Slashdot Mirror
IPv6 Achieves 50% Reach On Major US Carriers (worldipv6launch.org)
Long-time Slashdot reader dyork brings new from The Internet Society: IPv6 deployment hit a milestone this month related to the four major US providers (Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint, AT&T): "IPv6 is the dominant protocol for traffic from those mobile networks to major IPv6-capable content providers."
A graph on their "World IPv6 Launch" site shows those carriers are now delivering close to 55% of their traffic over IPv6 to major IPv6-capable content providers -- up from just 37.59% in December. "This is really remarkable progress in the four years since World IPv6 Launch in 2012, and the growth of IPv6 deployment in 2016 is showing no signs of abating." In fact, the NTIA is now requesting feedback from organizations that have already implemented IPv6, noting that while we've used up all the 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, IPv6 offers 340 undecillion IP addresses -- that is, 340 followed by 36 digits.
A graph on their "World IPv6 Launch" site shows those carriers are now delivering close to 55% of their traffic over IPv6 to major IPv6-capable content providers -- up from just 37.59% in December. "This is really remarkable progress in the four years since World IPv6 Launch in 2012, and the growth of IPv6 deployment in 2016 is showing no signs of abating." In fact, the NTIA is now requesting feedback from organizations that have already implemented IPv6, noting that while we've used up all the 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, IPv6 offers 340 undecillion IP addresses -- that is, 340 followed by 36 digits.
Instead of IPv6, we would be better disconnecting China, India, and Russia from the internet. That way, we can reclaim those IP addresses while dramatically reducing the amount of crime (ransomware, DDoS attacks, piracy) that takes place online.
Here, let's get the resistance out of the way:
"But, but, if we can't have NAT then we'll be h4xx0r3d! And I can't remember all those hex digits LOL."
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
IPv4 = 256^4 = 4.3 billion (4.2x10^9) - check ... 340x10^36 ???
IPv6 = 256^6 =
shouldn't that be 256^6 = 2.8x10^14? That's a MUCH smaller number.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'm really impressed that there have not been a lot more vulnerabilities exploited as IPv6 has grown in popularity. It was common in early supported routers to have all kinds of security on IPv4, but IPv6 was pretty close to wide open due to lack of understanding. With this kind of spread I'm sure the interest will rise soon. I have no doubt a lot of those old routers haven't gotten appropriate updates, and even if they have, the updates haven't been applied.
This isn't progress at all. We've done little to nothing to move people to IPv6. The only problem is that we've run out of addresses and the easy solution to adding millions of smartphones was IPv6. The majority of home connections are still IPv4 and the majority of ISPs still only offer this.
As is true with all human nature where a profit centre is involved, we won't make "progress" until we're absolutely forced to.
Said they were going to start rolling out IPV6 a couple years ago. I just checked the cable modem... Modem's IP Mode:IPv4 Only
We should've reached this level years ago and should've been well past 90% already, assuming you limit yourselves to people with IPv6-capable phones trying to connect to IPv6-capable destinations.
Any phone newer than 3-4 years old should be IPv6-capable.
Oh well, better late than never.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I recall a joke scenario from a couple years ago:
Earth is in the throws of a Nanotech Grey Goo scenario. The microscopic self-replicating robots have converted about half the planet to more of themselves. And then they stop. The few surviving humans, observing from space, are puzzled.
Zoom in. Thought balloon from the mass of Grey Goo: "Damn! We shouldn't have stuck with IPV6. We've run out of addresses!"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
IPv6 has five TRILLION /56 blocks.
There are enough /64 to give every person on earth 2,635,249,153 of them.
128 bits allows for HUGE numbers.
Long ago, when we were developing IPv6, I was part of the group who argued for 128 bit addresses rather than 64 bit. I've decided I was wrong. 64 bits would have been more than enough, and could be processed on 64-bit processors, in standard databases, without hassle. Since my side won the argument, we have 128-bit addresses, which are so big they are a pain in the ass in Microsoft SQL Server and elsewhere.
Still frustrated that the ISPs in Canada are still lagging on getting IPv6. The biggest failing ISP is Bell, with no publicly announced plans.
There has been the "Call Your ISP for IPv6" campaign by the guys over at Sixxs:
https://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Cal...
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I just think it's cool that the Internet Society's Dan York is posting to Slashdot (and has a six-digit UID).
Unfortunately, and as far as I can tell, I am either a human or a holographic projection with limited storage capacity. I need IPv4 cause I can't memorize an IPv6 address. Seriously, who can remember an address like 2001:0db8:0a0b:12f0:0000:0000:0000:0001 .. you have got to be kidding me
What's clear is that huge swaths of the address space will be wasted by being bought up, monopolized, misallocated, and overused. I expect us to functionally exhaust the IPv6 space within a decade or two.
Every time I see a "new big features" announcement from the big 3-5 cloud vendors (AWS, Google, Azure, etc). I keep hoping that one or the other is going to really buy in to IPv6. And I keep being disappointed.
There are some ways to get them playing moderately nicely with IPv6 (especially if you're buying load-balancing services from them), but most of their networks are IPv4 internal-routing subnets.
Meanwhile, the middle range VM places (Linode, DigitalOcean, etc) are far more IPv6 friendly. My understanding is that is because they use standard commercial networking gear. While the biggest clouds (AWS, Google, etc) have totally custom network stacks which trade affordable performance for full feature sets.
Between the cloud vendors poorly supporting IPv6 and insanity like the Cogent-v-Hurricane split of the IPv6 internet (holy crud... it's SEVEN years now since Hurricane baked Cogent that cake begging them to peer with the world's largest IPv6 network... and it's still broken), it's amazing IPv6 has as much traffic as it does.
> IDIOT
> someone should teach you about DNS, or even /etc/hosts
Then can I teach you about "who broke the DNS server? Crap, what was its IP address!!!! Aiieeee!!!!!"
> 's amazing IPv6 has as much traffic as it does.
It's really not been necessary. I've not seen a single business or service provider failing to find, or provide for its customers, some IPv4 space to host their services, even if it's a name based proxy. Can you think of or find a single commercial service whose IP addresses are only IPv6, without any accompanying IPv4?
Remembering the IP addys is easy if you NAT with systemd.
What you say is not wrong, but many people will interpret it incorrectly as suggesting that there is a "switchover" from IPv4 involved. That's not how IPv6 was designed and planned at all. IPv6 was designed right from the start to run alongside IPv4, and "migration" or "transition" are poor words for what will mainly be an expansion of IPv6 use, and it may have very little early effect on IPv4.
Nothing will stop IPv4 from continuing to run other than the failure of old IPv4-only equipment and its replacement by IPv6-only gear, which will be uncommon (most replacements will be dual stack). IPv4 is quite likely to remain with us for many decades ahead, even if consumer ISPs cut it off earlier to save costs. IPv6 adoption may not even decrease IPv4 usage much at all, with the full 32 bits of IPv4 address space continuing to be used right up until the bitter end until it's stopped wholesale simply out of embarrassment. But that would be a long way off.
Short version: IPv6 merely expands IP use. It will be seen as a (very drawn-out) "switchover" only by individual users as their communication involves more and more IPv6, because single users don't scale. But on the Internet as a whole the rising adoption of IPv6 doesn't require a decrease in IPv4 use at all.
It is NOT a zero-sum game, but a growth of IP because the IPv4 bucket is too small.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Rule #1, don't use DNS for critical infrastructure hostname address resolution. Rule #2, don't hardcode IPs anywhere except in your name resolution implementation. Rule #3, don't hire morons like the previous poster to manage your network and servers.
That's because those businesses are paying extra money to continue to support v4 -- which is of course being passed straight on to their customers.
Would you rather have waited until companies were being bankrupted by the need for v4 support until we did anything about it? (Because it sure seems like a lot of people would...)
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html
http://town.hall.org/trendy/sipp/sipp-main.html
Check `ipconfig /all`. Or I can tell you it's 2001:db8:420::53 because you deliberately picked a short address for it, because why would you pick something long and unrememberable like 2001:db8:420:f4ca:c6fb:d174:620e:37f9 for the one specific machine that you have to remember the IP for?
Cox is dual-stack on their entire network. Comcast is likewise. Time Warner is about 90% done with IPv6 on their network. That most of the US's cable providers right there, with Charter being the only major that doesn't have IPv6 yet and they are working on it actively.
Not every ISP has it, of course, when you count DSL CLECs, dial up, and so on there are literally thousands of ISPs in the US. However it seems that most of the major cable providers do, and combined those guys serve a massive part of the US population.
In fact, have a look at Google's IPv6 adoption map: https://www.google.com/intl/en.... Looks like the US is doing pretty good. Not only is adoption high compared to most countries, but it works well.
Also remember that IPv6 adoption is more than just ISPs getting it. It needs end-to-end support in that users have to get IPv6 capable routers and devices, and have it enabled.
What kind of vulnerabilities do you think would exist in IPv6, but not IPv4?
What do you mean we've done nothing to move people to IPv6? Do you think it is magic? Do you think we just wave a wand and people are on v6? No, what it takes is rolling out support on the OS, router, ISP, and so on. That has been happening, lots. Have a look at Google's IPv6 chart: https://www.google.com/intl/en... what you see is exponential growth happening. This is actual IPv6 connections as well, Google is counting the percentage of people hitting their site with v6, which means an end-to-end connection.
Oh and ISPs have indeed been making IPv6 available to home users, wouldn't see that graph otherwise. For US cable providers Comcast is dual stack on their whole network, Time Warner is on about 90% of it, and Cox is on all of it. That's a whole lot of the US population. This isn't theoretical support either or "Oh call us and maybe we'll turn it on," it is live, on the network, and working now. On my Cox connection all I had to do was tell my router to get itself a prefix and go. My connections to Google, Netflix, and anyone else who supports v6 go out over it.
You don't "move" people to v6 as in force them on to it and turn off v4. Rather you make it available, and chosen by default, which is precisely is what is going on. When the device supports it (Linux including Android and Windows are both dual stack and prefer v6, not sure about OS-X), the router supports it, and the network supports it you are good to go.
IPv6 often is faster to address and has been better monitored however
end user equipment that route's is lacking for example google OnHub is not IPv6 compliant
( https://on.google.com/hub/ )
whats the process for certification ?
thanks
John Jones
I class IPv6 as "annoying" - there's a far bigger address space, many more rules/restrictions and tools you have to work with aren't anywhere near as polished as those for IPv4. The array of address assignment mechanisms for starters, the parts meant to make things easier, don't.
You stubbornly object to learning new tools, refuse to keep your skills up, and ... you're fired. This bright eyed brown skinned woman will replace you. Ordinarily you'd be expected to train her, but it's clear your knowledge is so far out of date that you're totally fucking worthless. Security will escort you out now. Bye!!
The big cloud providers are staying away from IPv6 for business motives. Why should they use IPv6? There is no reason. Why collecting as much IPv4 space as possible they effectively make it impossible for competitors to enter the market.
Check `ipconfig /all`.
Your servers run windows?
Your servers use DHCP? I mean, some of them, yes. But some of them... no
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, I just figured that GP probably did, since any Linux sysadmin should already know how to look up which resolvers their system is using.
DHCP seems somewhat orthogonal here.
FYI 10^19 is not twice as large at 10^9. It's 10^10 times as large. Try multiplying 4x10^9 by 2 and see if you get a number with 19 digits.
They should have just added another quad 192.168.0.1.192
Or 1921.1681.0.1921
Or even moved to token and skipped ip all together.
insanity like the Cogent-v-Hurricane split of the IPv6 internet (holy crud... it's SEVEN years now since Hurricane baked Cogent that cake begging them to peer with the world's largest IPv6 network... and it's still broken),
It's irritating that those companies care more about interconnection politics than about serving their customers but I don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things. Decent hosting providers are usually multihomed and thus reachable from both HE and Cogent.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
> Is the Microsoft SQL Server thing the only reason why you think 64-bit would have been better?
SQL server is one example that 64-bit software, on 64-bit computers, natively handles 64-bit numbers, while 128 bit requires gymnastics.
Generally, I think 64 bits would have been more than enough. It would have allowed us to assign 2 billion addresses to each person. :) Not that we'd actually do that, obviously. We would have done perhaps 256 addresses (8 bits) for most end users, while reserving 80%-90% of the address space for future addressing plans. As you said, we using only 190.0.0.0.0.0.0.0/8 (or even 0:0:0/16) would have been plenty for the next 40-200 years.
At the time, we were running into 2GB limits on RAM on Windows disk sizes, and I predicted that the 2TB limit on MBR partitions would be a problem soon. Getting rid of MBR and switching to GPT has in fact been painful. I wanted to go ridiculously big with IPs so we'd never run into a similar problem.
A compromise position would have been to define them as 128 bits, and reserve everything but 0/64 for later use - so all addresses in use would start with 64 zero bits. You'd only have to process the lowest 64 bits, even though the first 64 zeroes technically exist. Then, a hundred years from now, we could announce that we'd start assigning 001:/64 ten years later, so software would need to start paying attention to that additional bit. Of course we'd have 256-bit CPUs by then.
64-bit CPUs *can* process 128-bit numbers, or anyway they can run code that emulates it. And it takes ten times as long compared to using native 64-bit types. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's one benchmark on an Ivy Bridge - a 1000% performance penalty.
Actually try working with 128-bit numbers, IPv6, in common software like SQL Server. There IS no 128-bit unsigned number in SQL Server. You *can* jack around binary types, I have. It's a time-consuming pain in the ass. Speaking of databases, you may have noticed disks are WAY slower than CPUs, RAM, etc. So the bottleneck for performance on well-designed systems is how much data you have to read from disk. If the data is twice as big, you have to read twice as much, and you get half the performance (assuming you didn't add a stupidity bottleneck elsewhere).
64 addresses were provide enough for 2 billion addresses per person. That's already a ridiculously large number.
A compromise position would have ben to *define* IPv6 addresses as 128-bit, and only assign addresses starting with 64 zero bits, for the next couple hundred years or so. That way you'd only need to *process* the lower 64 bits for the next century or so. 200 years from now, we'll have 256-bit CPUs running on 256-bit busses, so it'll be easy to start processing the higher bits at that time, if we need to.
>> And it takes ten times as long compared to using native 64-bit types.
> Depending on operation it should take twice as many calls
Figure out how to manage that and I'll make us both billionaires. Maybe you'd care to demonstrate by showing us how you can two add 4-bit numbers using 2-bit operations.
Are you under the impression that border routers are the only thing that ever sees IP addresses?
I had to switch it off. All of a sudden Netflix decided that my registered tunnel with my own IPv6 subnet was an indication of me not being in the place I was supposed to. So netflix just stopped working. (I'd cut them off by that point, but the rest of the family didn't see it that way...)
So the final and workable fix was to switch off IPv6 on my internal network. Now it's only my gateway that is v6 routable.
Talk about "giant leap for mankind" backwards. Thanks Netflix. (Or rather "MPAA" I guess.)
Stefan Axelsson
You can get an IPv6 assignment:
https://www.ripe.net/publicati...
You also use the opportunity to no longer need to work with the next ISP to have your addresses routed by using one-to-one NAT (not the far more commom port address translation, which is yucky). With one-to-one NAT, each machine still has a seperate IP, you can just map the network prefix from FF08:x to BEEF:x or whatever at the router. You can change ISPs instantly in an emergency.
You got me thinking. You're right,
If SQL had a 64-bit unsigned int, I'd use a pair of them. Alas, it doesn't. Postgres has an IP type which works, but my design has to work for SQL server. On the other hand, Microsoft SQL server does have decimal type, numeric. Hmmm ..
On the third hand, the idiot before me decided to store 32-bit integers (ip addresses) as four seperate bytes, in four separate columns (in some tables). That's pretty silly. So when rewriting it to handle IPv6, my first step would be to bring some sanity to the situation by storing each single number in a single column. However if I don't fix it, I can change those four byte columns to four signed 64s (or decimals/numerics) . That would allow a pretty clean conversion, though it preserves the silliness using four columns to store a number.
You're right, though, the IP legitimately is two 64-bit numbers. Unsigned, though. Damn Microsoft.