Beta

×

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!

IPv6 and the Business-Case Skeptics

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the there-is-none-get-over-it dept.

Networking 297

Julie188 writes "Experts keep screaming that the IPv4 sky is falling. Three such experts were recently asked point-blank to state an irrefutable business case for moving to IPv6 now, and their answer was more plausible than the old refrain (the lack of addresses and a yet-to-be-seen killer IPv6 app). They said that there isn't a business case. No company that is satisfied with all of its Internet services will need to move, even in the next few years. They also pointed out that Microsoft is a unique position in the industry both causing and hindering IPv6 adoption — causing through its IPv6 support in its OSes, and hindering by not extending IPv6 support into very many of its apps."

cancel ×

297 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In other news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029259)

Frizzlen pizzoist, you homos!

(That's Jew-speak for "frosty piss," BTW.)

^ and that's internet troll-douche for, "look, everyone! i managed to be the first person to enter a reply to this news item! huzzah for me!"

also, cocks.

You want a business case? (4, Insightful)

dmayle (200765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029315)

  • It's an opportunity for press, "We're the first baz widget company to offer our services over IPv6".
  • Do something kitschy and you've got potential for viral advertising, "Got IPv6? Come see our new IPv6 only thingamabob, look it's funny, share the link with your friends".
  • You can garner the attention of early adopters, "You're at the forefront of technology, and so are we. That's why you should do business with Foobar Widgets."

There are plenty of business cases for IPv6, you just have to ask business experts, not technology experts...

Re:You want a business case? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029421)

  • Do something kitschy and you've got potential for viral advertising, "Got IPv6? Come see our new IPv6 only thingamabob, look it's funny, share the link with your friends".

Sounds like a great idea. Let's make a turtle dance!

Re:You want a business case? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029493)

Yeah, because cutting yourself out of 99%+ of the market by going IPv6 only is a smart business decision. Face it, if you want an online service you're on IPv4 and the service won't really be any different on IPv6. Between HTTPS, VPN and SSL noone is excited about IPSec because it's already solved if less elegantly, nor has the "online home" happened. Neither my fridge, dishwasher, washing machine or toaster is online even in the local LAN so I got no use for my own /64. IPv6 is about as sexy as computers in a new shade of beige.

Re:You want a business case? (2, Interesting)

wurp (51446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029725)

If you really can find something that people will advertise to one another because it's IPv6, it could make sense. 20% of ipv6 users is much better than 0.000001% of all internet users, even if only 1% of all internet users are ipv6 users.

I can attest that if you build it, they will not come. I built a free site to help people buy & sell either locally (location based search) or nationally (http://frimp.net) about 4-5 years ago. It doesn't do auctions, but it's free (as opposed to eBay), and easy to use and works everywhere in the US (as opposed to Craigslist).

I didn't really advertise, because I have no real idea how to - I ran an ad in the Dallas Morning News, which got me about 100 new members. I ran some ads on Google, to little effect. I'm not sure whether either ad paid for itself or not.

Anyway, four years later, I have about 2000 people signed up on the site. It's not insignificant, but it's not going to pay back 1% of what I've invested in effort, either.

My point is that if you can come up with some (ugh) gimmick to get people to talk about your whatsit, even if the people who talk about it belong to some very limited group, it can make a big difference. Of course, that assumes that people using ipv6, or people who might be likely to use ipv6, talk to one another.

Re:You want a business case? (1)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030363)

IPv4 Support (99.9% of market):
example.com IN A 1.2.3.4

IPv4 + IPv6 Support (100% of market):
example.com IN A 1.2.3.4
example.com IN AA ::FFFF:1.2.3.4

Seriously - net admins need to stop preaching dogma and do their freaking jobs. It's not like it is that hard.

Re:You want a business case? (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030185)

If you're one of the people who has enough static IP addresses to serve your needs, you're better off with IPv4, because that will make sure you're among the few who do. Increasing supply doesn't serve those who already have enough, which would be those interviewed.

If you like things the way they are, where the restricted number of static IPs makes it impossible for the great unwashed to have a voice and the web is coming to resemble a television set more each day, well, you're not going to be supportive of IPv6. Plenty for everyone means no leverage, which means no profit. Which means IPv6 isn't going to get business support from the IT sector any time soon.

Re:You want a business case? (4, Interesting)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029497)

Maybe you could build a business case around one or more of those, but what you've really got there are just marketing angles.

The question is, how is this going to make/save me money? More specifically, how will it make/save me more money than investing the input capital in some other way?

  • Being able to say I'm the first to have it? Well, that might be worth soemthing for one company in any given industry, if that company's customers care about IPv6 for some reason.
  • Unless whatever kitschy thing I might do can only be done with IPv6, I can do it cheaper without the IPv6 conversion and get the same buzz; so to make this a business case you need a specific "something kitschy".
  • Attention of early adopters might be of value in some markets, but without some detailed projections I'd be hard pressed to invest in an entire network overhaul for marketing buzz.

I'm not saying the business case does or doesn't exist, but until you've tied it to dollars and cents (or better yet NPV), you haven't made what most people would take as a compelling business case.

Re:You want a business case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25030441)

Wrong. The actual question is, how is this going to get me laid? [jwz.org]

Unfortunately the answer is, it won't...until more IP6-compatible "appliances" become available

Re:You want a business case? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029531)

It's also a useful bullet point these days (and becoming more so), if you're going to be selling to Big Enterprise and Government Customers and such.

Re:You want a business case? (3, Funny)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029647)

Actually, that's Foobar Widgetz, and they've got really good items on their download page at:

0:0:0:0:0:0:127.0.0.1

Re:You want a business case? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029741)

Sorry, "It'll be really ultra-cool" does not a business case make.

Re:You want a business case? (2, Interesting)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030381)

You might also want to ask "technology architects" rather than "technology experts."

Some people are very good at learning the details of existing technologies, and figuring out how to mangle them to solve tomorrow's problems. Other people take a broader view and wonder how to solve next year's problems by creating new technologies. Both have their place, and there must equivalents on the "business" side of a business - people who try to foresee major economic events, the birth of whole new markets, etc. The fact that IPv6 is in many ways a "plumbing" issue (oops, made another tubes allusion) doesn't mean that long-term thinking isn't called for, even if many businesses aren't used to it in respect of (IT) infrastructure.

(Incidentally, the analogy to real architecture works quite well, I think. Sometimes "vision" is called for when creating new buildings, a whole fresh design; other times the traditional way of doing things, a design that has slowly accreted over the years, is fine.)

Re:You want a business case? (2, Insightful)

LongestPrefix (929027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030411)

Sorry, dmayle: a business case is more than just features and advantages. A business case should include an estimate of the costs, and some estimate of the revenues.

The problem for ISPs is that the costs are quite high, but these alleged features and advantages have almost no value because they bring almost no revenue.

The problem for users is that the costs are high (in terms of time and effort) but the advantages are, heretofore, nil. There's nothing I could do with IPv6 that I actually want to do that I can't do with IPv4.

Re:You want a business case? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030727)

Being first on the market only works for something there is a real public demand for. The golden spot is to be an early adapter first to use it when it starts getting popular.

Viral advertising will only work if others can view it. with 99% people clicking on the link and not finding the location even if their computer supports IPv6 their ISP may not.

Yes but the early adopters will probably still have IPv4 as well. Besides these adopters are the minority having a minority and selling a product or service that may have limited appeal to these adopters(Linux users are CHEAP) will mean 1% of 1% or um 0.01% vs just useing IPv4 and normal advertising you may just get 1%.

There is no business case *in the US* (5, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029341)

Countries like China and India, that have lots of people that might one day want to connect, but not a lot of existing infrastructure yet, and certainly not a lot of IP4 addresses, will have a far better motivation than countries that have an abundance of unused addresses.

The killer app will come, alright - just not from the US.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029463)

Thats bullshit. Try getting more IP Space and you'll see how much trouble that is vs just getting a /32 ipv6 block. IPV6 will be required and by the way things run around here it'll happen in a rush when Ma Bell can't add any more customers because she's out of IP addresses.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029481)

India and China have 38 percent of the world's population who might want to connect one day.

I have a house full of linux running household appliances that want to connect today. In fact my toaster said it would kill me if it didn't get it's own internet facing IP address by the end of the year.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (5, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029775)

My toaster got told it'll go through the NAT router like everybody else and like it.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030719)

Mine grew an arm and stabbed me in the face.

Yes, there is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029931)

The summary is flamebait and wrong. All three acknowledged that there are cases where it may make sense not to adopt IPv6, but that's not the whole truth:

Wettling adds that "Other companies are strategically investing in the foundation for the future, like those that started using TCP/IP and Web technology in the 1980s and 1990s..."

Grossetete mentions that "clearly some worldwide regions and market segments are adopting IPv6. What would be the impact on your business if you couldnâ(TM)t properly get customers or partners reaching your sites?"

Popoviciou explains that "This is a fundamental technology which is valuable by the simple fact that it enables us to scale our networks and services."

I don't see how that can be construed to mean "no business case", except in an attempt to use intentional misinterpretation to spark discussion.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (2, Funny)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029963)

China? They can just use NAT and have one address for the whole country. ;)

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030217)

How else are they going to run that firewall?

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (1)

runlevelfour (1329235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029993)

From what I understand v6 isn't even finalized yet. What I don't want to see is a rush to deploy anything without rigorous testing and finalization of all constituent parts. I would like to see v6 deployed someday but right now its being tested and experimented with slowly and surely. If there was an immediate crisis I would understand but for right now if we have the time we should take advantage of it and test it (and its ramifications) thoroughly.

Re:There is no business case *in the US* (2, Informative)

mshannon78660 (1030880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030433)

Well, since IPv6 was laid out in RFC 2460, and that RFC is not listed as having been obsoleted, I think you are incorrect. There are more recent RFCs which specify certain applications and/or protocols running over IPv6 - however, this situation is no different from IPv4 - where there are still RFCs being published today to specify particular applications and protocols. Oh, and RFC 2460 was published in December of 1998 - so I think we've had plenty of time for testing...

Here's mine: (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029389)

"Boss, I can get an IPv6 tunnel for free so that we can start experimenting and testing. We work with the Department of Defense, and they say that this stuff is important, so with your permission I'd like to spend $0 to start playing with it."

And that's how we came to be on IPv6.

Re:Here's mine: (4, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029717)

Boss says, 'You want to be paid to do that when you haven't even recovered the email for me that I deleted last week? You aren't paid to play. Dance monkey boy, dance. And don't forget your pager when you leave tonight.'

Re:Here's mine: (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029919)

It sounds like you work for an awful boss. Have you considered taking night classes to help land a job that rewards intelligence?

Imagine this with the singularity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029393)

What's the business case?

To make business itself similar to the pushing of acorns around by squirrels.

Oh, OK. Will I get more acorns?

1000101011

IPv6 will happen when China demands it (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029401)

IPv6 will happen when China demands it. China's growing need for IP address space will drive the issue. China needs at least a billion IP addresses. Especially since the Chinese government would like a system where each device has a permanent IP address.

Re:IPv6 will happen when China demands it (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029433)

Ultimately China will need a lot more than a billion IP addresses. At the moment I have internet connections for home computer, work computer, mobile phone and laptop

Re:IPv6 will happen when China demands it (5, Funny)

dunnius (1298159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029641)

Then perhaps it might be prudent to instead use IPv8 so that we won't have to change the system again for a really long time.

Only IPv6? We could have had a IP V8. :-D

So do I (0)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030747)

But they all share the same IP address.

The industry is putting its efforts into NAT so that it becomes less crappy and more functional every day. Eventually, it won't matter that you don't have a uniquely addressable IP address.

Re:IPv6 will happen when China demands it (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030653)

Someone else said, jokingly, that China should just have one NAT router for the whole country. More seriously, the way China is approaching internet access for the country, they may as well do exactly that so that they can keep on perpetuating their xenophobic, exclusionist way of life. :p

Not exactly true (3, Informative)

Cajal (154122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029411)

There's no business case if you don't care about growing your network. If you do, you need to care about IPv6, becuase in a few years, it's going to become increasingly difficult to get new public IPv4 addresses.

Actually, Microsoft supports IPv6 in several of its core products. IE, Outlook 2007, Windows Mail/Live Mail and Exchange 2007 support IPv6, as do many of the services in Windows 2008 (IIS, DHCPv6, DNS, POP, CIFS, LDAP, Kerberos, Remote Desktop). Some of these also have IPv6 support on Windows XP (IE, IIS, Remote Desktop, CIFS).

Re:Not exactly true (4, Informative)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029661)

There's no business case if you don't care about growing your network. If you do, you need to care about IPv6, becuase in a few years, it's going to become increasingly difficult to get new public IPv4 addresses.

Many companies do not need public IP addresses, yet they have large networks. For example, imagine a company that has a location with 2,000 employees. The company does not offer web services but they do need internet access for their employees to be able to send/receive email and use business applications between sites (via VPN tunnels). In this case the company may only need a handful of IP addresses and NAT all of their private addresses through the pool of 4 or 5 public IP addresses for that location. They can easily add a new building to their location and just expand their LAN as they have an entire 10.0.0.0 A block providing millions of IP addresses. NATing between the internal LAN and the internet they can get up to ~250,000 entries (provided their hardware can support that), allowing each of their 2,000 users to be using, on average, 125 internet applications (or open connections) at once.

This situation I suspect is typical of almost all companies. Most already have enough public IP addresses to satisfy all of their internal users and lots of room to expand on their LAN side.

Re:Not exactly true (4, Insightful)

Cajal (154122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029939)

NATing between the internal LAN and the internet they can get up to ~250,000 entries (provided their hardware can support that), allowing each of their 2,000 users to be using, on average, 125 internet applications (or open connections) at once.

What's going to be more expensive: A massive NAT box or an IPv6-enabled router (as many already are)?

What's going to be more expensive: Adding NAT buster support into many apps, or using IPv6 (many apps are already IPv6-aware)?

At the APNIC 26 conference [apnic.net] last month, NTT presented some ballpack numbers [apnic.net] for how many people can be comfortably put behind NAT. They're not encouraging. Basically, the common "Web 2.0"-type apps open a lot of background connections, which chews through your ephemeral port space quickly, limiting the number of people that can be NATted. Google echoed those claims loud and clear [apnic.net] : "AJAX applications break behind excessive NAT."

Also, consider that by 2012 we'll have run out of public IPv4 addresses. But only 25% of Earth's population will be online [itnews.com.au] . Do you propose to put another 3.5 billion people behind NAT? I'm pretty skeptical that NAT can handle that load.

While NAT will likely be needed in the short term to deal with IPv4 address exhaution, I'm highly skeptical of its long-term scalability.

Re:Not exactly true (2, Insightful)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030493)

Well not all 2,000 users in my example are going to open 125 connections simultaneously so the NAT table on the router isn't going to be that enormous, but maybe just a small fraction. Your typical enterprise Cisco/Juniper router/firewall can probably handle that load fine (I'd have to double check on that), or maybe you can load balance between multiple routers each with different public IP pools.

If you agree with that assumption then you can say your business class router/firewall that can handle both the NAT load and that can also handle IPv6 if you enable it. So you have the same device that can do either. You are currently running the NAT "solution", so you pay nothing for hardware to make the transition. However, there is still an administrative cost associated with a network wide infrastructure shift like that. So your networking team takes the time to transition the whole system and you may even have intermittent downtime while certain parts of the network are upgraded. That cost of the time spend and the possible downtime is what needs to be justified to be able to make this upgrade.

You may already have the equipment to be able to do it, and your ISP may already provide you with IPv6, but it comes back to the original question... "why send the time and money to move if our current 'solution' works?"

Remember that internally your organization can stay at IPv4 forever (or until some killer IPv6 app comes out) and just NAT itself off to the IPv6 world (NAT dual stack or NAT 4to6 transition methods). The best thing I can think of off the top of my head is to try to spin a 'future proofing' angle to management -- we make the investment now and it will pay off in the long run. But management has a way of crossing bridges when they get to them.. at least that's how it seems to be where I work.

Re:Not exactly true (2, Interesting)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030041)

What happens when that company wants to setup a VPN to another company that also uses the 10.0.0.0 address space? Now I need a NATNAT device that invents a whole new set of addresses to let machines inside the two private networks talk to each other.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to be directly on the Internet with a public address and no firewall. But even if you are going to assign private addresses internally, there's value in having (or being able to easily obtain) a globally unique address so that you can form arbitrary connections to any other machine on the planet.

Re:Not exactly true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25030545)

"What happens when that company wants to setup a VPN to another company that also uses the 10.0.0.0 address space?..."

You mean like most VPN connections exist today? In this case, you either agree to use registered space, or you both NAT and pray that the App in question can deal with it.

Some companies dont' even WANT to use public IPs (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030679)

Even if you said "Here, have a /8 completely free, use whatever you like," they'd still want to do NAT. Why? Privacy and security. NAT automatically gives a good measure of security. You have an inbound firewall by default, simply because of how it works. You have to explicitly set up any inbound ports to be forwarded. Also this means that to get to any system that doesn't have a forwarded port, you'll have to get access to a system that does. With public IPs, there is always the possibility that the firewall fails or is shut off and you can get at a system. With NAT, you have to get inside to be able to get at anything.

Privacy you also get just by the way NAT works. Since you have many people using a few (or one) IP addresses, it is much harder to track what any given computer is doing. Web browsing can be tracked with things like cookies (if the client accepts them) but over all you really can't tell what is going on for a given system inside the network.

So NAT is something companies may well want to keep doing, even if they don't have to.

Most interesting question ... (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029443)

JoeRockHead: What is the status of good security tools for IPv6?

Fred_Wettling: We have found that several security tools (firewall, IDS, IPS) are ready for IPv6 traffic, others are at varying stages of maturity. While Microsoft should be applauded for its IPv6 deployment in its operating systems, it has not yet addressed IPv6 in its ISA Server that several organizations use for Internet traffic security logging. Current versions of Squid DO support IPv6. The "bad guys" are exploring the use of IPv6 to gain access to systems. A common approach is the use of tunnels that may be turned on in a default configuration ... like Teredo, ISATAP or 6to4. Security awareness is important when deploying IPv6. A lot of potential risks can be solved with prudent configuration, including turning host-based tunnels OFF by default. Command Information has been doing some interesting work in this area.

IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029503)

192.168.1.87 -vs- fe80::e1c0:5620:bc95:3c71%9

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029619)

192.168.1.87 -vs- fe80::e1c0:5620:bc95:3c71%9

I see your unwieldly addressing and raise you a DNS.

Besides, if you want to talk Rube Goldberg, check out IPv4's variable-length headers and the processing required to sort them out at line speed.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029805)

I see your unwieldly addressing and raise you a DNS.

Because DNS always works properly, and there is never, ever a reason to want to get to a machine by specifying its IP, rather than resolving a hostname. Oh wait...

Your average user doesn't worry about IP addresses now, they utilize DNS. If someone cares about how easy it is to work with an IP address, they're probably a techy who needs to do so for troubleshooting purposes, so giving a smart-ass "use DNS" response doesn't help them.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030007)

If someone cares about how easy it is to work with an IP address, they're probably a techy who needs to do so for troubleshooting purposes,

Correction: they're a tech on a tiny network where they're used to memorizing the DNS zones. At this very moment, I'm not sure I can tell you the IP of the webserver I work on most often - not because I never access it, but because I've been accessing it via DNS for the last five years and have never once in that time needed to connect via IP.

so giving a smart-ass "use DNS" response doesn't help them.

Neither does giving a dumbass "cant remember numb3rz lol" response.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030389)

Correction: they're a tech on a tiny network where they're used to memorizing the DNS zones. At this very moment, I'm not sure I can tell you the IP of the webserver I work on most often - not because I never access it, but because I've been accessing it via DNS for the last five years and have never once in that time needed to connect via IP.

So you've never needed to troubleshoot a network problem. Good for you.

Your assumption that anyone who needs to know an IP address must be working with a tiny, memorizable DNS zone is completely false. Like I said, DNS is something that can break. For example, where I work, our dynamic DNS is broken, and the server team refuses to work on the problem (or delete bad entries...). So, when I want to work on one of my user's machines remotely, I sometimes need to find out from the user what their IP address is. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather deal with repeating "192.168.1.87" over the phone than "fe80::e1c0:5620:bc95:3c71%9" (to use the previous example).

And what if you suspect the name servers are down, but want to be sure that they are, indeed, the problem? Boy, it would sure be nice to have a nice, easy IPv4 address memorized for testing, than a long, unwieldy IPv6 address.

Your lack of ability to imagine situations where knowing IP addresses is useful does not mean that they don't exist.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030725)

So you've never needed to troubleshoot a network problem. Good for you.

No, it's that (like others have mentioned) hosts file always work. Failing that, cat /etc/resolv.conf gives me the address of the nameservers if they're broken (not that they've ever all died simultaneously) and I need to connect in. Finally, remember that all the addresses in your company will have a static prefix that will be an even multiple of 16 bits in length, like AAAA:BBBB:CCCC. Memorize that. Your own machine's host portion will look like 21f:d0ff:fe22:b8a8. Honestly, I have passwords longer than that. I'm not a super-genius, but this is within my abilities. It's not like Jane Secretary's going to have to learn this stuff.

Anyway, it sounds like your need to memorize a whole slew of addresses is due to the incompetence of your network administrators. I'd say that is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. No pun intended.

But regardless of all else, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. You will have to learn longer addresses at some point, so you might as well get used to it.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030093)

I've never, ever had my /etc/hosts file stop working. Ever. Even when my NIC was eaten by a dog, I was still able to resolve hostnames to IP address for systems where I already knew the IP address through some manual information exchange.

And honestly I can't think of a reason I'd need to get to a machine by IP address rather than hostname in the first place, other than the DNS server itself (an address that IPv6 auto-config and DHCPv6 both can provide for me).

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030377)

When its a device without a DNS name or entry whose admin interface is set to be accessed via specific IP address? They do exist you know.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030579)

I've never, ever had my /etc/hosts file stop working.

That isn't what I meant when I mentioned DNS not working. I meant DNS servers not working properly.

And honestly I can't think of a reason I'd need to get to a machine by IP address rather than hostname in the first place...

Dynamic DNS. You can wind up with two entries for one host, which makes trying to get to said host problematic. Thus, you might need an IP address. Our DDNS isn't working properly where I work, so it comes up about 15% of the time I try to remote in to a computer. I'd fix the DDNS, but I don't have that ability, so I have to get an IP address over the phone from my user, who really likes it (even if they don't know it) that they can give me a nice, manageable IPv4 address, rather than an unwieldy IPv6 address.

Re:IP4 - elegant IP6 - Rube Goldberg (1)

Cajal (154122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029973)

Not to mention fragmentation processing by routers.

Consumer rollout (1, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029513)

For the consumer how will this roll out? Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network. That means I need a block of IP addresses assigned to me. So does my telco/cable company have this set up and will it cost me a huge amount to get a block of IPs? If it does, I can see the resistance.

Re:Consumer rollout (2, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029613)

Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network.

I don't believe that's accurate. What's supposed to happen is that your ISP gives you a /64 block and you don't need NAT, but nothing says you can't use NAT if you want to (or if your ISP doesn't play nice).

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029891)

My current routers assign private IP addresses to my computers at home. My understanding is that with IPv6 this would not be allowed and that my router would have to assign real IPs. Now if my telco/cable company sells me a block of them with my service that would be great. However, are they ready to do this and will they try to charge me a great deal for a block as opposed to a single, rotating address. That is my main question.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

molo (94384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030055)

The block they assign to you will probably vary (you will probably still have to pay extra for a static), just like DHCP does now. But your router will be able to advertise the available block to your subnet, and it can dynamically change. Check out radvd for an example of this.

-molo

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030375)

My current routers assign private IP addresses to my computers at home. My understanding is that with IPv6 this would not be allowed and that my router would have to assign real IPs.

NAT for IPv6 was implemented in Linux in 2004, so it's clearly possible. How would someone go about making it "not allowed"?

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030549)

NAT for IPv6 was implemented in Linux in 2004, so it's clearly possible

Based on this message [netfilter.org] , but from further [netfilter.org] looking [netfilter.org] it appears that it was never merged.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

dascritch (808772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029731)

Got IPv6 from my FAI. I got both IPv4 (192.168.x.x local adresses) and IPv6 with a prefix for each of my machines.
I think that IPv6 NATing is not a problem: it works very well here, and no matter if I put IPv4 or IPv6 adresses (I'm in France, my FAI is Free, and NATing uis done via my "box")

Re:Consumer rollout (2, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029739)

Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network.

You technically can, but there are few sane reasons for wanting to.

That means I need a block of IP addresses assigned to me. So does my telco/cable company have this set up and will it cost me a huge amount to get a block of IPs?

Correct, yes (they will), and no (it won't). I have a free /48 allocation from Hurricane Electric [tunnelbroker.net] , giving me a home netblock of 2^80 addresses. If your ISP tries to rake you over the coals, I could probably peel off 2^64 or so of those to lend you.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029749)

Why you can't use NAT? Is this some IPv6 limitation or just that there are no IPv6 NAT routers?

I use NAT for security (as a firewall) and for sharing a single external IP between my computers.

My dislike for IPv6 is that it is impossible to remember those long IP addresses.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030133)

Why you can't use NAT? Is this some IPv6 limitation or just that there are no IPv6 NAT routers?

NAT is not theoretically impossible with IPv6, but it's a big part of the ugliness IPv6 is meant to solve. AFAIK, there is no IPv6 NAT implementation for Linux for exactly this reason.

I use NAT for security (as a firewall) and for sharing a single external IP between my computers.

Lack of NAT doesn't mean lack of firewalling. Linux has ip6tables. You can still configure an IPv6 router / gateway to drop all incoming connections to machines inside your local network, apart from any exceptions you want to configure (e.g. Bittorrent.)

My dislike for IPv6 is that it is impossible to remember those long IP addresses.

Yes, but I guess that's unavoidable. One thing I would like to see is for IPv6 admin tools to support /etc/networks, or an equivalent. Presumably software like dnsmasq and avahi will be upgraded to cope with providing local IPv6 DNS, if they don't already (I haven't tested.)

Re:Consumer rollout (1, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030143)

I use NAT for security (as a firewall)

No you don't. A stateless NAT is almost worthless as a firewall, even if many people think it is. For example, take these three pseudocode rules:

allow from $lan to $internet port 53
allow from $internet port 53 to $lan
block all

That's all well and good until someone sending you spoofed packets from ns1.google.com:53 to 192.168.0.2 (or whatever your desktop's address is). After all, your firewall allows in all packets with a report port 53.

If you want a firewall, get a firewall. If you want NAT, get NAT. Do not believe for a second that they're the same.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030499)

unless the NAT is stateful and only allows a packet in if there was a packet out before.

how about these rules:

allow from $lan to $internet
allow from $internet to $lan where state=established
block all

Now lets say that I am running a FTP server inside my lan (for lan uses only). No one from the internet can connect to it.

Except for static port forwarding (for bittorrent, emule etc) and VPN.

And if they intercept the DNS request and spoof a reply - is there any way of blocking it?

Re:Consumer rollout (2, Funny)

dave024 (1204956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030365)

long ip addresses?
Your isp should give you a /48 block, which is 12 digits long (2001:4200:24AB::/48), similar in length to an ipv4 address. You could then number your devices sequentially
2001:4200:24AB::1/64
2001:4200:24AB::2/64
2001:4200:24AB::3/64

What's so hard to remember about that?

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030515)

What's so hard to remember about that?

ZOMG, there's letters in those addresses! /sarcasm

Actually, that's what I do. I make the last part same as the IPv4 address. Easy to remember if I need to.

10.0.0.10/24 --> 2001:4200:24ab::10/64

etc. etc.

But there is this magical tool called DNS, too. It's really not that difficult to setup if you RTFM. My windows clients update their addresses to BIND without any problems. My macs, linux, and BSD machines, I haven't had time to get them to do the auto-update yet. Someday when I have more time, perhaps.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030529)

192.168.0.254 vs 2001:4200:24AB::2

And why would I want an external IP for every device on my network? Now I can connect to my network using VPN and access all devices (and hackers can't (hopefully)).

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029777)

Tell me again why you can't do "NAT" if you use IPv6? (That's a serious question, what technology prevents you from using port-forwarding with IPv6?)

More to the point, do you really want to do NAT if you have IPv6?

Having all IP addresses public is not any less secure or vulnerable, given a correct firewall configuration. If you deny by default, and open exactly what should be allowed (address and port tuple), you are as secure as the firewall can do, short of advance features like protocol specific inspection, etc.

From a comment on http://www.circleid.com/posts/nat_just_say_no/ [circleid.com]

port forwarding != nat (2, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029913)

You can do port forwarding without NAT.
And he's wrong, nothing's preventing you from doing NAT on IPv6, except that it's probably never been implemented since it's kinda pointless.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

mckyj57 (116386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030073)

It amazes me that the IPv6 people never talk about the *benefits* of NAT, which is that the individual's user and all it's vulnerable services are not readily accessible to the Internet at large.

And don't talk to me about firewalls, either. In actual practice, firewalls have turned out to be firesieves way too often. If you have a strong enough firewall to matter, you might as well NAT because you aren't getting to that machine anyway.

Re:Consumer rollout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25030459)

It amazes me that the IPv6 people never talk about the *benefits* of NAT, which is that the individual's user and all it's vulnerable services are not readily accessible to the Internet at large.

I suggest that you scan part of the ipv6 address space and find some computers with remote vulnerabilities.
The actual challenge is finding someone from eg. /64 address space (that is 2^32*2^32 addresses == ipv4 address space multiplied with ipv4 address space)

You always get a block (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029875)

And nobody's preventing you to use NAT, except that you might have to code it yourself.
Me I'm on IPv6 thanks to my ISP (Free.fr) having implemented it; but there isn't much to do there.

Re:Consumer rollout (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029881)

Moving to IPv6 means that I can't use NAT anymore for my home network.

Why not?

That means I need a block of IP addresses assigned to me. So does my telco/cable company have this set up and will it cost me a huge amount to get a block of IPs?

IPv6 addresses are cheap, and I bet your provider has a fairly easy way to allocate a block to their clients (or could set one up pretty easily if people ask).

Remember supply and demand? IPv4 addresses are low in supply and high in demand, so they're expensive. IPv6 addresses are very high in supply and relatively low in demand.

Re:Consumer rollout (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030497)

Well, you still can use NAT on your home network, it's just that you don't have to. You won't need to get a block of IP addresses assigned to you, you'll get one by default. The smallest assignment your ISP will be able to give you (without violating the IPv6 spec) will be a /64. Since IPv6 addresses are 128 bits, that gives you a 64-bit block (4 billion IPv4-sized networks) to assign your own machines in. For the average user who doesn't care about subnetting within their home network, that means just allowing automatic address assignment (based on the MAC address of the machine and the IPv6 router-discovery protocol results) or a simple DHCPv6 setup (built into your router) to do it's thing.

Buy Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25030599)

Seriously. Buy Apple products (e.g. an Airport Extreme and anything running OSX), and get IPv6 not just enabled, but working out of the box.

  1. Apple router DHCPs with your ISP, and gets a public IPv4 address as usual.
  2. Apple router acts as a DHCP server, serving internal IPv4 addresses and NATing as usual.
  3. Apple router sets up a 6to4 interface using the public 6to4 anycast router for tunneling, if needed.
  4. Apple router acts as an IPv6 router, sending router advertisement packets, serving IPv6 addresses from within the 6to4 space corresponding to its public IPv4 address.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I'm sure some people that don't know anything about IPv6 will reply, saying "oh, that's not actually IPv6!" They're wrong. Granted, it's not end-to-end IPv6, but that's not actually needed to reap some benefits. If you have a 6to4 address, and I have a 6to4 address, our respective routers will send IPv6 packets over the public IPv4 internet: no tunnels, no suboptimal routes.

The IPv6 addresses used by clients behind the router are public, world-routable, and non-NAT, without needing the ISP to do anything. Since OSX ships with IPv6 enabled by default, this means any Mac behind a recent Apple router has untranslated, unfettered, bidirectional access to the IPv6 internet. No accounts with tunnel brokers, no manual configuration at all -- plug it in, and you're done.

IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25029541)

It will be universally adopted shortly after Perl 6 is.

NAT is the business case killer... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029623)

For a long time, IPv4's limited address space looked to be a problem. And that was the #1 business case behind IPv6.

The problem is, NAT came around at just the right time. Most businesses only need a couple of external addresses, and many end-users don't need one at all.

Re:NAT is the business case killer... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029827)

Most businesses only need a couple of external addresses, and many end-users don't need one at all.

That's right! As long as you originate 100% of your traffic, don't host VPNs, and never need to use an end-to-end connection, you'll be just fine behind an Internet-breaking NAT. Just pray that you never need to SSH to your home server which is also behind one.

Re:NAT is the business case killer... (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030387)

Agreed, NAT is a particularly ugly solution whereas IPv6 is much more elegant. However, there seems to be a business case for NAT, in that it helps maintain the idea of consumers vs. producers. If you want Real Internet (TM), get a business account.

Actually, I'm probably spoiled, since many Finnish ISPs give you 5 public IP addresses. My current ISP doesn't even distinguish between private and business contracts, though they do provide higher-grade services as well.

Microsoft and IPv6 (4, Insightful)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029663)

Actually, Microsoft is the last company to add IPv6 support to its OSs. By the time of arrival of WinXP, most other OSs including Linux, Solaris and BSDs had it atleast for 2 years. And WinXP offered it as an optional protocol that had to be installed manually. Vista is the first version of windows to offer IPv6 in a default install.

Re:Microsoft and IPv6 (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030523)

Windows is the most used though. In this sense, Microsoft did more to bringing IPv6 to everybody then switching ever other OS over would have. On top of that, Microsoft was not the last. Windows NT and 2000 had an IPv6 implementation available, with the first release of that in 1998, the same year Solaris 7 was released which also had a IPv6 add-on as Solaris didn't ship with IPv6 until Solaris 8 (2000). While the first release of IPv6 for Linux happened earlier (1996), it was unmaintained and almost useless until Linux started tracking KAME in 2000. Those efforts did not enter the mainline kernel until the 2.5 development cycle. While some of that was backported to 2.4, the first production kernel to include IPv6 (as opposed to it being an external project) was 2.6. KAME (IPv6 for the BSD's) started in 1998.

In short, just about everyone had a working IPv6 stack at about the same time.

IPSec! (1)

Brian Bartlett (25224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029801)

Number one killer reason to move to IPv6?

IPSec support is mandatory at the stack level, add transport level support, and you can lock down even telnet traffic.

Where you'll see issues is the ISP and government interaction. If all the traffic is encrypted, then you have to rely on other forensic means to guess at what is in the packets.

Though this doesn't mean that all traffic WILL be encrypted, just that it CAN be encrypted.

Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (2, Informative)

lrohrer (147725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25029821)

The reason no one upgrades is that the new "standard" is not simply interoperable with the old. When color TV came out you could still watch the same programming on you B/W. It is not the case with IPv6. You need new routers, new software, new DNS and to train your people. Sure Apache 2.0 and Vista work but an Apache configured just with IPv6 can not serve people on the "internet" (yea yea build a bridge yada yada yada)

Please, the spec is bad just for this reason. The simple basic requirement for new addressing scheme is that it works with existing equipment.

Time to start over with a new spec.

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (2, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030213)

Have you ever actually looked at what's required to parse an IPv4 header vs. an IPv6 header? There are plenty of good reasons that IPv6 decided the IPv4 structure was not a good plan.

Beside that, there's no practical way to add address length to IPv4 headers that wouldn't break old equipment. Moreover the kind of breakage caused would be harder to detect and repair -- old equipment would see the IPv4 header, not know about the new extensions, and likely do the wrong thing (like forward traffic to the address corresponding to the first 32-bits of the longer address). At least if you change the protocol number old equipment won't start randomly sending traffic it doesn't understand around the Internet.

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (1)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030611)

Bingo. That's why I never understood DJB's similar little rant [cr.yp.to] . You can't grow the address space and expect backward compatibility, because there's no way for a legacy node (router or host) to preserve the additional address bits (I suppose if you've got bits in another field that are always preserved and not used for anything important, you could use those. But we haven't, so that's the end of that particular story.)

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030245)

Except that the IPv6 design is backwards-compatible. Any IPv4 address has, per the IPv6 spec, an IPv6 representation, so any IPv6 machine can talk to a machine that has only IPv4 connectivity. Likewise, if your IPv6 machine also has an IPv4 address, there's a defined transformation to allow traffic to it's IPv4 address to be handled by the IPv6 stack. Most IPv6 stacks include all this functionality internally already.

And yes, IPv6 is radically different from IPv4. It's different for the same reasons a Freightliner semi tractor's radically different from a Mini Cooper: it's designed to do things the Mini's incapable of. Sure, you can redesign a semi tractor to be similar to the Mini, use the same parts as the Mini and all that, but in doing so you'd make the tractor cease to be a semi tractor and cease to be capable of doing what you wanted a semi tractor for.

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030623)

Any IPv4 address has, per the IPv6 spec, an IPv6 representation, so any IPv6 machine can talk to a machine that has only IPv4 connectivity.

But, if your IPv4 host has no IPv6 address, it has no way to reply to the IPv6 host. This is one of the reasons people wanted things like NAT-PT, and why killing NAT-PT was a bad idea.

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (2, Informative)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030717)

IPv4-compatible addresses [wikipedia.org] are deprecated, and IPv4-mapped addresses [wikipedia.org] are basically only there so you can write an "IPv6 only" application and still transparently handle IPv4 connections. The actual system the app is running on still has to be dual stack.

IPv6-only hosts can't talk to IPv4-only hosts without help [wikipedia.org] . As noted above, what could an IPv6-only node put in the source address of an outgoing IPv4 packet that would ensure it got to see any responses?

And and that risk of looking like I'm deliberately trying to shoot down your entire post (which I'm not!), apart from the address size, IPv6 is reasonably similar to IPv4. It tidies some stuff up, makes a few optimizations (no checksums, no fragmentation), but is still recognisably "IP."

Re:Excuse me, Why are they not interoperable! (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030249)

That's a great idea, as long as you can find another 96 address bits in the IPv4 header. Oh, and update every router in the world to handle IPv6-style routing (which is not the same as IPv4 routing because we've learned a few things along the way). And figure out a way to require IPSec support. And multicast.

Do you really think that IPv4+6 would be any easier to support than IPv6 itself?

Similar to climate change (2, Interesting)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030031)

This is a bit like saying there is no business case for doing something about climate change. Sure, I can't tell anyone that specific bits of their infrastructure are going to get wiped out by hurricanes, or that particular segments of their markets are going to be bankrupted and / or drowned by rising sea levels, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

Similarly, I can't forecast what the oil price is going to do, whether it will be higher or lower in 12 months time than it is now. I don't know when we will hit peak oil, or if we've hit it already, and I don't know the exact consequences of that. But that certainly doesn't mean that looking at ways of reducing energy requirements, and alternative sources for them, isn't a good idea.

I can't say what will happen as IPv4 address scarcity hits. Will people be denied allocations outright? I doubt it. Will small blocks of addresses in random parts of the address space be auctioned to the highest bidders? Seems more likely. Will dealing with the huge routing tables caused by all those disconnected little blocks put stress on routers, causing reliability issues and more money to be spent on upgrades? Quite possibly. Will we see people rolling out multiple layers of NAT, and all sorts of ugly application-helpers? Probably. Will it be reliable? I doubt it.

Times are hard economically now, and as a result people pull their horns in and look for hard, specific reasons to justify effort and expenditure, particularly immediate, short-term reasons. But short-termism got us into the current (economic) mess in the first place. Step back, look at the big picture. Yes, it's fuzzy. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious trends, obvious problems -- and also some reasonably obvious, big-picture solutions.

Blame Microsoft? (1)

maxrate (886773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030101)

Sure - let's blame Microsoft for IPv6 adoption as well! I know there are tunneled IPv6 connections available that are free, but there should be more support from ISP's for native IPv6 connections. I work in a major data centre and the IPv6 adoption rate and carriers that offer IPv6 connections is low. Microsoft being 2 years late in support IPv6 is a poor excuse.

Re:Blame Microsoft? (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030615)

Microsoft seems to understand the problem, and the IPv6 support in Vista and 2008 is very good.

I'm not entirely convinced, however, that their motivations are entirely pure (wouldn't WGA work so much better without those nasty NAT side-effects?).

But at least they're trying. IPv6 is important; the short-sightedness of many posters here is just amazing.

"Oh, we can reclaim class As from those who don't really need them!" ...and fix the problem for another year, maybe?

Jeeze.

Software support (1)

stevied (169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030223)

I've noticed recently that an awful lot of *nix based software is now supporting IPv6, either in the upstream source or added by distributions.

A lot of the demand for new addresses (and hence possibly for IPv6) will be on the smaller and / or more portable devices (phones, netbooks, set-top boxes) that often run Linux anyway.

I also note that the KDE guys are porting to Windows. I don't specifically know whether their apps generally support IPv6 already, and if so whether their Windows ports will, but I can't imagine it will be hard to add, or that it will be long before someone does.

In a nutshell, if Windows apps don't provide support, there will be workarounds. Workarounds, indeed, that might act as incentives to get people off Windows onto other, freer platforms ..

Comcast Business case is for you to pay per PC jus (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030383)

Comcast Business case is for you to pay per PC just like you do with the cable boxes / cable cards.

IPv6 for Debian and Ubuntu (1)

CAPSLOCK2000 (27149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030437)

If you are running Debian or Ubuntu (or another Debian derivative) and want to run IPv6, go to:

http://debian6to4.gielen.name/ - IPv6 for Debian and Ubunutu [gielen.name]

This site generates an IPv6 configuration specific for your machine. The only thing you need is a working internet connection, which you have, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this.

Re:IPv6 for Debian and Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25030597)

If you need anything to do with that IPv6 connection, get your 400 TerraBytes (!) of warez from news.ipv6.eweka.nl at gigabit speed.

Stages of Grief (4, Insightful)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030605)

Network architects and admins with clue are currently at the "Depression" stage (4th stage).

Why Slashdot feels that putting up a commentary authored by someone who's still in the first stage ("Denial") is useful to anyone is beyond me.

IPv4 exhaustion is coming. CIDR got us from the mid-90s until now. But it's coming now. Please stop denying, being angry, trying to bargain it away. Hopefully we'll all move past depression into acceptance (as vendors and infrastructure gets ready) before it hits. But I know a lot of smart people who would prefer to retire in the next 2 years instead of be there when it hits.

They probably won't, but would like to...

IPv6 is just big dumb spackle, like Vista (1)

Sarusa (104047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030641)

Instead of fixing some of the known flaws in IPv4, IPv6 is just spackle over the cracks. I'm not going to go into detail on it here, but if you care what they are, read John Day's 'Patterns in Network Architecture'. Really, the only reason to go IPv6 is to get more addresses, which is only sufficient and compelling if that is the reason you need it, just like there's no compelling reason to go from XP to Vista unless you need DX10.

But Vista has MS shoving it down everyone's throats (by trying its damndest to make sure you can't get a new computer without it), and there's nobody doing the same for IPv6 unless China becomes it that player, which seems unlikely globally for a while (since they want an insulated network).

You might reasonably argue that if IPv6 had tried to actually fix some of the architectual problems of IPv4 that it might have taken much longer. But now you've got a (relatively) simple solution that nobody really needs and has been languishing for years because of that, so I'm not sure how much time has been really saved here.

der da der (1)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25030741)

Because anycast, address scope, and multihoming aren't features; they are just synergistic advertising.

Seriously, if you are going to cite a book, you should really try reading it first. The fact that you don't understand the uses for these features does not mean that they are neither useful nor necessary.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>