Slashdot Mirror


June 6 Is World IPv6 Day 2012: This Time For Keeps

An anonymous reader writes "On 8 June 2011 many companies (big and small) enabled IPv6 to their main web sites by published AAAA records; 24 hours later, almost all of them disabled it after the test was done. This year, on June 6th, many of those same companies (Google, Bing, Facebook) will be enabling IPv6 again, but this time there won't be any going back. In addition to content providers, several ISPs are also participating: Comcast, AT&T, XS4ALL, KDDI, and others. CDNs Akamai and Limelight are on board, as well as network equipment manufacturers Cisco and D-Link. Is the chicken-and-egg problem of IPv6 finally, slowly coming to an end?"

5 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm not changing to IPv6 on a specific date... by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Especially at home. Who's with me?

    Pretty much everyone.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  2. Re:I'm not changing to IPv6 on a specific date... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Me too! Instead, I did it on a random day where I was bored, about 4 years ago. Took about 2 hours and I haven't thought about it since.

    Oh, did you mean "I'm not going to use IPv6"?

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  3. a sign of the apocalypse by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First Duke Nukem Forever in 2011, and now this in 2012? What's up for 2013, Hurd??

  4. Finally, an end to Google's daft IPv6 policy by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you know that for the past three year Google has actually published AAAA RRs for its online properties? However, the catch is that they won't serve you those as a response unless your /32 is on the list of vetted ISPs.

    Even if you query one of their public IPv6 resolvers ( e.g. 2001:4860:4860::8888 ) you'll not see a AAAA for YouTube or Google+ unless you're on the list.

    To pass the vetting an ISP has to demonstrate various technical aspects such as redundant, othogonally-routed global routes to Google's servers. For small ISPs such as mine, who have worked to implement native IPv6 connectivity, this is simply a step too far. So a proportion of the IPv6-connected world has to fall-back to v4 to talk to Google.

    Read more about the frustrating policy here: Google over IPv6.

  5. Re:I'm not changing to IPv6 on a specific date... by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are no IPv6-ONLY services

    This is incorrect. There are a number of IPv6-only services, especially in the asian markets, where IPv6 has been available to clients for a goodly number of years.

    The alternative to IPv6 to work around the problem with NAT.

    This isn't an alternative. NAT expands tha number of clients that can use the internet, but is largely useless on the server side. APNIC has run out of addresses, RIPE is going to run out this summer, at some point its going to become impossible for datacentres to get new IPv4 addresses, and at that point anyone runing servers is going to start having problems. They will start by shoving services behind proxy servers, etc. to reduce the number of IPv4 addresses that need to be exposed, but this only goes so far. Some services can't be placed behind proxies, running services on non-standard ports is almost as problematic as running them on IPv6 (a large proportion of customers are behind restrictive firewalls). At some point, IPv4-only clients are going to become second class citizens - they will be able to access the internet, but some services will be unavailable to them. Yes, it will take many years, but it will slowly happen.

    Oh, and on a private network, which is behind a NAT anyway, there is even less reason for IPv6 - Yes, I do have enough 10.0.0.0 addresses for my home network.

    For a *home network* you're correct. For the generic case of a *private network* you're wrong. I'm informed that Virgin Media are actually very interested in rolling out IPv6 because there aren't enough RFC1918 addresses for device management. I'm sure that they *could* bodge their network to make it work with the restricted number of addresses, but its probably easier in the long run to just bite the bullet and roll out IPv6 (and on a truely private network this is easier because everything is under your control).