Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Level of IPv6 Usage Is Vanishingly Small

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the nine-hundred-days-to-exhaustion dept.

Networking 626

An anonymous reader writes "The impending IPv4 address allocation shortage has led to a lot of speculation on the future of IPv6 (including here). A new study says that Internet IPv6 migration is not just going slowly — it has basically not even begun. After spending a year measuring IPv6 traffic across 87 ISPs around the world, the study concludes 'less than one hundredth of 1% of Internet traffic is IPv6... equivalent to the allowed parts of contaminants in drinking water.'"

cancel ×

626 comments

Why it doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651791)

Because it impacts the other guys, not me. It's the people in China and India and everywhere else that need addresses. Me? I've got a whole block right here.

Re:Why it doesn't matter (4, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652217)

That, and IPv4 is just more convenient because you can actually remember the addresses without writing them down. I can say "Hey, ping 10.10.1.12" and people will do it. Try that with an ipv6...

I think people who can will continue to use ipv4 for that reason, and those that just need a lot of cheap address space will start using ipv6 as ipv4 gets harder to get and/or more expensive.

Re:Why it doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652295)

it impacts the other guys

It affects the other guys. This is Slashdot, not a marketing department or a boardroom. Let's use English instead of Marketese. Further reading. [mtholyoke.edu]

how fast? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651805)

What is the airspeed of an unladen IPv6 during its migration?

Re:how fast? (2, Funny)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651831)

Is it African or European IPv6?

Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (5, Insightful)

Born2bwire (977760) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651815)

'less than one hundredth of 1% of Internet traffic is IPv6... equivalent to the allowed parts of contaminants in drinking water.'

Like that means anything to me. Can they compare that percentage in terms of the number of pages per Library of Congress?

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (-1, Offtopic)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651859)

It's as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were silenced.

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (2, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651983)

You didn't read the article.. Only 3 voices cried out in terror!

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (5, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651993)

No, because it's IPv6, you have to compare against the number of grains of sand on the planet.

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (5, Funny)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652067)

Like that means anything to me. Can they compare that percentage in terms of the number of pages per Library of Congress?

Sure.

'That's like less than one hundredth of 1% of the number of pages in the library of congress.'

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (4, Funny)

greenguy (162630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652193)

Well, if this sentence was in a book in the Library of Congress, IPv6 usage would represent its adoption lev

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652237)

HALF a page of one book in the library of congress is IPv6. Everything else (except one stupid book in the back room) is IPv4.

Re:Stupid arbitrary units of measurements (1)

BACPro (206388) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652465)

Good for you,
you got karma when you were going for funny...

The end is nigh? (2, Interesting)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651817)

Was IPv6 our only hope or do we have something else ready to go for when we hit that last address? And speaking of that, what WILL happen when we hit that last address? Will the internet suddenly die? Or will some people just not be able to connect because the IP is in use?

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

lee1026 (876806) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651867)

Most likely some sort of NAT service. That is where multiply people share one IP address, and you use port addresses to tell apart whos who.

Re:The end is nigh? (2, Informative)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651889)

No, but you won't be able to make a site with a new ip-address, which is highly annoying. New people are not able to "join the internet" when the ISP runs out of IP-addresses. It's basically nasty.

That's why I hope they will be prepared when the time comes.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652089)

Luckily:

- Each website doesnt need a unique IP address. One server machine, with one IP address, can host as many sites as it's processor/memory/disk/bandwidth can handle. We're talking thousands here.

- ISP's that provide access for end-users *already* use NAT. They also already have sufficent blocks assigned to them from the RIR's to allow for the number of connections that they can support based on other limitations (channels, phone lines, bandwidth, etc).

The so-called 'running out of IP addresses' has been 'impending' for over 10 years. Most client machines running certain insecure platforms should be behind a NAT firewall anyway.

Re:The end is nigh? (2, Informative)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652543)

Caveat - only 1 HTTPS per IP. But that really isn't that big a deal either

Maybe a few of the Class A holders like Apple or IBM should give up some of their blocks. Take IBM as an example - they subclass internal networks so they have very very few 'real IP's routable.

Or maybe if they use the evil bit [wikipedia.org] within packets we could double our existing IP4 range!

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651977)

Nobody will be able to join anymore.

But likely more usage of NAT will come up. But I hope not.

As much as I hate IPv6's naming (394dhdhs::dihd83 is your IP address, remember that!) and the fact that anything can be named (do you really need to follow my toaster around?), it's the only way to go. Unless IPv4 can be extended?

But you'll be fine, if you're in Europe or Canada or the US, plenty of IP addresses to go around, probably the same for kiwis and aussies.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

Brynath (522699) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652259)

Yeah I really think that the Naming policy of IPV6 is the biggest factor behind the poor adoption rate.

I know how IP addresses work right now. They should have just put another .255 on it and used that, rather than rewriting the whole wheel.

Re:The end is nigh? (2, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652557)

Companies really want enough bit to organize their IP address block well. IPv6 threw in enough extra bits where that was easily possible, but the committee totally dropped the ball on providing an actual address model for companies to replace what everyone uses 10.x.x.x for.

What was needed was "first n bits tell you the size of all the following fields, next m bits are your ISP, next x bits are your company (the same value across several ISPs, if you pay for that), next y bits are yours to organize subnets as you like, last z bits are the machine". That would have been more functional that IPv4.

There were enough bits, and it's a simple enough idea, but it didn't happen. Committees are like that sometimes.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652623)

There were other considerations during the reinvention. In particular, IPV6 routing requires much less cpu power.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651997)

And speaking of that, what WILL happen when we hit that last address?

The same thing that happened when there was no more new land.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652223)

We'll make a real-life expansion and invade outland?

Re:The end is nigh? (2, Interesting)

j h woodyatt (13108) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652057)

What WILL happen is "carrier-grade NAT" deployments inside service provider networks [networkworld.com] .

Residential and personal mobile device customers can expect to pay extraâ" on the order of US$5-10 per monthâ" if they want a public, i.e. non-RFC1918, IPv4 address assigned to them. Also, don't expect the carrier-grade NAT to support any kind of port forwarding whatsoever. Lastly, you can expect the NAT to implement address/port-dependent endpoint filtering.

So, the writing for P2P applications like BitTorrent is pretty much on the wall now. Read it and weep, MF'ers, we TOLD you this would happen a long time ago, and you didn't believe us.

Re:The end is nigh? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652245)

We won't be able to sell addresses anymore.
Your ISP may then start saying "Oh hey, all apartment buildings get ONE IP."

But hey, this is China/India's problem.
No worries here.

The REAL solution will come with internet enabled cell phones.

You know what would help? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651835)

If people could actually get IPv6 service from their providers instead of having to route everything through congested tunnels, THAT would help.

Wait... (2, Funny)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651913)

Let me get this straight... It's not a truck?

Re:Wait... (3, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652045)

Let me get this straight... It's not a truck?

No it's like a truck, except you can't dump stuff on it like it's a big truck.

Re:You know what would help? (5, Informative)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651943)

I'm kind of suprised that my ISP in Hungary is switching over it's infrastructure to IPv6 and making IPv6 available for the users by the end of this year. I consider it a huge step forward, plus the free porn here [ipv6experiment.com] is a welcome bonus.

Reasons. (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651855)

The biggest reasons:

  1. Many consumer-grade routers do not support IPv6 out of the box.
  2. Some (most?) consumer ISPs do not yet support IPV6
  3. For both enterprises and individuals, there doesn't seem to be any cost justification for upgrading to IPv6. What's the benefit? It works now, right?

And probably many others. The bottom line is that right now today, there isn't a 'killer app' for IPv6.

Re:Reasons. (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651897)

I don't know of any businesses that would be thinking "It works now, right?" in the face of impending service disruption.

Re:Reasons. (5, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652007)

The Y2K issue was known and discussed in the media as far back as 1984, yet did not hit the awareness horizon of most big businesses until late 1998. That's fourteen years of "It works now, right?"

Re:Reasons. (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652071)

Well I'm still alive, so they obviously got around to it in time :)

Re:Reasons. (2, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652095)

I have the feeling this is going to be another last-minute panic like Y2K was. Of course, Y2K was a tempest in a teapot--I have to wonder if this is not also in the same league.

The Boy Scout motto: who follows it? (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652579)

There were a few who prepared, and many of those told the rest what they were doing, so, by 1998, most businesses had some place to go for answers.

I think that's the real reason y2k was relatively tame.

That's what's happening here. Most companies don't know where to start. The question is how many people are doing the pioneering, and how long after the squeeze hits (hits the small countries first, probably) will individuals have to put up with "carrier grade NAT" or whatever.

But the real question is whether IPV6 is really scaleable. Without switchers to test it, we don't know.

Personally, I don't much care for IPV6. I'd prefer a scheme where you have something like a high-bit extension rule that would allow anyone with a valid IP address and a working router to just add an octet for his sub-net of (about) 120 hosts and keep going. I'm pretty sure the idea was considered and there was a valid reason (not the obviously invalid reasons about trouble holding the market captive) for not considering it, but it sure seems to me like (it could have been) a great solution.

I'm still not sure how to handle portable devices, since it would seem that the prefix pretty much limits where a device could be found, and therefore where it could connect.

Another possibility would be only 64 address at a level, with the top two bits encoding some sort of function, like addresses relative to the local network and special function addresses. Maybe you could even make mobile devices accessible that way.

Yeah, I know. These kinds of ideas were used in some of the network protocols that TCP-IP beat out. So there must have been good reasons.

Anyway, would it be possible to concatenate 4-octet addresses. So my global IP address would consist of A.B.C.D:192.168.7.201 if my address on the local network is 192.168.7.201 and my router's address is A.B.C.D?

Yeah, that could go really bad if implemented wrong.

Re:Reasons. (5, Insightful)

DECS (891519) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652219)

Interestingly, Apple's AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule firmware does support IPv6 as local-link only, an IPv6 node, or tunnel to IPv6. It also includes an IPv6 firewall supporting incoming IPSec authentication and Teredo tunnels (to get through NAT).

Apple owns more than 10% of the retail WiFi N router market according to NPD [roughlydrafted.com] .

Mac OS X, XP and Vista all support IPv6, but having support in the router is the important part. Enabling a significant percentage of users to flip on IPv6 and tunnel right through their legacy ISP is already possible. IPv6 just needs a killer app.

How about authenticated web apps? IPv6 secures traffic from the user to the cloud. That's something Apple has reason to push with MobileMe: "look at us, we have IPv6 security."

Look at what Apple's doing with Back To My Mac to support authenticated connections using Wide-Area Bonjour Dynamic DNS lookups. This could be done via IPv6 using direct addressing. Apple will end up selling more routers, MM subscriptions and IPv6 will get its foot in the door for others to use.

Will the iPhone Meet its Match from a Modern Day DOS? [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:Reasons. (3, Funny)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652561)

I know I can't get IPv6 here. I've called my local cable company (CableONE) and they told me "Oh, that's not being implemented in the US. That's over in Asia."

But I must say that many new consumer routers advertise IPv6.

What's the downside? (2, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651861)

Between tunnel brokers [wikipedia.org] and 6to4 [wikipedia.org] , really all of us who manage servers should have them on IPv6 in addition to IPv4. What's the downside to being ready?

Re:What's the downside? (2, Funny)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651955)

Never do a job now that can be done tomorrow, never do a job that can be done on thursday tomorrow.

Re:What's the downside? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652085)

ooh you r missing vital parts of that

Never do a job at standard rates today when it can be done next week at overtime rates.

Re:What's the downside? (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652115)

> What's the downside to being ready?

Replacing all your old hardware, that still works, with new stuff (which might not work quite right, for all anyone knows). More precisely, having to convince your bosses (or your checkbook, for individuals) that it is worth the expense. This is worse if you control a leaf node, as it is something of a waste of money until your connections support IPv6, too.

If you are buying new routers, anyway, it won't matter much. It will just be a checkoff item. If you were not planning to, however, it could be like an uninsured fire.

Re:What's the downside? (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652117)

What's the downside to being ready?

Because it's work. Work takes time. Time is money.

A certain product at a certain company (forgive my being vague, you know how these things are) has a network interface. This interface is currently IPv4 only, no IPv6 support. When anybody asks the design team why not, they say that no customers have asked for it. Somebody suggested that IPv6 was the sort of thing you want to support ahead of need, but these guys have a lot of deadlines to meet and not enough resources to meet them. They aren't about to spend time implementing features nobody's asked for.

Of course, the time will come when their customers realize they've put off changing over to IPv6 much too long, and will start crash programs to make it happen. They'll demand that this product start supporting IPv6 immediately, if not sooner. So the design team will begin their own crash program, and IPv6 support will be added to the product in a hurry. The implementation will probably cost more and be less robust (at least initially) than if they'd planned ahead.

But they have no incentive to plan ahead. It's a common pattern.

Mod parent up. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652229)

And don't forget that it is one more thing that can go wrong.

Remember, you ALWAYS run the MINIMUM on your servers. If you don't absolutely need IPv6 today, then don't put it on.

Re:What's the downside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652493)

They aren't about to spend time implementing features nobody's asked for.

[cough] microsoft vista [cough]

Re:What's the downside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652647)

Why build it in now when you can build it in later when your customers really need it and will pay lots of money for new stuff later?

From wikipedia: QOS currently not used. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651865)

Quote:

Flow label - QoS management (20 bits). Originally created for giving real-time applications special service, but currently unused.

This is the one feature I consider to be useful of ipv6 and it's not currently used. While I agree there is an addressing problem, it currently isn't affecting me or anyone else. I suggest the lack of benefits coupled with the lack of a major problem with the current ipv4 is causing this. Why spend the money for such little return?

So if IPv6 is a water contaminant.... (4, Funny)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651879)

The the water is internet. Which comes into our houses view pipes.... OMG THAT PROVES IT. The internet IS a series of tubes! We were all sooo wrong ;\

It is obvious (3, Interesting)

able1234au (995975) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651885)

99% of IPv4 traffic is bittorrent. Switch it to IPV6 and the traffic figures will spike!

Re:It is obvious (1)

Darlo888 (1235928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652185)

99% of IPv4 traffic is bittorrent. Switch it to IPV6 and the traffic figures will spike!

* RIAA figures show

Re:It is obvious (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652511)

99% of IPv4 traffic is bittorrent.

Coincidentally, 99% of percentages seen in Slashdot comments are made up on the spot.

nonsense (0)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651887)

To me IPv6 is still nonsense. It is part IPv4 with something on the left side like area zone or ISP code or whatever. I would recommend IPv5: 0.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd == our IPv4
new IP addresses can be eee.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and there you have it. We already have regexps matching ipv4 .. just one more block for ipv5. all protocols can be easily adapted to support ipv4 wrapped in ipv5 and that's all there is to it.

You know what's nonsense? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651973)

PEOPLE USING THE FUCKING TT FONT TO ATTRACT ATTENTION TO THEIR WHORISH SELVES, THAT'S WHAT IS A LOAD OF FUCKING NONSENSE. MMMK? THANKS.


To me IPv6 is still nonsense. It is part IPv4 with something on the left side like area zone or ISP code or whatever. I would recommend IPv5: 0.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd == our IPv4
new IP addresses can be eee.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and there you have it. We already have regexps matching ipv4 .. just one more block for ipv5. all protocols can be easily adapted to support ipv4 wrapped in ipv5 and that's all there is to it.To me IPv6 is still nonsense. It is part IPv4 with something on the left side like area zone or ISP code or whatever. I would recommend IPv5: 0.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd == our IPv4
new IP addresses can be eee.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and there you have it. We already have regexps matching ipv4 .. just one more block for ipv5. all protocols can be easily adapted to support ipv4 wrapped in ipv5 and that's all there is to it.To me IPv6 is still nonsense. It is part IPv4 with something on the left side like area zone or ISP code or whatever. I would recommend IPv5: 0.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd == our IPv4
new IP addresses can be eee.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd and there you have it. We already have regexps matching ipv4 .. just one more block for ipv5. all protocols can be easily adapted to support ipv4 wrapped in ipv5 and that's all there is to it.

Re:nonsense (3, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652293)

Most of the problems come from reading the packets. Ipv4 packet headers have a very specific definition [linux-ip.net] . Your change would cause just as much trouble as ipv6 would because the size and setup of the packet header would change. In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about so stop posting such nonsense.

Re:nonsense (0, Redundant)

amnezick (1253408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652587)

ok. i took a glance at that definition. even easier now: just make src/dst on 64bit and there you have it. eee.fff.ggg.hhh.aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd where efgh can all be 0 for our current ipv4 addresses. we already have cpus working on 64bit so ntoa/aton will fit in just "fihine"

for future reference: "To me ipv6 is still nonsense" should be read just like that .. "to me" ;)

Uh, no, bad comparison (1)

Ancient_Hacker (751168) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651893)

Not quite totally dissimilar to a good comparison.

The allowed amounts of dioxin, TCE, and many other chemicals is down in the parts per billion. So the comparison is off by about five powers of ten.

Not needed. (2, Interesting)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651895)

Well at least not right now. With more allocation of IPV4 address we wouldn't be needed anytime soon. The company I work for has 56 public ip address for 3 webservers. The other 53 address are not even used, they are just parked for future use. If I was allowed to set the servers up the "right" way I wouldn't even need 3, just 1.

Re:Not needed. (2, Informative)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651981)

There should be a karma hit for not using the preview button. It should be -1, Dumbass.

That second line should read "With more intelligent allocation of IPV4 address we wouldn't be needing IPv6 anytime soon

Re:Not needed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652311)

And how would you handle HTTPS traffic might i ask?

Re:Not needed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652349)

I know what you mean. My university possesses a full class B network and uses liberal allocation methods to try and waste as much of that as possible. (yes, every switch, router, access point, and dhcp node uses a public IP) In reality, a NAT'd 10/8 network and a single public Class C would be more than adequate for the next 10 years.

Re:Not needed. (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652479)

Why is everyone so eager to use NAT? I've never quite understood this, once NAT use became widespread things became a lot more problematic, in my first year of college all the workstations in the computer labs (Ultra 5s and older Sparcstation 5s) had public IP addresses and the ISP I used gave all 10 Mbps customers 5 public IP addresses. I've recently started taking a few college courses again, the uni's labs are all NATed (so you can't access /tmp or /var on workstationname-57.lab04.cs.unidomain.tld from home any more, you have to dump the files on your NFS mounted 150 MiB home dir and then access that, great fun) and my current ISP gives each customer ONE public IP address, but I suppose I should consider myself lucky for not being NATed...

Seriously, we need to move back to an internet where a machine connected to the internet can almost always be assumed to have a proper, public, IP address. It would simplify a lot of things. Also, any trolls pulling out the "yuo cant has teh firawalls withouts teh NAT!!!11" crap can please not respond to this as packet filtering does not in any way require NAT. (Not directed at parent post, just tired of trolls and ignorant fools always using that argument).

/Mikael

How many sites can you reach? (2, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651903)

measuring the percent of traffic is not very reliable. Thats like saying how much internet traffic is used for Vonage, or Slashdot.

More importantly, how many sites can be reached via IPv6? How many publish AAAA addresses in DNS? How many ISP's can route IPv6? I know that there is tunneling for running over IPv4, how much of that 99.99% of traffic might be doing that?

Re:How many sites can you reach? (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652395)

We had AAAA records for our domain - our dns provider wiped them no reason was given - a job i have avoided since.

As to ipv6 well most consumer kit does not support ipv6 (unless you flash your linksys specific model) and no we dont have linksys routers.

While some might say there ready for ipv6, and the software is there the routers joe average uses (not Cisco) is yet to get there.

joe average can adjust there ipv4 router easily for a new isp. If my isp said i needed an ipv6 router then we would need to purchase routers capable of v6.

ipv6 means hassle - and the big isp's know that and stick with what they know.

Makes me happy (5, Interesting)

ugen (93902) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651929)

It may be just me, but I always felt IPv6 is a solution looking for the problem.

There is a reason IPv4 is so well entrenched. Other than availability of software, hardware and services, it is convenience of handling IPv4 in all those things. This is what permits developers to create all those wonderful products, administrators to effectively administer them and users to enjoy them. A primary reason to that is IPv4 address size - it is 32 bit which is natively handled by all current hardware, and easily remembered by humans (short term) in its quad decimal form.

IPv6 has neither of these features. It is difficult to deal with in software (I know, I do this for a living), does not fit into any native data type (and won't until we move to 128 bit architectures - which does not seem to be very soon), cannot be remembered or used by a human (so effective administration requires magic automatic tools), does not give itself with any convenience to routing related data structures (like radix trees). All this for dubious benefit of addressing directly (in non-hierarchical manner) of every toaster in the world. This is directly opposite to the way the Real World operates (i.e. your home has an address, but noone gets to talk to your toaster directly without going through you first.

If I were solving this, I'd suggest separate and non-directly routable IPv4 address spaces for separate countries (and, perhaps, for other entities). And lots and lots of NAT or proxying. Of course that is kind of what is happening anyway.

China would be happier that way too. In case of cross-border cyberattack, just cut external links and your country is self-sufficient and interconnected :)

Anyway, I am ready to bet some cash that IPv6 will never become a major transport protocol.
I know I will do whatever I can to keep it far far away.

Re:Makes me happy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652165)

does not fit into any native data type (and won't until we move to 128 bit architectures

Talk about it. When I was programing on an 8 bit computer, I always hated people who wanted to have more than $2.55 in their bank account.

Seriously, if you have difficulties dealing with 128 bit numbers, your boss should hire someone else.

Re:Makes me happy (2, Funny)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652255)

dont be so hard on him, you know how different it is to do prefix based forwarding with a radix structure on a 8-64 bit prefix instead of a 8-30 bit prefix?

Re:Makes me happy (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652357)

Talk about it. When I was programing on an 8 bit computer, I always hated people who wanted to have more than $2.55 in their bank account.

Seriously, if you have difficulties dealing with 128 bit numbers, your boss should hire someone else.

To be fair, routers and such need to do their calculations as fast as possible, and the extra cycles required to do them with a 128 bit number as opposed to a 32 bit (which the processor is pretty much built to do) is worth considering. Now, maybe the processors in some newer hardware can process 32/64/128/etc with ease, but I would think that at worst the older hardware is probably limited to doing 32 bits without extra cycles.

Re:Makes me happy (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652215)

It may be just me, but I always felt IPv6 is a solution looking for the problem. [..] And lots and lots of NAT or proxying.

And NAT is a problem masquerading as a solution.

Anyway, I am ready to bet some cash that IPv6 will never become a major transport protocol.
I know I will do whatever I can to keep it far far away.

And I'll keep on enjoying all the free services people provide for IPv6 enabled hosts.

Re:Makes me happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652347)

And I'll keep on enjoying all the free services people provide for IPv6 enabled hosts.

Ummm, what are those exactly?

Re:Makes me happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652281)

until we move to 128 bit architectures

In other words: Never? IPv6 addresses don't need to be looked at as 128 bit numbers. The address has a network part and a local part. Anyway, the 32 bit addresses of IPv4 are often treated byte-wise because of the different endianess of different architectures. Programmers know how to handle numbers which exceed the architecture's limitations.

Re:Makes me happy (2, Informative)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652299)

"[IPv6 addresses do] not fit into any native data type (and won't until we move to 128 bit architectures - which does not seem to be very soon)"

Wow are you serious? Never heard of structs? And we all know NAT is a very annoying 'solution'. I think the real problem with IPv6 is that is isn't sufficiently backwards compatible with IPv4 (hence all that 6-over-4 and 4-over-6 nonsense.

That and it isn't really needed yet.

Re:Makes me happy (5, Insightful)

ugen (93902) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652633)

I usually do not reply to my own posts (or replies to my posts) on /., but this is one area where I think it may actually be important.

First of all, if I were to guess, I'd say that all those who replied while questioning my background don't actually do network development for a living. While I could start beating my own chest about how most of your traffic right now probably goes through something designed by me, that would be beside the point (and noone knows you are a dog on the Internet :) ).

That said, a few points specifically.

1) "Never heard of structs?". Structures are orthogonal to the size of IP addresses. You can represent IPv4 address as a structure (as original in_addr used to do, exactly because not all hardware supported 32 bit natively). You could do the same with IPv6 (or you can simply stuff it into 16 sequential bytes). What won't change is ability to perform operations directly on the data type.
You can natively compare two v4 addresses by using a == b (which will translate into a single assembly instruction). You cannot do that on a 129 bit data item. Your choices are - memcmp, or defined operation (compare first 4 bytes, then next 4 bytes, then next, then next :) ). This is inefficient, prone to error and makes code less maintainable.

2) Radix trees. Sure, anything can be stored in a radix tree with appropriately long prefix or appropriately large number of nodes in a prefix. What can't be done, however, is keeping this tree in memory (given current device and system memory sizes, which are in low gigabytes to a few dozen gigabytes). This problem is exacerbated by the fact that IPv4 address space is very compact of necessity (not too many holes, and everything is neatly CIDRed together), whereas IPv6 is of necessity full of holes (and designed to stay that way).

3) Performance is a relatively minor consideration in this.

As far as NAT goes - I firmly believe that solutions (in technology and elsewhere) are of two kinds - "organic", i.e. borne of and supported by needs and circumstances, and "artificial". Organic solutions are not always streamlined or pretty. Humans are a good example. A rock of salt is pretty darn inorganic (though I wouldn't want to stretch this analogy too far :) ) NAT is the former, IPv6 is the latter.

Re:Makes me happy (4, Insightful)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652393)

You (and many people) are so accustomed to NAT you don't even see how wrong it is.

There is nothing really difficult to use IPv6 address instead of IPv4. Writing (or even using) a network application having to deal with NAT is a real pain.

Re:Makes me happy (4, Insightful)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652423)

If I were solving this, I'd suggest separate and non-directly routable IPv4 address spaces for separate countries (and, perhaps, for other entities). And lots and lots of NAT or proxying. Of course that is kind of what is happening anyway.

Eww. Lots of room for bugs and weird feature interaction in the design of protocols that have to punch through NATs, either that or everyone has to role out new helper modules / ALGs each time some wizzy new app is invented.

IPv6 is really a clean-up job. Combing the complexity back out of the network has got to be a win for reliability, ease of administration, and perhaps even security. I'm in favour, though I have to say I'm doubtful about it happening any time soon.

I think the most optimistic scenario is this: when IPv4 exhaustion hits, particularly in countries that have to yet to have their internet 'boom' and so will have a very low number of existing addresses per capita, obviously some sort ISP side NATing is going to be required. People may decide that they might as well implement IPv6 and TRT [wikipedia.org] anyway, particularly if they're deploying new hardware / software combinations (netbooks? set-top boxes?) and so can dictate IPv6-readiness. Hopefully once sufficient numbers of IPv6-only nodes are out there, it'll seem worthwhile rolling out IPv6 on servers.

The alternative, ultimately, is people auctioning off tiny IPv4 address blocks and exponentially bloating routing table sizes, or a horrible twisty unreliable world of multiple NAT or ALGs, where net neutrality is a quaint concept consigned to history ..

And yes, printable IPv6 addresses are ridiculous. Admins will have to get used to trusting DNS (or /etc/hosts) when configuring stuff .. :)

Re:Makes me happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652659)

This post is a troll. The parent post is insightful.

Problem is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651933)

...that when anyone buys a router, in 90% cases IPv6 routing is not available. Or at least disabled by default. I mean big ISP-grade routers, home routers, linux IPTables routing howtos, everything. Fix this first.

Re:Problem is... (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652317)

...that when anyone buys a router, in 90% cases IPv6 routing is not available. Or at least disabled by default. I mean big ISP-grade routers, home routers, linux IPTables routing howtos, everything. Fix this first.

I can't speak for home routers but ISP-grade (Cisco 76xx and routing modules for 65xx series switches) devices support IPv6 and they have for a while. There are some minor issues with the implementation that CIsco is working to fix (nothing is perfect) but generally the IPv6 support has been there for a while, from Cisco at least. As far as Linux iptables, I just put together a hardened RHEL 5.1 image and ip6tables were there. I didn't test them yet but the infrastructure seemed to be there, again, that is just for RHEL. Paradoxically, IPv6 is on by default in Vista and OS X, albeit the link local IP addresses. Search for "fe80::/10" at this [wikipedia.org] link. They are equivalent to MS's IPv4 169.254.xxx.xxx addresses.

How to really accelerate the migration... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24651945)

Make all porn only reachable through IPv6.

Re:How to really accelerate the migration... (2, Funny)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652079)

I don't know whether I could survive for that long.

Re:How to really accelerate the migration... (2, Informative)

Michael O-P (31524) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652307)

http://www.ipv6porn.co.nz/ [ipv6porn.co.nz]

Solution looking for a problem (2, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#24651963)

The fact of the matter is, IPv6 is a solution looking for a problem. With IP shortages and the ease of NAT/PAT, most entities realized they don't need a whole block of IP addresses. Most of the time, one suffices. Else, a block of 8 almost always fits everyones needs. It is like trying to solve Y3K problems 992 years before we need to actually worry about it.

Also, most of the world is using Windows XP. Can you show me where in my TCP/IP settings panel I am supposed to enter my IPv6 information? Exactly.

Re:Solution looking for a problem (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652101)

Also, most of the world is using Windows XP. Can you show me where in my TCP/IP settings panel I am supposed to enter my IPv6 information? Exactly.

You don't. As is the benefit of IPv6, if it's installed it should be automagically configured. It shouldn't require manual configuration.

It also comes with a host of problems (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652205)

A simple one is just dealing with IP addresses. Not too bad to remember an IPv4, especially since in a given network most addresses are largely similar. An IPv6 one is rather more difficult, and much of the self similarity is gone since the MAC is embedded. Thus you have to start to have better management to deal with the numbers.

A bigger one is the cost of replacing high speed routers. Real high end gear tends to do things in ASICs. It's really the only way to achieve the speeds that people want. Doing it in software would be prohibitive, even if routers had massive CPUs, which they don't. Well, there's lots of gear out there that only does IPv4 in hardware. You want IPv6, it is all handled by the software and thus anything more than a small amount will crush it. It is, of course, not cheap to get an IPv6 upgrade, even when one is available.

That's the situation on campus where I work. The network is Cisco 6500s at it's heart. They handle IPv4 with ease, including the incredibly complex access lists and routing tables we have. However, they do that because they can do IPv4 in hardware. Well they support IPv6, you just turn it on, however only in software. It we tried to use it, it'd grind everything to a halt. So if we want the hardware to do it? $10,000,000. Ya, let me tell you how interested anyone is in spending that, when what we have works great and we are getting our budget cut (again).

Similar situation at larger levels, but even larger dollars. You don't go replacing these high end routers once a year. These things last for a long time. Thus there's lots of hardware out there that works great for IPv4, but can't do IPv6. Companies are understandably not interested in sinking tons of cash to upgrade, especially when it seems to gain nothing.

So even if IPv6 were just turn a switch, I could see adoption being slow because it don't really solve any problem. However it does introduce it's own problems, which makes it just that much slower.

Re:It also comes with a host of problems (1)

bepe86 (945139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652567)

You don't need to upgrade the entire 6500; you can upgrade the supervisor with a cef engine with hardware support for IPv6 - of course , this means you'll have to take the unit down, but you should _never_ run single 6500's anyways, so a good chance to test layer 2 and layer 3 failover/redundancy.

How to up the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652049)

Just get a few porn providers to use it, then WHAM!

The free market can do some things (1)

Zouden (232738) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652077)

But sometimes a government mandate is required to make big changes.

Read the article until the end (1)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652159)

...where it explains IPv6 will succeed anyway.

A proposal (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652191)

Since there doesn't seem to be a name for the four hex characters between the colons, I propose that they be called "quads".

Actually, I think that part of the reason IPv6 hasn't been as widely adopted as it should be is that it has an unfinished feel to it. Some places say you need a dhcp server. Others say it is self configuring. Some places say the zero prefix is used for IPv4-compatible addresses; others say ::ffff:0:0/96, still others say 2002:: The thing is, they are probably all right, but they are just being used for different purposes. The biggest reason, though, is that there has not been a firm switchover date. Unless and until there is a compelling reason to switch, IPv4 will still be the main protocol.

Perhaps what we need is some sort of international IPv4 lights out day. On, say, 01-Jan-2010 IPv4 will no longer be routed. That way, ISPs would need to be compliant, or they will be off the air.

France is ready, except for Windows (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652207)

In France, all the major ISP (Free, Orange, Neuf, etc.) and several small ones (like Nerim) provide a /64 segment as part of the usual "triple play" package for 30€.

The 2 minors problems are :
  - the user has to activate the IPv6 for the gateway, in a web interface of the ISP (easy, just a checkbox)
  - the user must have to have an IPv6-ready OS : nothing to do for GNU/Linux, a choice in a menu for MacOS, but a pain in Windows

As for the servers, IPv6 support is mandatory in all administrations (all equipment must be able to route et handle IPv6, but the application can still be in IPv4) and IPv6 has been declared "strategic mission" in CNRS (National French Research Center; that is all public research).

Telecom companies are also beginning to use IPv6 in the mobile television on cellphone.

So we can say that in France the situation is OK, except that IPv6 must be manually enabled by the user.

Re:France is ready, except for Windows (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652337)

For Windows XP type:
netsh interface ipv6 install

or
ipv6 install

depending on your service pack level. That was torture.

Vista vs. IPv6 (1)

mi (197448) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652261)

I'd say, IPv6 is being accepted even slower, than Windows Vista. Khmm...

Lack of embedding (and DJB) (1, Redundant)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652309)

djb, love him or hate him, called this out years ago...

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html [cr.yp.to]

Lack of IPv4 embedding in IPv6 has to rank as one of the dumbest decisions of all time. It reminds me of that "anti-spam proposal evaluation worksheet" that floats around in the comments here from time to time.

Your plan fails because it:
[X] Demands immediate and total cooperation from everyone at once.

obligatory (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652401)

'less than one hundredth of 1% of Internet traffic is IPv6... equivalent to the allowed parts of contaminants in drinking water.'

The Net considers IPv6 to be damage and routes around it.

Here's a reason to switch (2)

dronkert (820667) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652405)

Some enlightened parties are providing free porn, music and warez over ipv6. That should draw the crowds! Binary news servers newszilla6.xs4all.nl and news.ipv6.eweka.nl are both freely accessible over ipv6.

Show me a virtual hosting farm with IPv6... (1)

victim (30647) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652413)

...and I'll boost the numbers.

When I last reviewed the Xen VPN farms out there I didn't find any with IPv6. It is on my short list of discriminators, not that I need it now, but I don't want to have to revisit the server to add it in the next couple of years when it is needed.

I should probably add that I don't want to pay more than $10/mo for the server either. I don't need much of a slice. I get by fine on a vpslink [vpslink.com] level-1 server, though gandi [gandi.net] is about to claim my business. 4x the ram, twice the disk, same price.

A few problems to start with mah knuggaz. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24652609)

A few problems with this.

First, there have been town criers out preaching about IPv4 problems for many years now even before the release of the Vista infection. Now the problem with this was that there is no linguistics that the average person can understand and relate to. With Y2K it was simple, "your infrastructure is about to totally collapse, I hope you like the bronze age." This was supported hype backed up also by Hollywood with their movies. Where else to you hear about IPv4 limitation problems but nerd and geek places and chat?

Second, typical to most things that are drastic humanity will stick to the frog in slow rising heat response. Short of feces hitting a fan there is no inclination for change anywhere in the industry where it would matter in regards to momentum of change. Sure you can have IPv6 support native in things like routers and Vista infected computers but what good does that do when the source for IPs still is locked solid in IPv4 like ISPs?

Of course it's small (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652635)

Have you tried to get IPv6 support from even MAJOR vendors?

Name one cablemodem or DSL vendor that supports client-side IPv6 addressing? No? How about just the management side of the CM or EMTA? Still hard pressed, right?

Have you tried managing firewalls with IPv6 ?
Well, sure, you can kind of do it in sort of an ad-hoc fashion, with no bearing to your existing IPv4 implementation -- yep, they get their own objects and rules.

Hey, Checkpoint, the whole point behind Object-Oriented-Management is that we can build an object with all of these things... IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, heck, why not even MAC addresses? Are you telling me that You can't figure out how to make it work without resorting to doubling up on host-objects (one for each class), and making them into 'groups', just so I can manage my ruleset appropriately?

Don't even get me started on Cisco and the ASA.

That said, I'm routing IPv6 on my IP core. I've got two tunnels set up so I can use V6 at home and at the office for testing. I'm just waiting on those darn vendors.

It's all up to the ISP's (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 5 years ago | (#24652637)

We all use DHCP and NATing. The greater internet itself can remain IPv4 for ten or more years but there is no reason that users need to be connected though IPv4. Furthermore with 6to4 even if the ISP's infrastructure hardware is IPv4 users can trunk over it to the ISP's IPv6 network easily.

I think what ISP's are actually fearing is the all user IP's will become static then because of the nature of IPv6 but if they wanted there are things they can do to maintain the status quo such as binding specified mac address.

P.S. One interesting aside about IPv6 is that since it should remain mostly static, your IPv6 address can be used to track you. I can easily imagine database companies selling names, addresses and phone numbers based on IPv6 addresses. I'm surprised ISP's haven't implemented it just for that, within a few years it would take them mostly out of the loop for address records and ISP subpoenas (except for final confirmation). I imagine it would really cut torrent traffic down. But then of course everyone can still argue how their computer or wifi access point got hacked. All you got to do is subpoena a spammer and he can detail how they hijack computers with viralus trojans.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...