IPv6-only Hosting Won't Make Sense For Years

rawagajah writes "World IPv6 Day this Wednesday will shake out any bugs for websites running on IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. However, cloud server provider ElasticHosts points out that IPv6-only websites are still a long way off — they only make sense after access is overwhelmingly IPv6 capable. In the meantime, the market in IPv4 space will presumably only grow, benefiting the IPv4 hogs..."

Comments

Re:might be good for specialized uses

[TheRaven64]

It's also fine for anything that is not directly connecting to clients. There's nothing wrong with having your database server only accessible via IPv6, if your web front end is dual stack. If clients always connect via a reverse proxy, then your web server can be IPv6 only as well. If you're doing load balancing via a transparent reverse proxy, then this means that you only need one public IPv4 address for the proxy, but can have a large cluster of v6-only servers.

What is really, really sad is...

[gman003]

What's really sad is that I'm in networking classes right now (not in the Cisco ones yet, that's in a few semesters). And the only mention of IPv6 has been when I asked about it, or asked "how would ___ be done under IPv6?". They aren't even preparing new networking people to work with IPv6. I'm probably going to have to teach myself everything.

Re:SNI and other alternatives

[kimvette]

Real developers use available APIs instead of cluster fucking 35 different versions of shit and different libraries into their OS for fun (like Linux).

Do you really think there isn't a "cluster fucking 35 different versions of shit and different libraries" on your windows box?

If you really believe that, I would like to invite you to check out %windir%\WinSxS; it is part of a mechanism designed to resolve traditional Windows DLL hell but can become VERY bloated over time It's where system libraries are actually stored and then are linked to from other directories. Due to the past DLL hell, it is rare that anything ever gets deleted from WinSxS in order to prevent DLL hell by inadvertantly deleting a library that might be marked by the registry as unused, but is actually relied upon by a seldom-used app. So, what happens is as you install and upgrade your various applications, system drivers, and whatnot, a ton of files often get written to in WinSxS when installers don't check for dependencies - how many times have applications forced installs of components you know are already in place? Why does this happen? Because all too many release engineers don't understand system administration, how the OS works at the low level, so they don't know how to check for preexisting components. Why is this? Because hiring managers are all too focused on specific tool (Rational Clearcase and Clearquest, Installshield, Visual Studio, Ant, Eclipse, or a specific language, etc) and not on what really matters, i.e., system administration, coordinate development and QA, manage the build platform and a build a clean net, etc. Too much emphasis is based on knowing a specific application, rather than the process and ability to learn a tool quickly. Individual tools are relatively easy to learn very quickly; system administration and basic scripting skills are relatively difficult to pick up quickly. I never focused on learning all the tools out there; I learned the individual tools as I needed to, so my installers were always rock-solid because I knew the requirements for the underlying system, and my installers didn't force unnecessary component updates which bloat a system.

So, your Windows vs. Linux argument is kind of moot; you may not realize it, but even though you might not see libfoo.so.0.2.1, libfoo,so.0.2.1 and libfoo.so.0.4.1 (and a symlink from libfoo.so.0.4.0 to libfoo.so.0.4.1 since it's compatible and the install creator decided to save you space but not break your system in the process) in /usr/lib on Windows, but if you have installed and over time upgraded various applications you easily have 5 to 10 different copies of various libraries - often identical versions, cluttering up WinSxS.

Check these out:

http://www.ghacks.net/2010/07/24/the-winsxs-folder-explained/
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2008/09/17/what-is-the-winsxs-directory-in-windows-2008-and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx

Unix-based systems are easy to clean, maintain, and if you do break /usr/lib, very easy to fix in comparison to Windows. Now tell me - after reading those articles, if you have the Unix experience you claim to have, after learning how Windows deals with various library versions, which system is better and more logical? Don't get me wrong; Microsoft has done a fantastic job making Windows a hell of a lot more stable than it used to be, but this "fix" is still a major hack which doesn't fix the root problem: shitty release engineers not developing and adequately testing installers until they're rock solid.To work around install developer incompetence, we have come to a point where WinSxS may contain gigabytes' worth of old cruft that is no longer used on a Windows box.