::0101, etc?

      Using FC00::/7 like that is against the rules. You would instead end up with something like fdd2:773a:45a2::/48. I know this feeds into your 'IPv6 is hard' argument, but I wanted to make sure that ULA addresses are understood as having a mechanism to try for uniqueness so that private networks don't conflict when tunnelled together. You really really should just use the easy to remember name your device will have, but if you feel compelled to memorize an IP, then just remember you need to connect to fe80::94ab:e1ff:fea7:808a instead of 2001::f00.

      Management headaches - you shouldn't need to be a network engineer just so you can share your internet with everyone else in your family.

      All the management 'magic' is there. In fact, it is *less* likely that 'mom' will have to log in and change private addressing settings with v6 (today if your ISP happens to do carrier grade NAT using 192.168.0.0/16, then that linksys needs advanced config, not the case with prefix delegation or even auto-generated ULA addresses). For in-house name resolution, mDNS is pretty well baked into everything. For external... well you'll probably still have to use a dynamic dns service just like today for your needs since your ISP probably won't be giving you a subdomain to play in, but that's no worse than today.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  37. Free Pool of IPv4 Address Space Depleted by Rigbyd · · Score: 1

    From http://www.nro.net/news/ipv4-free-pool-depleted: "Montevideo, 3 February 2011 – The Number Resource Organization (NRO) announced today that the free pool of available IPv4 addresses is now fully depleted. On Monday, January 31, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocated two blocks of IPv4 address space to APNIC, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for the Asia Pacific region, which triggered a global policy to allocate the remaining IANA pool equally between the five RIRs. Today IANA allocated those blocks. This means that there are no longer any IPv4 addresses available for allocation from the IANA to the five RIRs."

  38. Solution by shentino · · Score: 1

    Have IANA rent v4 IP address space at a dollar a year per IP.

    Cheap as hell if you're not wasting it.

    Presently, people sitting on piles of v4's they aren't using have ZERO incentive to cough them up without a fight, particularly if there's profit to be had subletting them to desperate folks willing to pay an arm and a leg for connectivity because all the v4s are already taken by the same sorts of greedy bastards that are loaning them downstream numbers in the first place.

    1. Re:Solution by Sq · · Score: 1

      Sure, there is possibility for such a black market of reselling IPv4 address space to happen, but I don't think it will happen (at least not much).
      It is not even expected that people will be giving back their pools of IPv4 addresses, much less that anything depends on it at this time. In fact it may even be counterproductive on wasting time to return IPv4 pools by now.

      IPv6 is going to be more and more present and value of IPv4 lower and lower. And even people with IPv6-only would probably have means to access IPv4-only networks, with their ISPs (or other third parties) providing IPv4 connectivity via NAT64, DS-Lite and other solutions (so they wouldn't be likely to shell out big bucks for IPv4 VPNs on black market)

    2. Re:Solution by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how a black-market would work for IPs. An IP is useless unless it's able to be routed correctly. You can't transfer an IP, you can only release it. Once you release it, it's first-come-first-serve.

    3. Re:Solution by Sq · · Score: 1

      I guess by use of VPNs, as it works now (see http://btguard.com/, https://www.ipredator.se/ etc). So essentially it won't get sold, but rented (it might get rented for indefinite amount of time for fixed one-time price, though - depending on the bussiness model chosen). Of course, your latency will go up compared to normal IPv4, but hey...

      Also, you CAN transfer an IP range, and not just give it up.
      See for example https://www.arin.net/resources/request/transfers.html, but other RIRs have similar policies. You just agree with potential customer that you'll transfer part of your IPs to them after they make a payment to you. So while you're not technically selling them IPs, practically you are (you're transfering them your IPs only after they give you their money). But it would be more "gray" than "black" market...

  39. special charactors by cdpage · · Score: 1

    So when will we be able to use special characters in our addresses?

    seems to me that 26 letters is not only limiting, but also not very divers.

    1. Re:special charactors by Bengie · · Score: 1

      you're thinking about DNS.. :P

    2. Re:special charactors by cdpage · · Score: 1

      oops RIGHT!

      sigh.

    3. Re:special charactors by Lennie · · Score: 1

      And it's called IDN in the case of DNS and has been available for some time now.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:special charactors by cdpage · · Score: 1

      the use of special characters in web addresses?

      example please.

      BTW, special characters as in www.&#63743;.com

    5. Re:special charactors by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Not sure if .com supports it, but I do know many special characters should be available. IDN is mostly just unicode translated and some things not allowed because it looks to similair to other things. Example:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IDN-utopia-greek.jpg

      Some wikipedia articles:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalized_domain_name
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode

      RFC's:
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3492
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3490

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  40. End user suffers by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 1

    A top level address would then cost ~16mil per year-- not unreasonable. But since this trickles down the wholesale market to smaller ISPs, then to the end user, and there's profit to be had, and its supply driven, then the poor end user gets nailed with huge costs for a few addresses.

    1. Re:End user suffers by shentino · · Score: 1

      Only if the top guys are hogging them for the sole purpose of charging monopoly profits to downstreamers.

      My intent is for carrying costs to muck out hoarders of whatever they aren't actively using.

  41. IPs are not fungible. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Unless you like the idea of routing tables the size of the moon.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  42. How long will v6 last by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    At the current rate of growth, how long till we need v8?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:How long will v6 last by some_guy_88 · · Score: 1

      v6 uses a 128 bit number for the address (instead of 32). 2^128 is a shit load of addresses.

    2. Re:How long will v6 last by JSBiff · · Score: 2

      We likely won't need an IPv6 replacement until we've colonized most of the Universe. The IPv6 address space is 128 bits long, although the lower 64 bits are reserved for individual host addresses, so we could view the address space as being 65 bits wide.

      That gives us 2^65 addresses, more or less.

      2^65 = 3.68934881 Ã-- 10^19

      So, that's 36.89 QUINTILLION addresses. That's really, really, a lot of addresses. To put this in perspective, according to WikiPedia, there's 100-400 Million stars in the Milky Way. If 50% of those stars had 1 colonizable planet, and we wanted to create an Intergalactic Internet (which, of course, would require faster-than-light comms, but, hey, this is just an example), so that we colonized 200 Million planets, each planet could have:

      3.689 * 10 ^19 / 2 * 10^8 = 184 * 10^9 addresses per planet.

      So, you get somewhere around 184 Billion addresses per planet. That's not an exact number, because, remember, I treated the address space as 65 bits. That's because you get a 64 bit network prefix, and a 64 bit host address. A network, however, can have more than 2 addresses (which, the simplification of saying we have 65 bits of addresses basically assumes an average of 2 hosts per network), so this estimate is probably actually low. On the other hand, allocation guidelines also 'waste' a lot of the address space (like saying that every household and small business should get their own /56 and larger businesses and organizations should get a /48, so that they can run their own subnets if they want), but we actually have plenty of address space to waste (no, really, we do - worst case scenario is that the IPv6 address space is basically 48 bits wide - that's still a LOT of network prefixes).

    3. Re:How long will v6 last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2^128 is a shit load of addresses.

      Quite. It's 340,282,000,000 hella addresses.

      (hella = 10^27)

    4. Re:How long will v6 last by Bengie · · Score: 1

      At the current rate of growth, how long till we need v8?

      Well, if 1,000,000,000 new customers, who are given a /64 each, came online per second, it would take almost 600 years.

      Since IPv6 is very large and it has room to accommodate the current population of the world, your rate for IP allocation will not exceed human population growth in the long run.

      I will use human population growth as the limit. Current population growth is about 4 births per second, but about 1 person per second dies. Let just use a hugely large birth rate of 1000 per second because we plan to colonize another 250 earth like planets. IPv6 will last about 500,000,000 years.

    5. Re:How long will v6 last by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      v6 uses a 128 bit number for the address (instead of 32). 2^128 is a shit load of addresses.

      I get tired of seeing this because it seems very misleading. Sure there are 2^128 theoretical addresses - but since a subnet is defined as /64, most of those addresses will never get used. So all you can really say - I think - is IPv6 will provide a minimum of 2^64 addresses right?

      I mean, IIRC Comcast is going to be assigning a /64 to my house!

      Corrections are welcome (seriously).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:How long will v6 last by matty619 · · Score: 1

      and, of course, there's no reason it wouldn't be ipv7. There was an IPv5, but they shitcanned it and moved on to v6 apparently.

    7. Re:How long will v6 last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      184 billion per planet sounds like a lot, but it really isn't: say we have 1 billion of inhabitants on this planet. They are treated by injecting nanobots in their blood. So, there would only be enough IP6-addresses for 184 nanobots per person, which is ridiculously low.

    8. Re:How long will v6 last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPv5 is meant to run side-by-side with IPv4. IPv5 is meant for media streaming.

    9. Re:How long will v6 last by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      There may be reasons other than a shortage of addresses for replacing IPv6.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:How long will v6 last by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      With the current growth rate we will run out of food to eat way before we run out of ipv6 ... so not an issue ...

  43. But, I'm too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm reading this article at 10:19 Mountain, and you said that this surprise webcast is at 9 something eastern. Now I can't post this on /. because I'm on IP@$%#%^

  44. Re:Typical West-European sensibilities by Sq · · Score: 1

    It's going to be 15:30 in Europe, people!

    You know, there are quite big parts of Europe which are *not* in CET timezone.
    In fact, most populous city in Europe is in GMT+3 (MSK), not GMT+1 (CET)...

  45. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by Sq · · Score: 1

    Yes, there always needs to be some incentive to force them to make a change. However, a market itself will be force enough to force it. Not yet though for those looking only on short-term (and hence losing market in the long term) - I guess it will be at least two to three years before interesting stuff appears on internet as IPv6-only, and IPv4-only people will not be able to get to those. But from that moment onward, it will start hitting such IPv4-only ISPs harder and harder every day with customers leaving for ISPs that lets them see "whole Internet" without blackholes.

  46. ICANN HAZ IPv6 ADDRESS? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    IANA kept track of other kinds of numbers besides IPv4 addresses, and their job wasn't just to hand out unique numbers, but to keep track of who owns the numbers that are out there. And if you think IPv4 number ownership is going to stay stable now that they're all gone and you can only get them from other people, you may be a bit surprised.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  47. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    I didn't mention mention climate change at all, and the problem is hardly limited to climate change. The same thing happened with issues like fish stock depletion, the antarctic ozone hole, and acid rain, all of which were documented to have happened, be anthropogenic, and damaging to both humans and the natural world.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  48. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of small ISPs are on the edge as it is, and they simply cannot afford to make a switch to IPv6. A lot of them are just AT&T resellers so no great loss, but a few of them also provide services that the death star won't touch, like multihop microwave links to serve obscure neighborhoods.

    WHAT? Maybe in your country. Here in Canada, the small ISPs have been at the forefront of IPv6 while the large ones and the backbone providers have actually ignored it!

    IPv6 doesn't require additional "investment" to function. It is actually much cheaper to deploy IPv6 than IPv4. There are ISPs around the world, especially small ones, that will only provide IPv6 address and IPv4 is via NAT only.

  49. "Market-based solution" by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    On the downside, you're right, I agree that public IPv4 addresses will become something which becomes more expensive.

    One of the things right now which is fighting against the wider adoption of IPv6 is that there's "no demand from end users" for IPv6. If you're ISP starts charging (or for people already paying for a static address or block, starts charging considerably more) for public IPv4 addresses, and people know that by switching to IPv6 they get free addresses, that creates demand for IPv6 ISP support, home routers, etc. If you can save $60/year using IPv6, as a home user, or hundreds to thousands of dollars a year for larger organizations, it might be financially worthwhile upgrading.

  50. There's really no issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of this sensationalism is just a scam to put fear in people to help increase demand and drive up prices at the regional registries. Even when they "run out", you'll still be able to find address blocks if you know where to look.

    .

    I recently bought some /20 networks from a friend of mine in California who runs the 249.0.0.0/8 network block.
      - $US 28995 per /16
      - $US 8095 per /20
    They're guaranteed to be virgin unused network blocks.

    +1 310 823 9358 (the secret code for first-time callers is "I'm calling about the classy net blocks")

    .

    For those without a budget for fresh addresses, we have options on many RIPE allocations:
      - 4998 euro per /16 (2011/08) - only two left - hurry! (special: combine to a /15 for 8900 euro)
      - 1697 euro per /20 (2011/06) - 10 available
      - 1555 euro per /20 (2011/09) - 16 available
      - 1408 euro per /20 (2011/12) - 23 available
      - 895 euro per allocation for spam and blacklist cleanup services
      - 595 euro per allocation for private registration services

    +31 20 535 4444 (ask for the assistant to Mr. Bill Waggoner)

    .

    Remember: "Peak IPV4" is a myth!

    1. Re:There's really no issue here by Lennie · · Score: 1

      You are funny.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  51. Re:Typical West-European sensibilities by pahles · · Score: 1

    I was talking about Europe, as in the continent, with a population of more than 730 million people, not _a_ city in Europe with some 10.5 million people...

    --
    Sig?
  52. Does anyone know where to find an archive by matty619 · · Score: 1

    of the webcast? On the west coast here, didn't get a chance to watch.

  53. badly done guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I missed it, but that's really lazy to just leave the old broken stream up there and not replace it with a recording.

  54. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by ducman · · Score: 1

    I tried to explain the news blurb to my wife, who know nothing about networking. She said, "well, you'd better call Al Gore and tell him you need some more addresses. He invented the internet, surely he can fix it."

    --
    "We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
  55. Re:Never do today what you can put off 'til tomorr by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1
    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  56. Re:Typical West-European sensibilities by Sq · · Score: 1

    Still, about half of the Europe (as in the continent) is not in GMT+1, but in GMT, GMT+2, and GMT+3.

    Hence my remark that your claim "Europe is in GMT+1" shows as much elitism and unawareness of timezones, as you accuse the OP of.
    Just pointing out your hypocrisy, no need to get so upset about it :)

    (and you'd be amazed how many people in those other timezones there are - way way more then in just the example city of Moscow. But I'll leave finding that number as a homework, you might learn few things about Europe in a process)

  57. AT&T IPv4 Address Surcharge by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    $5 AT&T IPv4 Address Surcharge on all smart phone accounts in 5....4....3....