Many governement projects treat IPv6 support as a checkbox, not as something to be actually used. There are big, big, holes in the implementations, and nobody really wants to go first...
IPv5 was experimental-only, thus the v6 nomenclature. There was a proposed "IPv8" which was exactly like IPv4 except for the length of the address - I think that a simpler proposal had a lot going for it...
But alas, we did not head that way...
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6?
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'd challenge the assertion that "many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks" - the only ISP which has made any sort of argument that running IPv6 as a core service (rather than an edge service across the existing IPv4 core) is Comcast, and that has to do with the number of devices they're trying to manage with regard to set-top-boxes.
Comcast is nowhere near implementing this, either.
The US ISPs either run IPv6 as an edge service (in a VRF, say) or using tunneling approaches, or on limited deployments on specific hardware - but nobody's tunneling IPv4 inside IPv6 (although theoretically that'll work)
Bonjour does not rely on IPv6 - IPv6 autoconf was based on Appletalk autoconf, as was Apple's Bonjour (formerly Rendezvous). Bonjour works just fine with no v6 on the network.
And Apple's business model is absolutely not dependent on Bonjour: I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the term "business model." An example of a business model is:
"We give away high-quality software for free to get people to buy our hardware, where we make high margins" - that's an example of Apple's business model.
"By becoming the de-facto standard desktop environment, we encourage customers to buy applications from us which are specifically geared for that environment" - that's an example of Microsoft's business model.
Notice that neither of those models require calling out a specific technology. Any company which is completely dependent on a single technology will find itself obsolete when the next big thing is created.
Re:You are already are using IPv6
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
IPv6 is one possible solution to the address shortage (which is hardly at the *dire* stage, but will be soon enough). Other solutions include widespread adoption of NAT and/or adopting some entirely different layer-3 paradigm.
The IPv6 designers have hampered adoption by insisting on solving problems which are not directly related to address size (like autoconfiguration, QoS, etc) and rolling those into the protocol - because so many of these useful features which were steadily glommed onto IPv4 have not yet been implemented in v6, those customers who need the features have no incentive to deploy it.
Examples: IPv6SEC is not yet implemented. Autoconfiguration in a truly native v6 environment (i.e. no v4 at all) doesn't have a mechanism for learning about DNS servers. OSPFv3 is substantially different from OSPFv2. The list goes on...
None of the significant US ISPs support native IPv6 transport across an infrastructure without any IPv4 present at this time.
No government agency does either.
Evidence? Try to get OSPFv3 working without an IPv4 router-ID. Try to get encryption (IPv6SEC) working without using IPSEC (over IPv4 transport). Try getting VoIPv6 working, or looking for hardware support for multiple queues for IPv6 packets.
Networx was just awarded a couple of days ago, and specifies those services which are to be orderable over the next 15 years. It shouldn't be used as evidence of what is supported today.
sort of - there's a lot more IPv6 there than here, but there are still a whole bunch of thoroughly under-implemented pieces of IPv6 (like, has anyone written an actual implementation of IPv6Sec yet?), and actual traffic rates using native v6 native v6 all the way through are exceptionally low.
If you go to one of the good latency calculators, you'll see that the delta between IPv6 performance and IPv4 performance is substantial, with IPv6 performance showing as a heck of a lot worse (about twice as poor). Once this isn't the case, then an argument for widespread adoption of v6 will be more effective.
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6?
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree about the downsides of running IPv6, but pulling the/8 assignments from the current assignees would be a lot of headache and trouble for not so much benefit - yeah, a couple of those could be returned easily (probably not the DoD ones - they already returned the ones they don't need anymore) (and you forgot to mention that Level3 currently owns 3/8s due to their purchase of BBNPlanet (AS1), and that would add maybe an additional year at our current run rate, but we'll come to a point where we need to do something different.
Whether that something is IPv6 or is wide-scale NAT, or some other protocol entirely, I don't know. IPv6 implementation and deployment has been hampered by the protocol designers attempting to fix every known problem with it, rather than simply fixing the address space...
I can easily make 320kbps MP3 rips of the CD, but I don't currently have an.ogg encoder. If you want to "try before you buy," you can follow these instructions for adding MP3 support to FC6. If you'd like me sell you some.oggs, I'd be happy to do so: just send me an email and we'll set that up.
FiOS isn't actually being run in urban centers: it's too hard to dig up city streets. Verizon is putting it mostly in the new-ish suburbs. At least, that's the way it is in DC...
The cost for my band to record and duplicate our second CD was about $4.50 each or thereabouts. iTMS gives us $6.37 per full album sale. CDBaby gives us about $7 each.
I largely agree with you, although I wouldn't say that there's no cost - rather that the startup cost ( ~ $1000 worth of computer & recording equipment ) is in line with the costs of the instruments & amps themselves, and the marginal cost on making additional copies is so low as to be nonexistent.
That's part of why I don't think Apple's DRM is as bad/onerous as some of the other ones. Annoying, yes; conceptually infuriating, yes; but altogether not as much of a true consumer burden or risk as a lot of the other systems.
The amount that Apple iTunes gives artists (or at least, those who go through the CDBaby Digital Distribution as independents) on any given song is $0.637, and the amount they pay an artist for a "whole-album" download is $6.37.
If the iTMS went away tomorrow, you would still be able to load songs purchased from it onto a new iPod. What you wouldn't be able to do is transfer the protected songs to a new computer running iTunes. That's got a lot of the same effects, but isn't quite as dire.
(I'm a big fan of viewing music as a product rather than a license, and while my band has stuff on iTunes, we're even happier when someone buys the physical CDs...)
my wife and I have different tolerances of clutter and approaches to tidying: I don't mind a pile of random (to be filed) things, or some such, being left out when company's coming over. She would much rather that the surfaces are empty/cleared, and doesn't mind stuffing drawers to the brim with wholly unrelated things.
In short: I would rather have something left lying out rather than put away in the wrong place; she would rather put something away in the wrong place than leave it lying out...
It's certainly a more classic "American" tax than the income tax is, which notably required a Constitutional Amendment to pass muster, and taxing property holders as an approach dates back to feudal taxes payed to the king by the landholder.
I had completely forgotten how great Max Headroom was... Netflix, here I come...
Argh! Not released yet! curse you, media gatekeepers of the modern age: here all I want to do is legally watch a program which was once given away for free on TV, and you frustrate me yet again...
Slashdot Mirror
Many governement projects treat IPv6 support as a checkbox, not as something to be actually used. There are big, big, holes in the implementations, and nobody really wants to go first...
You're correct about the reason, but the implication is that there isn't the quantity of native service deployed to support the need.
IPv5 was experimental-only, thus the v6 nomenclature. There was a proposed "IPv8" which was exactly like IPv4 except for the length of the address - I think that a simpler proposal had a lot going for it...
But alas, we did not head that way...
I'd challenge the assertion that "many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks" - the only ISP which has made any sort of argument that running IPv6 as a core service (rather than an edge service across the existing IPv4 core) is Comcast, and that has to do with the number of devices they're trying to manage with regard to set-top-boxes.
Comcast is nowhere near implementing this, either.
The US ISPs either run IPv6 as an edge service (in a VRF, say) or using tunneling approaches, or on limited deployments on specific hardware - but nobody's tunneling IPv4 inside IPv6 (although theoretically that'll work)
Because we all know that newly-implemented code never requires patching, and is guaranteed bug-free...
Bonjour does not rely on IPv6 - IPv6 autoconf was based on Appletalk autoconf, as was Apple's Bonjour (formerly Rendezvous). Bonjour works just fine with no v6 on the network.
And Apple's business model is absolutely not dependent on Bonjour: I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the term "business model." An example of a business model is:
"We give away high-quality software for free to get people to buy our hardware, where we make high margins" - that's an example of Apple's business model.
"By becoming the de-facto standard desktop environment, we encourage customers to buy applications from us which are specifically geared for that environment" - that's an example of Microsoft's business model.
Notice that neither of those models require calling out a specific technology. Any company which is completely dependent on a single technology will find itself obsolete when the next big thing is created.
IPv6 is one possible solution to the address shortage (which is hardly at the *dire* stage, but will be soon enough). Other solutions include widespread adoption of NAT and/or adopting some entirely different layer-3 paradigm.
The IPv6 designers have hampered adoption by insisting on solving problems which are not directly related to address size (like autoconfiguration, QoS, etc) and rolling those into the protocol - because so many of these useful features which were steadily glommed onto IPv4 have not yet been implemented in v6, those customers who need the features have no incentive to deploy it.
Examples: IPv6SEC is not yet implemented. Autoconfiguration in a truly native v6 environment (i.e. no v4 at all) doesn't have a mechanism for learning about DNS servers. OSPFv3 is substantially different from OSPFv2. The list goes on...
None of the significant US ISPs support native IPv6 transport across an infrastructure without any IPv4 present at this time.
No government agency does either.
Evidence? Try to get OSPFv3 working without an IPv4 router-ID. Try to get encryption (IPv6SEC) working without using IPSEC (over IPv4 transport). Try getting VoIPv6 working, or looking for hardware support for multiple queues for IPv6 packets.
Networx was just awarded a couple of days ago, and specifies those services which are to be orderable over the next 15 years. It shouldn't be used as evidence of what is supported today.
-David
sort of - there's a lot more IPv6 there than here, but there are still a whole bunch of thoroughly under-implemented pieces of IPv6 (like, has anyone written an actual implementation of IPv6Sec yet?), and actual traffic rates using native v6 native v6 all the way through are exceptionally low.
If you go to one of the good latency calculators, you'll see that the delta between IPv6 performance and IPv4 performance is substantial, with IPv6 performance showing as a heck of a lot worse (about twice as poor). Once this isn't the case, then an argument for widespread adoption of v6 will be more effective.
I agree about the downsides of running IPv6, but pulling the /8 assignments from the current assignees would be a lot of headache and trouble for not so much benefit - yeah, a couple of those could be returned easily (probably not the DoD ones - they already returned the ones they don't need anymore) (and you forgot to mention that Level3 currently owns 3 /8s due to their purchase of BBNPlanet (AS1), and that would add maybe an additional year at our current run rate, but we'll come to a point where we need to do something different.
Whether that something is IPv6 or is wide-scale NAT, or some other protocol entirely, I don't know. IPv6 implementation and deployment has been hampered by the protocol designers attempting to fix every known problem with it, rather than simply fixing the address space...
-David
That got a lot better once they started using ECC memory...
I think cdbaby is a fantastic resource for unsigned bands...
I can easily make 320kbps MP3 rips of the CD, but I don't currently have an .ogg encoder. If you want to "try before you buy," you can follow these instructions for adding MP3 support to FC6. If you'd like me sell you some .oggs, I'd be happy to do so: just send me an email and we'll set that up.
FiOS isn't actually being run in urban centers: it's too hard to dig up city streets. Verizon is putting it mostly in the new-ish suburbs. At least, that's the way it is in DC...
The cost for my band to record and duplicate our second CD was about $4.50 each or thereabouts. iTMS gives us $6.37 per full album sale. CDBaby gives us about $7 each.
I have never wished I had mod points more than now.
I largely agree with you, although I wouldn't say that there's no cost - rather that the startup cost ( ~ $1000 worth of computer & recording equipment ) is in line with the costs of the instruments & amps themselves, and the marginal cost on making additional copies is so low as to be nonexistent.
That's part of why I don't think Apple's DRM is as bad/onerous as some of the other ones. Annoying, yes; conceptually infuriating, yes; but altogether not as much of a true consumer burden or risk as a lot of the other systems.
The amount that Apple iTunes gives artists (or at least, those who go through the CDBaby Digital Distribution as independents) on any given song is $0.637, and the amount they pay an artist for a "whole-album" download is $6.37.
Give either our first album or our second albumus a listen, and if you want me to send you drm-free MP3s of them, I'll happily do it. Shoot me an email and we'll talk...
If the iTMS went away tomorrow, you would still be able to load songs purchased from it onto a new iPod. What you wouldn't be able to do is transfer the protected songs to a new computer running iTunes. That's got a lot of the same effects, but isn't quite as dire.
(I'm a big fan of viewing music as a product rather than a license, and while my band has stuff on iTunes, we're even happier when someone buys the physical CDs...)
sensible suggestions, all.
my wife and I have different tolerances of clutter and approaches to tidying: I don't mind a pile of random (to be filed) things, or some such, being left out when company's coming over. She would much rather that the surfaces are empty/cleared, and doesn't mind stuffing drawers to the brim with wholly unrelated things.
In short: I would rather have something left lying out rather than put away in the wrong place; she would rather put something away in the wrong place than leave it lying out...
Even worse - they'll go straight to IPv6 (because everyone knows you need 2x the Internet to get full-duplex...)
Now wait just one second - the US property tax dates back to the Revolutionary War. If you want to say that it's anti-libertarian, that's fine, but it's hardly anti-American.
It's certainly a more classic "American" tax than the income tax is, which notably required a Constitutional Amendment to pass muster, and taxing property holders as an approach dates back to feudal taxes payed to the king by the landholder.
What does this have to do with corporations?
I had completely forgotten how great Max Headroom was... Netflix, here I come...
Argh! Not released yet! curse you, media gatekeepers of the modern age: here all I want to do is legally watch a program which was once given away for free on TV, and you frustrate me yet again...