Slashdot Mirror
Google Deploys IPv6 For Internal Network
itwbennett writes "Google is four years into a project to roll out IPv6 to its entire internal employee network. At the Usenix Large Installation System Administration (LISA) conference in Boston last week, Google network engineer Irena Nikolova shared some lessons others can learn from Google's experience. For example: It requires a lot of work with vendors to get them to fix buggy and still-unfinished code. 'We should not expect something to work just because it is declared supported,' the paper accompanying the presentation concluded."
"'We should not expect something to work just because it is declared supported,' the paper accompanying the presentation concluded."
I think that if something is declared "supported", it is perfectly reasonable to expect it to work. If it turns out it doesn't work, I think the problem is more that the vendor hasn't done as good a job as they should have than that your expectations were too high.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
assignment of smaller blocks may have extended the life of IPv4 addresses however, there are physically not enough addresses for the devices we currently have. While, there may be enough at the moment, there wont be soon.
What is IPv4; 4.3 billion addresses. There are over 6 billion people on earth and many people in the western world have numerous devices. My household of 2 has 8 devices that are nearly always online. (Computers, Phones, Top-set Boxes, printers, etc....) This number does not take into account either one of our work sites which probably add another 1-2 addresses to that number.
And no, NAT is not a solution.
Something no one would need if proper assignment of IP ranges had been done.
No point asking what you mean, since you evidently speak from ignorance. Even with optimal assignment of IPv4 addresses, it would only delay the inevitable shortfall. Sooner or later, the number of addressable end-points on the internet would exceed 4 billion. NAT is an unfortunate workaround to delay the effects of the shortfall; it should be a freely-chosen option, not an enforced requirement.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Right, if decades ago the inventors of the internet had realized that it would scale from 10s of users to billions. I'd say the address space length that they used still makes it outrageously overengineered for the time, and we're lucky they had the vision that they did. To criticize them is preposterous.
Uhm, it's obvious something dropped <sup> tags. Just like, for example, Slashdot does.
Try this: 2<sup>80</sup> -> 280. Not the writer's fault, the blame lies on editors who didn't notice their software mutilates basic harmless tags.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I'd say the address space length that they used still makes it outrageously overengineered for the time, and we're lucky they had the vision that they did.
Not really. Don't forget there is a HUGE difference between the old classfull and VLSM/CIDR/classless numbering. That gain is the whole point of spending all that effort implementing netmasks. There really were not that many possible classfull lans compared to the number of minicomputer owning businesses in the world, etc.
For the post-92ish noobs, a really simple one line explanation is the netmask used to be stored inside the address itself, so for example if the first octet was 0 to 127, that meant that LAN had to be a (presumably giant bridged) /8, first octet 128-191 meant the netmask had to be a /16, not defaulted or was a pretty good guess, but operationally "had to be".
The early years of VLSM were pretty entertaining, old timers lecturing us how a LAN addressing scheme like 1.2.3.0/24 was "impossible" and so forth.
Without VLSM we would have to have done the ipv6 conversion years before the dotcom boom, rather than a decade or so after. Not entirely sure if we'd all be better off now, or not.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Oh man, what I would have given to be there for that conversation.
"How many addresses do you figure we need?"
"Couple billion I guess."
"But what if we need more?"
"Dude, okay, let's just say one per person. 4 and a half billion or so. Now everyone on the world can have one."
"But what if, you know, there ends up being a few more people than that in the future?"
"Jesus Christ man, it's not like 3 billion extra people are gonna pop up out of nowhere in the next 30 years!"
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
you see, the good thing is not the NAT, but the firewall dropping packets from outside, again. As always, the people say the security comes from NAT, and really mean the requirement of having a firewall which drops packets coming in, because there is no mapping to which internal ip they should be routed.
That's not how IPv4.1 works. Check the facts.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
The easy solution is to replace all your hardware with Apple products. It's what Steve would have wanted