Remember the context. Home network is IPv6. Home LAN is IPv4 since the printer is v4. Cell phone is v6 on a v6 network but could be going wifi off a v4 or v6 network.
Tim Cook has already done quite a bit of innovation in the manufacturing and logistics area. He is more like a Michael Dell than a Steve Jobs but he is not just a balance sheet guy.
My prediction is that Apple goes mainstream under Cook, becoming something like IBM was in the 1980s.
The haven't fallen to the level of SCO yet. SCO did stuff and then fabricated a claim that IBM did that stuff and thus violated their contract. SCO lied about their copyright status for other materials. They lied about ownership (fraud).
This patent claim by SCO is different. While it is painful to see SCO using patents not innovation to make money is likely truthful.
I don't think this will be a serious crimp. Most likely it would be a licensing fee that all the mobile chip makers end up paying. So like an extra $3 per phone for years.
Remember that SGI had a strong partnership with MIPS and jointly developed a lot of video and audio technology. They might very well have also invented the silicon.
Lets not treat SGI like a patent troll with fake claims. This was a company that did a lot to advance our industry it is a pity of our law that bankrupt companies can have their memories tarnished this way.
They couldn't find a market? SGI was a huge player for many years 1981-1999 they were usually the 2nd or 3rd biggest workstation company in the USA. I used to joke about Apple during the 10.2-10.4 days "bringing SGI technology to the masses".
I don't think there is anyone who is going to question SGI's degree of innovation or importance in the industry. I'd hope that most of their patents are expired or near expired because turning the company into a patent troll is like necrophilia, defaming the body of the dead to satisfy the living. That being said, there could be a lot of innovations there we all take for granted and this could be really harmful. I sincerely hope that they lose while being very afraid they'll win.
The urgency for office LANs to be IPv6 comes from the fact that external facing systems start needing to be IPv6 and other resources start going IPv6. That's a while away. Eventually though it will make sense for new LANs to be IPv6 and old LANs to be dual stack.
Lets be clear: no one is going to be running significant v6-only services any time soon
They already are for cell phones. The carriers are running all kinds of services to their cell phone / mobile customers. So far it is all internal to the carrier's networks but they exist. There are also services in Asian languages that are v6 only.
I agree we are still several years away from v6 only services.
As for the lifetime of printers. Good printers can have lifetimes in terms of many years. During the 90s I worked on channel printers from the 70s.
Dual-stack requires either: 1. Enough IPv4 addresses for each piece of equipment 2. NAT
That's NAT at the client side. Carrier modem/routers/switches for home/small business provide that today. The issue was whether the carriers are going to NAT throughout their network not after the handoff.
Do what translation exactly? Are you talking about tunnelling or translating? Bearing in mind that we're talking about IPv4-only equipment at both ends of the connection, I can't see how you can be talking about translating here.
OK again we use your game console. Game console is on an internal at 192.168.5.23 (internal IPv4 network) it is trying to get to 1.2.3.4. The home has an address of AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF:12:34 / 64 so console has assigned to it, an IPv6 address of AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF:00:00:01:00:05:17 (5.23). The console speaks IPv4 to the home router which tunnels to a gateway. Note the router tunnels not the game console and nothing on the carrier side say the gateway is at AA:BB:12:34:56:78:90:01:02:03:04 (carrier;'s virtualization). The carrier assigns a temporary v4 address to the home router / game console and passes this to the 1.2.3.4 server.
So the path is IPv4 -> IPv6 -> IPv4 a tunnel but the tunnel is not for each piece of equipment.
I don't know anything about LSNAT in terms of IPv6 and sharing. So I'm not following. I agree on what dual stack means.
As for routing tables I thought that was still an objective. And yes multiple ISPs means multiple provider dependent addresses I'm not following why that presents a routing problem. Two ISPs to the same box means two addresses which the company internally would translate.
I'd be interested to know what ARIN consider to be "best practices" in this regard
Dual stack. Customer should get an entire/64 or larger to build subnets and do translation on their side. Carriers should provide a IPv6 -> IPv4 gateway to access v4 resources from v6 networks. No v6 upstream from the customer's site, they do not want ISP's creating complexity in the v6 address space and maintaining the purity of the routes.
By "v4 only equipment", I mean your IPv4-only games consoles, etc. which will continue to need to contact the vendor's servers, which the console vendor will need to ensure remain accessible over v4 for the normal lifetime of the equipment.
That's a good example where a carrier gateway would work. Eventually though the gateway can get pushed down to the individual's modem/router so they see the v4 network as a subnet inside their individual v6 subnet. That way the game console sends a v4 packet and the router assigns a v6 address to the game console for the server to respond to.
On the whole, I can't see a big advantage of NAT64 over CGNAT The big advantage is:
a) It puts the customer fully in control. They can implement their own NAT64 schemes however they choose. b) No routing tables, which means carriers grade routers can be upgraded to the much higher speeds possible with non table based routing. Which will allow for protocols that are much more sensitive to jitter.
all of this stuff is of a similar seriousness to any CGNAT related problems that might befall an ISP, and ISPs are rarely held responsible
Correct because they are following "best practices". If they are not following best practices and something goes wrong utility commissions can nail them to the cross.
Firstly, most consumer grade routers (that is: the sort of Netgear, etc. thing most people have at home and in small offices) do no IPv6 *at all*.
I agree. Which means that either upstream from them the device is going to be doing IPv6 -> IPv4. This capability is going to need to be in Home / Small business modem/router/switches provided by carriers.
Second: equipment like networked printers, etc. are largely unaffected anyway. No one (sane) is suggesting turning off IPv4 entirely on the LAN - most people will run IPv6 and IPv4 concurrently. All your old IPv4 equipment is still going to be able to talk to your workstations since they will all run IPv4 too. The router doesn't really affect what protocols you run internally - even if you were on an IPv6-only internet connection, you can still run IPv4 internally to keep your old equipment working.
There is impact since you need to be able to access resources internally and externally. Right now a lot of that is handled via. NAT and having static IPv4 IPs for small business.
legacy equipment won't be able to connect to IPv6 services
They are going to have to. Which means some piece of equipment upstream from them is going to have to handle translation.
I imagine that ISPs will sell "premium" accounts that provide globally reachable IPv4 addresses that don't go through a NAT - this is possible because they will be reclaiming IPv4 addresses from all those customers who don't pay for the premium account.
Agreed, that's exactly what I think will happen. Though as time goes on they may lose the infrastructure to support this for home / small business so unless you are buying an expensive connection, like a DS3 (or whatever they sell then), it may not be available at all.
...which renderd DNS64/NAT64 a bit pointless..
I don't agree and I think we need to break "customer" into classes here. For home/small business the carrier provides this service at the level of the router/modem. So the customer runs IPv4 internally, the equipment that can tunnel does and other stuff gets dynamically allocated IPv6 connections. So for example if my IPv4 printer needs to talk to AABB:CCDD... it gets told it is talking to 192.168.5.24 the same way NAT works internally now. For larger business they are going to be buying their own equipment to do NDS64/NAT64.
I think this is going to be vital to do translations for years all throughout the internet.
First off on the regulators I was talking ARIN and FCC, sorry typical American assumption that we are addressing Americans. I have no idea what the situation is in the UK, but the UK doesn't make a lot of its own carrier grade equipment so I doubt they are going to follow their own strategy in the UK, unless you've heard differently. As far as carrier strategy I assume USA, France (Alcatel-Lucent), Israel are the big 3 for whether CGNAT gets rolled out or not. Obviously there is nothing to stop the UK from going the CGNAT route on its own if they so choose.
In terms of ARIN they've declared this to not be "best practices" which means from a US legal standpoint using CGNAT would create liability situations that don't exist under an IPv6 transition. In other words if something went wrong for a client and it was a result of CGNAT they hurdle for proving negligence would be lower and the damages higher. There are also a few other things "not best practices" means in terms of US utility law. Basically though that stick is big enough for every carrier to indicate they ain't going the CGNAT route.
As far as the transition, as I mentioned cell/small business/home are going to go first. Once those go, you will see equipment that supports IPv6 for small business. Mid and large business and going to have huge headaches.
As far as allowing customers to access IPv4 content, we already have that for the cell networks and the few places it has been rolled out for home. What the carriers do is run IPv6 -> IPv4 translation so IPv4 resources look like they exist on a subnet within the carrier. From the v4 side it is a gateway with rapidly rotating IPv4 addresses.
Great comment lots to reply to. The bulk of your comment is about the fact that equipment manufacturers aren't ready yet and in practice their equipment is way behind where they claim it is. I agree with you 100% on that. It is going to be infuriating for people who say buy equipment in 2013 to maybe have to toss it in 2014.
Though I should mention I assume carrier home/small business router/modems will do IPV6->IPV4 as part of their dual stack, so people with home small business equipment could run an IPV4 subnet and keep their equipment. More than just network equipment there are expensive network attached printers and no one wants to replace all of them,.. BTW what is your company?
As for software not having support, again I agree. And I think again that's going to be handled by running small v4 subnets inside of IPV6. I don't think the world moves off dual stacking until around 2030. I'll hit the carrier based NAT issues in my next comment.
The internet is global. There isn't going to be a coordinated switch. Rather it is going to go:
a) Carriers go dual stack b) Cell / Home / Small business on IPv6 with IPv6 -> IPv4 gateways. That's one transition. c) MId / large business go internally dual stack while having IPv6 outward facing.
Then probably in a decade or more.
a) Most carriers stop offering IPv4 b) The gateways get crappier and worse and finally become an extra cost feature. c) Mid / large business have only very small isolated IPv4 subsystems most likely running inside of virtual machines.
Actually it will free up IPv4s because of pooling.
Lets say I provide internet connections to 1m people via IPv4. That is 1m IPv4 addresses, dynamically allocated but they are held for a day plus on average. Now I start pooling so that an IPv4 address is surrendered after 5 minutes of being idle. I might be able to drop down to 200k addresses freeing up 800k. That is the in fact exactly the incentive for the carriers to move home / small business to IPv6 with IPv6 -> IPv4 pooling.
Right now it is not people who are the problem it is carriers. And they are under pressure, they no longer can get IPv4 addresses to grow their networks. Every carrier is working on IPv6 some at different rates, but they are all progressing.
and even when they run out, they can NAT most of their customers and charge a premium to anyone who needs an un-NATted connection
That's called carrier based NAT and the carriers aren't setup for it. Further the regulators are hostile to it. So carriers would be looking at doing a change that's roughly as expensive as implementing IPv6 except they would also have to implement IPv6 soon thereafter and it would annoy regulators. Carrier based NAT is not going to happen.
What is going to happen is the carriers are going to put home and small business on IPv6 and then offer IPv6 -> IPv4 gateways so the IPv4 Internet looks to home/SB users like a small subnet inside their carrier's network and the carrier's addresses look to the IPv4 world like a cluster. What will break from this is: a) Geolocation b) Longer term session stability (since IPv4 addresses will change very quickly).
The switch takes 5-7 years for most people. Last year there was some testing and some of the major services like google offered IPv6 services. The carriers are doing their part. This is not a small project and you will be hearing about it all through the decade.
Yes there are finer details. When it actually comes to things like router and firewall code lots has to change.
For example there is no more NAT, so security layers provided by proxying addresses have to be added directly. There are no more routing tables, so the layout of equipment should be different. There is no more layer 2. etc...
For companies that laid out a complex network in the 1990s they have to do something like "port the code" over to IPv6 based solution.
It is not just extra bits, the entire routing / switching strategy changes. IPv6 has no layer 2 i.e. switching is based on IP not mac addresses. Also routing doesn't use routing tables.
If it were just packing extra bits, it would be easy enough to layer IPv6 on top of IPv4 and in fact that is exactly what IPv4 -> IPv6 conversion devices do.
Slashdot Mirror
TCP/IP is bidirectional.
Remember the context. Home network is IPv6. Home LAN is IPv4 since the printer is v4. Cell phone is v6 on a v6 network but could be going wifi off a v4 or v6 network.
Tim Cook has already done quite a bit of innovation in the manufacturing and logistics area. He is more like a Michael Dell than a Steve Jobs but he is not just a balance sheet guy.
My prediction is that Apple goes mainstream under Cook, becoming something like IBM was in the 1980s.
The haven't fallen to the level of SCO yet. SCO did stuff and then fabricated a claim that IBM did that stuff and thus violated their contract. SCO lied about their copyright status for other materials. They lied about ownership (fraud).
This patent claim by SCO is different. While it is painful to see SCO using patents not innovation to make money is likely truthful.
I don't think this will be a serious crimp. Most likely it would be a licensing fee that all the mobile chip makers end up paying. So like an extra $3 per phone for years.
Remember that SGI had a strong partnership with MIPS and jointly developed a lot of video and audio technology. They might very well have also invented the silicon.
Lets not treat SGI like a patent troll with fake claims. This was a company that did a lot to advance our industry it is a pity of our law that bankrupt companies can have their memories tarnished this way.
They couldn't find a market? SGI was a huge player for many years 1981-1999 they were usually the 2nd or 3rd biggest workstation company in the USA. I used to joke about Apple during the 10.2-10.4 days "bringing SGI technology to the masses".
I don't think there is anyone who is going to question SGI's degree of innovation or importance in the industry. I'd hope that most of their patents are expired or near expired because turning the company into a patent troll is like necrophilia, defaming the body of the dead to satisfy the living. That being said, there could be a lot of innovations there we all take for granted and this could be really harmful. I sincerely hope that they lose while being very afraid they'll win.
To connect to an IPv6 user, like a cell phone.
The urgency for office LANs to be IPv6 comes from the fact that external facing systems start needing to be IPv6 and other resources start going IPv6. That's a while away. Eventually though it will make sense for new LANs to be IPv6 and old LANs to be dual stack.
Lets be clear: no one is going to be running significant v6-only services any time soon
They already are for cell phones. The carriers are running all kinds of services to their cell phone / mobile customers. So far it is all internal to the carrier's networks but they exist. There are also services in Asian languages that are v6 only.
I agree we are still several years away from v6 only services.
As for the lifetime of printers. Good printers can have lifetimes in terms of many years. During the 90s I worked on channel printers from the 70s.
That's NAT at the client side. Carrier modem/routers/switches for home/small business provide that today. The issue was whether the carriers are going to NAT throughout their network not after the handoff.
OK again we use your game console. Game console is on an internal at 192.168.5.23 (internal IPv4 network) it is trying to get to 1.2.3.4. The home has an address of AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF:12:34 / 64 so console has assigned to it, an IPv6 address of AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF:00:00:01:00:05:17 (5.23). The console speaks IPv4 to the home router which tunnels to a gateway. Note the router tunnels not the game console and nothing on the carrier side say the gateway is at AA:BB:12:34:56:78:90:01:02:03:04 (carrier;'s virtualization). The carrier assigns a temporary v4 address to the home router / game console and passes this to the 1.2.3.4 server.
So the path is IPv4 -> IPv6 -> IPv4 a tunnel but the tunnel is not for each piece of equipment.
I don't know anything about LSNAT in terms of IPv6 and sharing. So I'm not following. I agree on what dual stack means.
As for routing tables I thought that was still an objective. And yes multiple ISPs means multiple provider dependent addresses I'm not following why that presents a routing problem. Two ISPs to the same box means two addresses which the company internally would translate.
I'd be interested to know what ARIN consider to be "best practices" in this regard
Dual stack. Customer should get an entire /64 or larger to build subnets and do translation on their side. Carriers should provide a IPv6 -> IPv4 gateway to access v4 resources from v6 networks. No v6 upstream from the customer's site, they do not want ISP's creating complexity in the v6 address space and maintaining the purity of the routes.
By "v4 only equipment", I mean your IPv4-only games consoles, etc. which will continue to need to contact the vendor's servers, which the console vendor will need to ensure remain accessible over v4 for the normal lifetime of the equipment.
That's a good example where a carrier gateway would work. Eventually though the gateway can get pushed down to the individual's modem/router so they see the v4 network as a subnet inside their individual v6 subnet. That way the game console sends a v4 packet and the router assigns a v6 address to the game console for the server to respond to.
On the whole, I can't see a big advantage of NAT64 over CGNAT
The big advantage is:
a) It puts the customer fully in control. They can implement their own NAT64 schemes however they choose.
b) No routing tables, which means carriers grade routers can be upgraded to the much higher speeds possible with non table based routing. Which will allow for protocols that are much more sensitive to jitter.
all of this stuff is of a similar seriousness to any CGNAT related problems that might befall an ISP, and ISPs are rarely held responsible
Correct because they are following "best practices". If they are not following best practices and something goes wrong utility commissions can nail them to the cross.
Firstly, most consumer grade routers (that is: the sort of Netgear, etc. thing most people have at home and in small offices) do no IPv6 *at all*.
I agree. Which means that either upstream from them the device is going to be doing IPv6 -> IPv4. This capability is going to need to be in Home / Small business modem/router/switches provided by carriers.
Second: equipment like networked printers, etc. are largely unaffected anyway. No one (sane) is suggesting turning off IPv4 entirely on the LAN - most people will run IPv6 and IPv4 concurrently. All your old IPv4 equipment is still going to be able to talk to your workstations since they will all run IPv4 too. The router doesn't really affect what protocols you run internally - even if you were on an IPv6-only internet connection, you can still run IPv4 internally to keep your old equipment working.
There is impact since you need to be able to access resources internally and externally. Right now a lot of that is handled via. NAT and having static IPv4 IPs for small business.
legacy equipment won't be able to connect to IPv6 services
They are going to have to. Which means some piece of equipment upstream from them is going to have to handle translation.
I imagine that ISPs will sell "premium" accounts that provide globally reachable IPv4 addresses that don't go through a NAT - this is possible because they will be reclaiming IPv4 addresses from all those customers who don't pay for the premium account.
Agreed, that's exactly what I think will happen. Though as time goes on they may lose the infrastructure to support this for home / small business so unless you are buying an expensive connection, like a DS3 (or whatever they sell then), it may not be available at all.
I don't agree and I think we need to break "customer" into classes here. For home/small business the carrier provides this service at the level of the router/modem. So the customer runs IPv4 internally, the equipment that can tunnel does and other stuff gets dynamically allocated IPv6 connections. So for example if my IPv4 printer needs to talk to
AABB:CCDD... it gets told it is talking to 192.168.5.24 the same way NAT works internally now. For larger business they are going to be buying their own equipment to do NDS64/NAT64.
I think this is going to be vital to do translations for years all throughout the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighbor_Discovery_Protocol
I agree I'm just saying they are going to do NAT64/DNS64 i.e. IPv6 -> IPv4 not Carrier Grade NAT.
It's [Carrier Grade NAT] already happening with some providers, particularly mobile ones.
Well yes, but there isn't as much mobile infrastructure. And note that most of the devices get dual stack capability.
This reply is only going to deal with the CGNAT.
First off on the regulators I was talking ARIN and FCC, sorry typical American assumption that we are addressing Americans. I have no idea what the situation is in the UK, but the UK doesn't make a lot of its own carrier grade equipment so I doubt they are going to follow their own strategy in the UK, unless you've heard differently. As far as carrier strategy I assume USA, France (Alcatel-Lucent), Israel are the big 3 for whether CGNAT gets rolled out or not. Obviously there is nothing to stop the UK from going the CGNAT route on its own if they so choose.
In terms of ARIN they've declared this to not be "best practices" which means from a US legal standpoint using CGNAT would create liability situations that don't exist under an IPv6 transition. In other words if something went wrong for a client and it was a result of CGNAT they hurdle for proving negligence would be lower and the damages higher. There are also a few other things "not best practices" means in terms of US utility law. Basically though that stick is big enough for every carrier to indicate they ain't going the CGNAT route.
As far as the transition, as I mentioned cell/small business/home are going to go first. Once those go, you will see equipment that supports IPv6 for small business. Mid and large business and going to have huge headaches.
As far as allowing customers to access IPv4 content, we already have that for the cell networks and the few places it has been rolled out for home. What the carriers do is run IPv6 -> IPv4 translation so IPv4 resources look like they exist on a subnet within the carrier. From the v4 side it is a gateway with rapidly rotating IPv4 addresses.
Great comment lots to reply to. The bulk of your comment is about the fact that equipment manufacturers aren't ready yet and in practice their equipment is way behind where they claim it is. I agree with you 100% on that. It is going to be infuriating for people who say buy equipment in 2013 to maybe have to toss it in 2014.
Though I should mention I assume carrier home/small business router/modems will do IPV6->IPV4 as part of their dual stack, so people with home small business equipment could run an IPV4 subnet and keep their equipment. More than just network equipment there are expensive network attached printers and no one wants to replace all of them,.. BTW what is your company?
As for software not having support, again I agree. And I think again that's going to be handled by running small v4 subnets inside of IPV6. I don't think the world moves off dual stacking until around 2030. I'll hit the carrier based NAT issues in my next comment.
The internet is global. There isn't going to be a coordinated switch. Rather it is going to go:
a) Carriers go dual stack
b) Cell / Home / Small business on IPv6 with IPv6 -> IPv4 gateways. That's one transition.
c) MId / large business go internally dual stack while having IPv6 outward facing.
Then probably in a decade or more.
a) Most carriers stop offering IPv4
b) The gateways get crappier and worse and finally become an extra cost feature.
c) Mid / large business have only very small isolated IPv4 subsystems most likely running inside of virtual machines.
Actually it will free up IPv4s because of pooling.
Lets say I provide internet connections to 1m people via IPv4. That is 1m IPv4 addresses, dynamically allocated but they are held for a day plus on average. Now I start pooling so that an IPv4 address is surrendered after 5 minutes of being idle. I might be able to drop down to 200k addresses freeing up 800k. That is the in fact exactly the incentive for the carriers to move home / small business to IPv6 with IPv6 -> IPv4 pooling.
Right now it is not people who are the problem it is carriers. And they are under pressure, they no longer can get IPv4 addresses to grow their networks. Every carrier is working on IPv6 some at different rates, but they are all progressing.
and even when they run out, they can NAT most of their customers and charge a premium to anyone who needs an un-NATted connection
That's called carrier based NAT and the carriers aren't setup for it. Further the regulators are hostile to it. So carriers would be looking at doing a change that's roughly as expensive as implementing IPv6 except they would also have to implement IPv6 soon thereafter and it would annoy regulators. Carrier based NAT is not going to happen.
What is going to happen is the carriers are going to put home and small business on IPv6 and then offer IPv6 -> IPv4 gateways so the IPv4 Internet looks to home/SB users like a small subnet inside their carrier's network and the carrier's addresses look to the IPv4 world like a cluster. What will break from this is:
a) Geolocation
b) Longer term session stability (since IPv4 addresses will change very quickly).
The switch takes 5-7 years for most people. Last year there was some testing and some of the major services like google offered IPv6 services. The carriers are doing their part. This is not a small project and you will be hearing about it all through the decade.
Yes there are finer details. When it actually comes to things like router and firewall code lots has to change.
For example there is no more NAT, so security layers provided by proxying addresses have to be added directly.
There are no more routing tables, so the layout of equipment should be different.
There is no more layer 2.
etc...
For companies that laid out a complex network in the 1990s they have to do something like "port the code" over to IPv6 based solution.
It is not just extra bits, the entire routing / switching strategy changes. IPv6 has no layer 2 i.e. switching is based on IP not mac addresses. Also routing doesn't use routing tables.
If it were just packing extra bits, it would be easy enough to layer IPv6 on top of IPv4 and in fact that is exactly what IPv4 -> IPv6 conversion devices do.