I'm not sure if I understand the distinction you are making between technical and administrative.
I have two pipes I need to push lots of stuff through:
Strategy 1: there is a particular marking that controls which pipe it goes in Strategy 2: I read the marketing, look stuff up in a table and pick the pipe.
Strategy 2 is much slower. Right now we are build the system around 1. And Strategy 1 is one of the very few opportunities we have to cut latency. I certainly agree we could implement routing on IPv6 using strategy 2, a protocol doesn't tell you how you route. But yes, the routers do care. The simpler the routing strategy the more quickly they can decide on how to handle the packet. That allows for much "bigger" pipes per router.
American media is a lot different today than it was after 2001.
Americans have a lot of international power. Americans have a democracy so public opinion really does matter. America is the country that invented the mass advertising industry. -- So propaganda as a major American tool of power has been important.
There are a lot of Americans who believe these simplistic explanations. These simplistic explanations people exist in other countries too, but they don't matter as much since their governments don't have the massive military of the USA. I think though that George W Bush broke the camel's back on this one. He forced the media to lie so often and so blatantly they lost credibility. The result is a decade later we have a media which has become a high point.
Though I do think it is going back to sleep under Obama, having a FOX/CNN/MSNBC be the main source of TV news is very different than ABC/CBS/NBC in terms of how easily any politician is going to be able to command their media. We'll see if the system more diverse holds up the next time a president tries to lie about something important. So far on Iran it seems to be working well.
getting an IPv6-only host to talk to an IPv4-only host. Aka "compatibility".
That's not the strategy, assuming by host you mean all the way up the chain. Somewhere someone has to be doing 6to4. That is the compatibility strategy that 6to4 exists for a while. And having 6to4 be a service is useful for the important reason that at some point in the future it can be turned off or become an addition fee generating service for service providers or ISPs. The way most ISPs don't support Usenet anymore even though they did a decade ago. When IPv6 hosts can't / won't talk to them, that's probably how you get the last 20% off IPv4 network. Which leaves the IPv4 network as a purely isolated legacy network that ISPs aren't supporting and the only people on it are people who desperately need to be on it for some reason.
Until we have an IPv6 Internet however, we need to make sure that people who move to IPv6 can still access the existing IPv4-only services. This is where the v6-to-v4 compatibility is necessary. And that compatibility was completely overlooked.
We don't want full compatibility you want degraded compatibility. And the reason is because it encourages those IPv4 services to move to IPv6. And that is precisely what we have today with ISPs offering 6 to 4 gateways where some important features (for services) like geolocation break.
And no, "just add an IPv4 address to your host" doesn't cut it. If I'm going to have to run IPv4 to access my services, why bother with IPv6 at all?
1) For carriers / ISPs because their growth is directly tied to their ability to allocate addresses, and the top level agencies don't have anymore to give out. 2) For cell phones / homes / small businesses because you don't have a choice in the matter and / or v4 addresses are an extra charge. 3) After step (1) For the public facing web or many B2B services because that is where your customers are. You want performance or features from being IPv6 in any IPv6 world. 4) For larger businesses eventually after (2) you have to maintain a IPv6 network that is substantial and maintaining a true dual stack is expensive and confusing. It is just easier to move most of the company over to IPv6 rather than have constant gateways.
We are between steps (1) and (2) right now. (3) will happen once the carriers and ISPs are more ready.
I'm sure you can probably configure Linux to do whatever you want. It is mainly designed to allow you to split routes.But no that's not the way it is going to work.
3 bits = format prefix (right now always 001) 13 bits = TLA ID = top level identifier 8 bits = RESV reserved expansion (this is where nasty routing stuff will end up in the future) 16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs 16 bits = subnet identifier 64 bits = interface identifier
So right now it is not variable it is a series of binary calls getting you to a subnet based on those 29 key bits. Nothing like IPv4 setup with tables.
I've been reading the Arab press off and on regularly for about 20 years and was reading it almost exclusively 2001-05 for world news. There is no "middle eastern mindset" beyond differences in situation and focus. Most of their arguments are sensible from a US perspective. They disagree with US emotional opinions and often weigh the facts differences. The major thing the bring to the table is they aren't on "our side". They don't take it as a given that US goals are more or less the right ones. What you want from Al Jazeera, what they have to add to the conversation are those differences. Otherwise what would be the point?
The thing that Al Jazeera brings to the table is not unbiased journalism but journalism with totally different biases than US journalism.
Al Jazeera doesn't care much about the Washington consensus. Al Jazeera is much more plugged into the UN Al Jazeera is not beholden to US corporate interests Al Jazeera is not likely to go through the same emotional cycles as Americans when important events happen
I'm thrilled by the idea of Al Jazeera taking its place next to BBC America.
The GP was intermixing the use of protocol and the culture around a protocol. Most technology have associated cultures. DNS is part of IPv4 as it is used.
A proper upgrade path has been planned and is being executed. As for the 1% adoption rate. That's entirely false. Cell traffic which is mainly v6 is about 30% of the internet's traffic. What is 1% right now is v6 clients accessing v6 services and frankly that's because carriers can't handle v6 services. That has nothing to do with end users.
Can you elaborate on that? The actual routing process is exactly the same, it's just the headers that are different.
No... The routing process isn't close to the same. There is no capability in IPv6 for a routing table. That goes away. A router handling a particular route is simply implementing a particular bit. So if I'm sending a packet to you in v6 and we disagree on 37 bits there are 37 virtual routers (there may be more one virtual router implemented on a physical router) between you and I exactly. Nothing like that is true of IPv4 where you have complex routing tables. IPv6 makes routing much less complex in exchange for bring latency down. Given that we can't do much about the speed of light along the paths packets are traveling, and most of the features we want are going to involve increasing latency to reduce jitter, this is one of the few opportunities we have for total latency reduction.
And "standard dual stack" means having two separate networks - one that only speaks IPv4, and one that only speaks IPv6. With no way to communicate between the two. And this is the real issue.
Of course they communicate. There is a gateway in between. Your cell phone does this today.
IPv6 A wants to talk to IPv4 B: 1) A gets a dynamic IPv4 addresses assigned to it (unless (4) below). 2) A sends IPv4 packets wrapped inside IPv6 packets to a gateway device which unwraps those packets and sends them to B. Or the dual stack goes all the way and A is routable in which case the packet never gets wrapped. 3) B responds to the virtual IP address. When it does, the gateway wraps B's responses and sends them to A. And or if the dual stack goes all the way through and A can get the packets directly.
B wants to initiate with A. 4) Since A wanted to receive traffic it has setup its own permanent gateway with a fixed permanent v4 address 5) Everything else is like (3).
What is not the case though, what started the discussion with GP is that every v6 address is reachable by v4. As traffic moves to v6, a smaller percentage of v6 services will be offered on the v4 internet, and v4 will become a less and less functional subset of the internet. That's good, that's what we want. That's why this website is on HTML and not Gopher.
First off I think the discussion here has more or less proven you don't know enough about IPv6 to talk about "flaws in IPv6 design". That issue about who was supposed to do the unwrapping in your routing suggestion was not a minor mistake it shows you don't really understand how routing works now or under v6. Second, every flaw you've mentioned would equally have applied to IPv4 over the protocols it replaced like ARPNet, DECNet or NetBEUI. All protocols are incompatible with most other protocols. That's not a flaw, it is just a fact. IPv6 was not designed as a minor upgrade of v4 anymore and IPv4 was not designed as a minor upgrade of ARP. Third, most of what you have described is stuff that is part of implementing any protocol. There are already people providing IPv6 over IPv4
nothing had to change in IPv6 for this to exist. I just pointed to an example showing that everything you could want is already implemented in v6. You'll notice that this RFC leaves v6 alone.
Subnets would be X1:X2. There is no reason X1:0:: would know anything about X1:X2:0:: structure.
If you mean setting up arbitrary gateways via. DNS, you just pass the IPv6 packet inside an IPv4 packed and do 4over6. That's already part of the protocol, for example RFC 5747.
Both. Right now for example on the/128 phone system when you do v4 traffic you end up in a pool. Similarly that's the intent for home / small business when they roll out/64.
I don't think they are going to roll out/128 at the ISP level. They really aren't supposed to be doing that and if they want traffic (i.e. phone sharing with computer, iPod...) then it makes sense to let the phone have a full/64.
v6 doesn't allow for the complex routing tables of v4. Geolocation is going to be much better in theory. Privacy laws might mean that ISPs have to not sell this data though.
ISPs in America are converting. Those threats were useful 5 years ago. Now ARIN is out of IPs. They can't get more IPs to sell. You don't need artificial threats, the natural ones are unpleasant enough.
It is being widely adopted. Virtually every major carrier on the planet has an adoption plan that is underway. In many Asian countries they are almost fully converted. In the USA the cell networks are converted with home / small business likely to be converted by end of 2014. Too slow yes. Not being adopted, no.
Hopefully when we switch to IPv6 we can switch away from SMTP to one of the zillions of other options that blocks spam. If not then RBL will just work on the first 8 octets or less and ignore the last 8+ ones.
It would have been trivial to keep the current IPv4 address space
In the sense you mean, no it wouldn't. v6 and v4 routers don't work the same way.
In the sense of all software other than routers that's exactly what you do. You copying the v4 space to the local subnet to create the v4 internet inside your subnet and then address v4 traffic through a gateway. That's standard dual stack.
It won't be that slowly. Companies that have tried have found it is a 5-7 year transition to fix everything. The internet grows exponentially. It will come come much faster than most companies expect. And with much more intensive focus.
ARIN has been pretty clear they don't want carrier grade NAT. The carriers don't want carrier grade NAT. You aren't going to be forced behind a NAT. You'll have a v6 address and pool for v4 outgoing once they roll out v6.
Apple's products are all on pretty much a 1 year cycle. Every year they "blow their wad" for updates.
As for investors no investors are worried about Apple's strategy. Mostly they have a problem with investors that are overweight in apple. Second to that are investors who are concerned about Apple being able to maintain margin.
As for why dropping parts suppliers. Rumor has it Samsung raised the price 20%. Apple pays about $200 per handset for parts, so 20% translates into $40 if there were getting all their parts for Samsung or about 1/5th of their margin.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if I understand the distinction you are making between technical and administrative.
I have two pipes I need to push lots of stuff through:
Strategy 1: there is a particular marking that controls which pipe it goes in
Strategy 2: I read the marketing, look stuff up in a table and pick the pipe.
Strategy 2 is much slower. Right now we are build the system around 1. And Strategy 1 is one of the very few opportunities we have to cut latency. I certainly agree we could implement routing on IPv6 using strategy 2, a protocol doesn't tell you how you route. But yes, the routers do care. The simpler the routing strategy the more quickly they can decide on how to handle the packet. That allows for much "bigger" pipes per router.
American media is a lot different today than it was after 2001.
Americans have a lot of international power.
Americans have a democracy so public opinion really does matter.
America is the country that invented the mass advertising industry.
-- So propaganda as a major American tool of power has been important.
There are a lot of Americans who believe these simplistic explanations. These simplistic explanations people exist in other countries too, but they don't matter as much since their governments don't have the massive military of the USA. I think though that George W Bush broke the camel's back on this one. He forced the media to lie so often and so blatantly they lost credibility. The result is a decade later we have a media which has become a high point.
Though I do think it is going back to sleep under Obama, having a FOX/CNN/MSNBC be the main source of TV news is very different than ABC/CBS/NBC in terms of how easily any politician is going to be able to command their media. We'll see if the system more diverse holds up the next time a president tries to lie about something important. So far on Iran it seems to be working well.
getting an IPv6-only host to talk to an IPv4-only host. Aka "compatibility".
That's not the strategy, assuming by host you mean all the way up the chain. Somewhere someone has to be doing 6to4. That is the compatibility strategy that 6to4 exists for a while. And having 6to4 be a service is useful for the important reason that at some point in the future it can be turned off or become an addition fee generating service for service providers or ISPs. The way most ISPs don't support Usenet anymore even though they did a decade ago. When IPv6 hosts can't / won't talk to them, that's probably how you get the last 20% off IPv4 network. Which leaves the IPv4 network as a purely isolated legacy network that ISPs aren't supporting and the only people on it are people who desperately need to be on it for some reason.
Until we have an IPv6 Internet however, we need to make sure that people who move to IPv6 can still access the existing IPv4-only services. This is where the v6-to-v4 compatibility is necessary. And that compatibility was completely overlooked.
We don't want full compatibility you want degraded compatibility. And the reason is because it encourages those IPv4 services to move to IPv6. And that is precisely what we have today with ISPs offering 6 to 4 gateways where some important features (for services) like geolocation break.
And no, "just add an IPv4 address to your host" doesn't cut it. If I'm going to have to run IPv4 to access my services, why bother with IPv6 at all?
1) For carriers / ISPs because their growth is directly tied to their ability to allocate addresses, and the top level agencies don't have anymore to give out.
2) For cell phones / homes / small businesses because you don't have a choice in the matter and / or v4 addresses are an extra charge.
3) After step (1) For the public facing web or many B2B services because that is where your customers are. You want performance or features from being IPv6 in any IPv6 world.
4) For larger businesses eventually after (2) you have to maintain a IPv6 network that is substantial and maintaining a true dual stack is expensive and confusing. It is just easier to move most of the company over to IPv6 rather than have constant gateways.
We are between steps (1) and (2) right now. (3) will happen once the carriers and ISPs are more ready.
I'm sure you can probably configure Linux to do whatever you want. It is mainly designed to allow you to split routes.But no that's not the way it is going to work.
3 bits = format prefix (right now always 001)
13 bits = TLA ID = top level identifier
8 bits = RESV reserved expansion (this is where nasty routing stuff will end up in the future)
16 bits = NLA ID identifiers within carriers / ISPs
16 bits = subnet identifier
64 bits = interface identifier
So right now it is not variable it is a series of binary calls getting you to a subnet based on those 29 key bits. Nothing like IPv4 setup with tables.
I've been reading the Arab press off and on regularly for about 20 years and was reading it almost exclusively 2001-05 for world news. There is no "middle eastern mindset" beyond differences in situation and focus. Most of their arguments are sensible from a US perspective. They disagree with US emotional opinions and often weigh the facts differences. The major thing the bring to the table is they aren't on "our side". They don't take it as a given that US goals are more or less the right ones. What you want from Al Jazeera, what they have to add to the conversation are those differences. Otherwise what would be the point?
The thing that Al Jazeera brings to the table is not unbiased journalism but journalism with totally different biases than US journalism.
Al Jazeera doesn't care much about the Washington consensus.
Al Jazeera is much more plugged into the UN
Al Jazeera is not beholden to US corporate interests
Al Jazeera is not likely to go through the same emotional cycles as Americans when important events happen
I'm thrilled by the idea of Al Jazeera taking its place next to BBC America.
The GP was intermixing the use of protocol and the culture around a protocol. Most technology have associated cultures. DNS is part of IPv4 as it is used.
A proper upgrade path has been planned and is being executed. As for the 1% adoption rate. That's entirely false. Cell traffic which is mainly v6 is about 30% of the internet's traffic. What is 1% right now is v6 clients accessing v6 services and frankly that's because carriers can't handle v6 services. That has nothing to do with end users.
Can you elaborate on that? The actual routing process is exactly the same, it's just the headers that are different.
No... The routing process isn't close to the same. There is no capability in IPv6 for a routing table. That goes away. A router handling a particular route is simply implementing a particular bit. So if I'm sending a packet to you in v6 and we disagree on 37 bits there are 37 virtual routers (there may be more one virtual router implemented on a physical router) between you and I exactly. Nothing like that is true of IPv4 where you have complex routing tables. IPv6 makes routing much less complex in exchange for bring latency down. Given that we can't do much about the speed of light along the paths packets are traveling, and most of the features we want are going to involve increasing latency to reduce jitter, this is one of the few opportunities we have for total latency reduction.
And "standard dual stack" means having two separate networks - one that only speaks IPv4, and one that only speaks IPv6. With no way to communicate between the two. And this is the real issue.
Of course they communicate. There is a gateway in between. Your cell phone does this today.
IPv6 A wants to talk to IPv4 B:
1) A gets a dynamic IPv4 addresses assigned to it (unless (4) below).
2) A sends IPv4 packets wrapped inside IPv6 packets to a gateway device which unwraps those packets and sends them to B. Or the dual stack goes all the way and A is routable in which case the packet never gets wrapped.
3) B responds to the virtual IP address. When it does, the gateway wraps B's responses and sends them to A. And or if the dual stack goes all the way through and A can get the packets directly.
B wants to initiate with A.
4) Since A wanted to receive traffic it has setup its own permanent gateway with a fixed permanent v4 address
5) Everything else is like (3).
What is not the case though, what started the discussion with GP is that every v6 address is reachable by v4. As traffic moves to v6, a smaller percentage of v6 services will be offered on the v4 internet, and v4 will become a less and less functional subset of the internet. That's good, that's what we want. That's why this website is on HTML and not Gopher.
First off I think the discussion here has more or less proven you don't know enough about IPv6 to talk about "flaws in IPv6 design". That issue about who was supposed to do the unwrapping in your routing suggestion was not a minor mistake it shows you don't really understand how routing works now or under v6. Second, every flaw you've mentioned would equally have applied to IPv4 over the protocols it replaced like ARPNet, DECNet or NetBEUI. All protocols are incompatible with most other protocols. That's not a flaw, it is just a fact. IPv6 was not designed as a minor upgrade of v4 anymore and IPv4 was not designed as a minor upgrade of ARP. Third, most of what you have described is stuff that is part of implementing any protocol. There are already people providing IPv6 over IPv4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers . Since 1999 tunnels have existed. Tunnels have existed in Windows since Windows 2000 ::/0 2/::$ipv4a pub
ipv6 install
ipv6 rtu
ipv6 adu 2/$ipv6b
nothing had to change in IPv6 for this to exist. I just pointed to an example showing that everything you could want is already implemented in v6. You'll notice that this RFC leaves v6 alone.
Subnets would be X1:X2. There is no reason X1:0:: would know anything about X1:X2:0:: structure.
If you mean setting up arbitrary gateways via. DNS, you just pass the IPv6 packet inside an IPv4 packed and do 4over6. That's already part of the protocol, for example RFC 5747.
Both. Right now for example on the /128 phone system when you do v4 traffic you end up in a pool. Similarly that's the intent for home / small business when they roll out /64.
I don't think they are going to roll out /128 at the ISP level. They really aren't supposed to be doing that and if they want traffic (i.e. phone sharing with computer, iPod...) then it makes sense to let the phone have a full /64.
v6 doesn't allow for the complex routing tables of v4. Geolocation is going to be much better in theory. Privacy laws might mean that ISPs have to not sell this data though.
ISPs in America are converting. Those threats were useful 5 years ago. Now ARIN is out of IPs. They can't get more IPs to sell. You don't need artificial threats, the natural ones are unpleasant enough.
It is being widely adopted. Virtually every major carrier on the planet has an adoption plan that is underway. In many Asian countries they are almost fully converted. In the USA the cell networks are converted with home / small business likely to be converted by end of 2014. Too slow yes. Not being adopted, no.
Hopefully when we switch to IPv6 we can switch away from SMTP to one of the zillions of other options that blocks spam. If not then RBL will just work on the first 8 octets or less and ignore the last 8+ ones.
Expensive legacy hardware sits on a v4 subnet which you map to part of your v6 subnet.
And v6 people don't hate routers, one of the main advantages of v6 is making routers much much faster.
So implement 200 technologies to get a system that works worse than v6 rather than implement v6?
Once you get rid of the v4 addresses what is the point?
There are 2^128 v6 addresses. There are 2^32 v4 addresses. The gateway can only possibly be one way.
Thank you. I repeated your point.
It would have been trivial to keep the current IPv4 address space
In the sense you mean, no it wouldn't. v6 and v4 routers don't work the same way.
In the sense of all software other than routers that's exactly what you do. You copying the v4 space to the local subnet to create the v4 internet inside your subnet and then address v4 traffic through a gateway. That's standard dual stack.
It won't be that slowly. Companies that have tried have found it is a 5-7 year transition to fix everything. The internet grows exponentially. It will come come much faster than most companies expect. And with much more intensive focus.
Most older home routers don't handle. So what? Replace them.
ARIN has been pretty clear they don't want carrier grade NAT. The carriers don't want carrier grade NAT. You aren't going to be forced behind a NAT. You'll have a v6 address and pool for v4 outgoing once they roll out v6.
Apple's products are all on pretty much a 1 year cycle. Every year they "blow their wad" for updates.
As for investors no investors are worried about Apple's strategy. Mostly they have a problem with investors that are overweight in apple. Second to that are investors who are concerned about Apple being able to maintain margin.
As for why dropping parts suppliers. Rumor has it Samsung raised the price 20%. Apple pays about $200 per handset for parts, so 20% translates into $40 if there were getting all their parts for Samsung or about 1/5th of their margin.
Just remembered a very good chart of marketshare from the time:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ec2c5a6eab8ea105200001b/chart-of-the-day-android-share-of-smartphone-operating-system-market-nov-14-2011.jpg