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!

No IPv6 For UK Broadband Users

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-now-love-not-now dept.

The Internet 298

BT (the incumbent telephone company in the United Kingdom) are in the process of spending millions of pounds on upgrading their network to an all-IP core. However, they have failed to consider 21st Century protocol support, preferring to insist that IPv4 is enough for everyone. Haven't they noticed the IPv4 exhaustion report yet?

cancel ×

298 comments

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

2^32 ips (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25316819)

ought to be enough for anybody

Re:2^32 ips (4, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316855)

But not enough for everybody.

Re:2^32 ips (4, Funny)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317065)

Oh come on, we've got enough for another 2 or 3 years. Who knows what could happen in that time! Global Warming disasters, World War III, you name it! A couple minor setbacks like those, and we could stretch IP4 for another century! They obviously just know something we don't...

Re:2^32 ips (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317337)

World economy down the toilet - no will be able to afford to use the net let alone eat. and it's ALL due to IPv4!

Re:2^32 ips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317861)

I'm betting on Sars & Bird Flu outbreaks.

hey don't worry man (4, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317357)

They'll just NAT the world.

 

Re:hey don't worry man (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318039)

My guess would be that since there will still be competition between ISPs running over the infrastrcuture the IPs used on the internal network will be seperate from internet IPs anyway. Whether users get public IPs will probablly be at the discresion of the ISP.

Sounds about right (4, Informative)

lililalancia (752496) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316841)

I read this snippet from Computer Weekly earlier on: - http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/it-downtime-blog/2008/10/microsoft-speech-glitch-raises.html [computerweekly.com] Which pretty much sums up how not to do it!

Re:Sounds about right (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317551)

next BT need to sort out their network architecture so that packets to your mate down the road on the same isp as you go into the local exchange and back out again, instead of go down to the local exchange, get trunked down to the isp's network, back out again to the local exchange and finally to ur mate.

Upgrading "to an all-IP core" (3, Funny)

Otis2222222 (581406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317673)

Upgrading to an "all-IP" core? What had they been running on? Appletalk? IPX? Banyan Vines? DECnet?

Re:Upgrading "to an all-IP core" (2, Informative)

caluml (551744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317787)

ATM, I'd guess.

I rang my (otherwise extremely good, if a little more expensive than most) ISP, Zen [zen.co.uk] , and asked for v6. They said they didn't do it, as not enough people had asked for it. I asked if they'd make a note of my request - they said they would.
I offered to run an IPv6 tunnel router for them, if they'd stick it in their network, and hook it up to a v6 feed somewhere. They declined.

Internet in the UK will fall over... (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316863)

BT is too busy selling everyone's personal info and browsing habits to notice that in a few years their customers wont be able to do anything on t'internet because of a lack of IPv6.

It'll give them a good excuse to jack up prices because their 21CN (21st Century Network) is about as efficient as 1st century roman plumbing and is unable to handle current traffic let alone allow for any growth.

Re:Internet in the UK will fall over... (4, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317051)

Did you know? First century Roman plumbing was actually...surprisingly efficient!

Those Romans brought it to your uncivilized land of drunken fog-priests, and you insult them like that. And I thought British people had a heightened sense of shame!

Re:Internet in the UK will fall over... (5, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317307)

But aside from that, what did the Romans ever do for them?

Re:Internet in the UK will fall over... (0, Redundant)

repvik (96666) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317439)

Mod parent up!

Re:Internet in the UK will fall over... (0, Troll)

sjwest (948274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317151)

I agree with you, ipv4 is known and you can balance traffic and sell data to phorm and the government for spying.

Ipv6 is an adventure with dragons and tom cruise sized midgets and so it means you need to spend money.

There are other concerns - while our routers don't do ipv6, i could buy new routers and flash them for ipv6 but i doubt that that is not near your average uk users capabilities.

Re:Internet in the UK will fall over... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318153)

BT is too busy selling everyone's personal info and browsing habits to notice that in a few years their customers wont be able to do anything on t'internet because of a lack of IPv6.
I find that highly unlikely, some users are likely to get stuck behind nat which is far from ideal but any non-suicidal hosting provider is going to keep thier sites availible on V4 for a long time.

Also the protocol used on the network that connects users to ISPs is fairly irrelevent anyway since afaict users will be tunneled through it just like they are now.

The border routers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25316875)

Well I'm sure that we can address at border routers with the UK. Since they have to switch all of the bits from the left side to the right side of the tubes, they might as well do 6to4 as well.

Re:The border routers (5, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318055)

Actually, if everyone but the UK moved to IPv6, wouldn't there be plenty of room in the IPv4 space just for them?

They're British (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25316889)

They will survive. When the Nazis invade with their super ipv6 worm, they will be spared.

Not all users though (4, Informative)

el_chupanegre (1052384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316901)

The summary clearly fails to realise that not all broadband in the UK goes through BT's network. Virgin Media offers cable broadband through fibre optic. Don't know what their take on IPv6 is though.

Yet more FUD?

Re:Not all users though (5, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317079)

The parent clearly fails to realise that Virgin are a terrible provider (unreliable, capped transfers, packet shaping, unusually awful customer service, etc), the only users of which are those without a BT line who cannot afford to have one put in. As for their 'fibre optic' cable: It's plain and simple BS. They may use fibre between exchanges, but SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. It's not even fibre to the kerb, let alone fibre to the home.

Re:Not all users though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317355)

Apparently it's not unusual to get shit service if you're in an ex-NTL area, but those of us who are in ex-Telewest areas don't have any of the problems (except maybe bad customer service). Unreliable? My cable modem has been connected and transferring data 24/7 for several months now without an interruption in service. It's been pretty much that way for the past decade I've used them.

Re:Not all users though (0, Offtopic)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317477)

this is not flamebait! moderators are on crack again I think

Re:Not all users though (1)

moreati (119629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317575)

I used Blueyonder, before they were bought by NTL and became Virgin Media. They were the best ISP I've ever had. NTL was about the worse, sorry to hear they've dragged Blueyonder down.

It's a tricky situation in the UK, AFAICT there's no good ISP that doesn't require a BT land line. Alex.

Re:Not all users though (3, Interesting)

caluml (551744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317899)

That's not flamebait - it's informative. Virgin aren't a good ISP by most measures [samknows.com] . It's sort of the ITV, or Channel 5 of ISPs. If you're from the UK, you'll know what I mean.

Although I'm not sure about the claim about not running fibre to the kerb.

Re:Not all users though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317957)

Virgin's caps are generous, and only result in a 5 hour quartering of speed when breached. They have reliability issues, but so can BT lines. In either case it's generally a wiring issue. Their customer services are very bad, but who isn't these days?

I'm happy with my 20Mb line that actually IS 20Mb, rather than "we'll give you 24Mb, but because you live two meters from the exchange it'll actually be 2Mb."

Re:Not all users though (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317127)

BT wholesale provide the underlying infrastructure, and then third party ISPs, or other divisions within BT, provide the IP level connectivity...

It's possible to get native IPv6 connectivity today through several ISPs in the UK, tho it's not really an advertised service because very few people are looking for it...

http://www.goscomb.net/ [goscomb.net]
http://www.nitrex.net/ [nitrex.net]

Incidentally, BT themselves used to offer an ipv6 tunnel broker service, so they clearly have some ipv6 capability.

Re:Not all users though (4, Informative)

farnz (625056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317501)

And that's entirely the problem. Both of those ISPs are advertising native IPv6 over BT's Wholesale infrastructure. Said infrastructure corrupts all small IPv6 packets - BT's answer is to say that it's not a problem, because they don't support IPv6.

Re:Not all users though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317731)

Virgin is not via fibre, its coax.

Re:Not all users though (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317779)

A significant proportion of Virgin Medias broadband customer base is infact nothing more than wholesale BT ADSL - Virgin Medias cabled area is relatively small.

Which makes their recent adverts comparing ADSL speeds to their cabled offering rather amusing, not often a company pays money to diss their customers on prime time TV...

Re:Not all users though (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318127)

Actually, I'm pretty sure BT owns the backbone network in the UK, so everything would go through them.

Unwillingness to learn something new? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316905)

I find a disturbing unwillingness to learn in the IT world.

I too am guilty of being reluctant to deploy technologies I don't fully understand...IPv6 being one of them. (I am told it isn't THAT big a deal but still... I don't know it and I know IPv4) And it is my guess that just as many IT groups want to solve problems with MS Windows (because that's all they know) BT probably wants to solve their problems with IPv4.

More FUD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317843)

IT groups want to solve problems with MS Windows (because that's all they know)

Most IT groups solve problems with MS products because they are proven reliable in an enterprise environment, and they have a track record for great support.

By comparison, FOSSies want to solve problems with Teh Lunix and FOSS, because that's all they know. And enterprises don't trust Lunix or FOSS, because there track record is spotty at best, and the level of support relies entirely on whatever armada of overpaid consultants you can latch on to. And in my experience, relying on consultants for core business needs equals an epic fail.

MS may not always be the technially best solution, but they are always the most reliable solution. If there are problems, they will address those problems. THAT is why GOOD enterprise IT groups stick with MS- work time is too important to view as play time... and FOSS is for primarily for play time.

Re:More FUD (0, Flamebait)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318121)

Bill? Is that you? You sound like a commercial... might want to work on your spelling too.

MS Windows is NOT reliable. When the maker recommends periodic reboots, it's not reliable and they are very well aware of it. Why aren't you?

Re:Unwillingness to learn something new? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317867)

Part of the problem with deploying IPv6 is that there are no best case practices. It's unexplored territory. Not every shop has the resources to research the protocal to find the best case practices to do the actual deployment (unless you're someone like Level3, Hurriance Electric [props to HE, their IPv6 works like a champ], and so on). As more people deploy IPv6 and learn the best ways to do it, others will follow.

Re:Unwillingness to learn something new? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317947)

What we're missing is the need to learn something new inside the enterprise. While the major carriers might conceivably see a need to communicate with every device on the entire planet, my corporate users feel no such pressure.

They just need to be able to hit the bright spots on the internet, send email, etc. IPv4 does all of these things, and more, just fine.

Therefore, I will not be deploying IPv6 inside this network any time soon. Will my ISP switch me to IPv6 on the outside of my network? Perhaps, but I'll be keeping IPv4 on the inside until something makes for a decent reason to change it.

No need = no progress.

Re:Unwillingness to learn something new? (3, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318043)

They don't want to "solve their problem with IPv4". It's not like they've invested billions on 21CN and it can't do IPv6. There was some Cisco bug which meant IPv6 didn't work, so they said their wholesale broadband products (the products ISPs re-sell) don't support IPv6. The Cisco bug is now fixed, but they've apparently not deployed the fix everywhere. That's the story straight from TFA, so quite how they got that summary from it I don't know. BT haven't failed to consider IPv6 support at all, that's pure bullshit. IPv6 doesn't currently work properly on some of BT's kit, but is that because there's no demand so they haven't bothered with the fix? No, no. It can't be that. They must be idiots, or stuck in the past, or part of some fucking huge conspiracy to regress the country to the dark ages.

huh? (0, Troll)

peachstealingmonkeys (1268936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316907)

Another FUD article. BT's backbone supports IPv6. End-user (CPE's) devices might currently have a problem with IPv6 packets but it's a matter of a firmware fix. But saying "BT insists that IPv4 is enough for everyone" is just lame...

Re:huh? (2, Informative)

admcd (23824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317223)

Nope. This isn't a problem with CPE support for IPv6, it's a problem in BT's network.

There's some more information in this discussion thread:
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=btsupplier&Number=3448119&page=1&view=expanded&sb=5&o=0&fpart= [adslguide.org.uk]

Re:huh? (1)

peachstealingmonkeys (1268936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317455)

well, obviously with the PPP in the network you'd need a BRAS/NAS type of a gateway in order to 'enter' the backbone. But it's still part of the 'user connectivity' leg, not the backbone. Modding me as "troll" is a bit harsh. I was merely saying that the central backbone nodes in BT already run IPv6. The backbone-to-users gateways will be and ARE the biggest problem for IPv6 deployment and adoption. Every single ISP develops a migration plan, BT is behind like every one else trying to weed out and come up with user access scenarios. I'm not defending BT, don't get me wrong, just saying that uneducated trolls like that blog users create panic and spread FUD.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317383)

Who modded this Troll? Who exactly is he trolling? He seems to make a valid point.

Re:huh? (2, Informative)

lga (172042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317395)

Try reading the article. AAISP states that the problem is in BT's routers and a patch is available but they would rather say they don't support IPv6 than install the patch. How is it FUD?

Re:huh? (1, Flamebait)

peachstealingmonkeys (1268936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317561)

You want FUD? Saying "BT insists IPv4 is enough for everyone" is FUD. WTF is wrong with you people.

Just a possibility (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316921)

It might me possible that there's not much demand for static IPs in UK. When most customers don't have problems with DHCP, IPv4 address space will be sufficient because not all customers would be using their connections 24 hours.

Re:Just a possibility (1)

caramelcarrot (778148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317037)

Many people now use standalone modems often with a wireless connection in addition to ethernet. This means that most connections are actually permanently on and will require an IP.

Re:Just a possibility (3, Insightful)

tergvelo (926069) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317135)

It might me possible that there's not much demand for static IPs in UK. When most customers don't have problems with DHCP, IPv4 address space will be sufficient because not all customers would be using their connections 24 hours.

There's a few problems with that statement:
First: Unlike dialup users, broadband users tend to stay connected continuously (always-on).
Second: Even if the users were to disconnect from their service provider when not using the service, the DHCP lease would probably still be assigned.
Plus, it's not a long-term solution. Much like the other broadband issues here in the US (capacity), restricting users will only work temporarily. Eventually you'll still need to upgrade the system.
~t

Re:Just a possibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317203)

Particularly most users who like to troll forums that hand out IP-based bans. *unplugs modem, wanders off for a nap*

BT (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316949)

BT ... can one expect anything useful of them??

Have now been living 1 year here in this country and my experience with this company are enough for me (I have only a fixed line from them which I need to get internet from another ISP).

IPv4 is enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25316953)

When everyone else is using IPv6, UK can stay using IPv4 because there is more than enough addresses for them.

Stop whining, (4, Insightful)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316955)

I'm sure everyone is going to see that your IP address is 10.x.x.x soon. Enjoy the big NAT box in the sky. And I wish you luck getting your ports forwarded.

What BT Stands For (5, Funny)

manlygeek (958223) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316967)

Didn't you know that "BT" stands for "Behind the Times?" OTOH, If you insist on IPv6 you get to do lots of tunneling since almost no one else is on it either. Just goes to show you what happens to innovation in the presence of a large userbase and expensive infrastructure.

Supply and demand (1)

slysithesuperspy (919764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316987)

Does this not work in this area or something, what is the scare?

Wow (-1, Flamebait)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25316993)

That's pretty god-damned funny right there. Every time I get upset about our leader's lack of vision here in the US, I just have to think about the good old UK & I immediately feel a little better.

Thanks guys!

Re:Wow (0, Flamebait)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317231)

Yes, 105% Flamebait, but it really does make me smile inside!!!

FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317085)

IPv4 exhaustion will be an issue if, and only if, the price of IPv4 addresses starts to rise.

Right now, I pay about $1 per static IP address, per month. I'm quite happy with that.

If it rises to $10, or certainly $100, then I'll think about IPv6. Not before.

Personally, I find it funny that an incredibly lame protocol has been pushed for, oh, a decade now, using every trick possible except for the market.

I have news for the control freaks: the market wins.

Overrated (3, Insightful)

Anders (395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317091)

Haven't they noticed the IPv4 exhaustion report yet?

It seems IPv4 exhaustion is the new Y2K. Lots of reports, few problems.

Re:Overrated (1)

life atom (1374873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317259)

Few problems because of the reports. Or do you think those high y2k salaries for COBOL programmers were for chatting at the water cooler?

Or for ipv4: would you buy cheap routers now if they lacked ipv6?

Re:Overrated (1)

Anders (395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317367)

Or do you think those high y2k salaries for COBOL programmers were for chatting at the water cooler?

Uhm, yes. That was my point.

Obviously, there were some problems. There always is with software. But hell didn't break loose, power didn't go away, time didn't go backwards. This also goes for countries like Eastern Europe where little was spent on Y2K fixing.

Re:Overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317521)

The question about eastern europe is then how much computing infrustructure was critical and had issues with the date?

Re:Overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317661)

countries like Eastern Europe where little was spent on Y2K fixing.

Ah yes, the famous technological foreground, always on the bleeding edge. Obviously their Commodore 64s were Y2K proof from inception, they were so advanced :P

Re:Overrated (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317545)

Problem with that analogy: you might as well be talking about Y2K glitches in 1995. Also, Y2K was mostly a stupid high level programming problem with easy workarounds. This is hardware.

When the size of the internet requires it, we will have lots of problems. Switching everyone over to IPv6 over night will not work, and something has to happen soon. We haven't seen any problems yet because we do have ample addresses for the next couple years, and everyone can keep pretending like there's no problem until then (which will only make it worse when we hit the wall.)

Re:Overrated (1)

Anders (395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317659)

Problem with that analogy: you might as well be talking about Y2K glitches in 1995. Also, Y2K was mostly a stupid high level programming problem with easy workarounds. This is hardware.

Buying new hardware is pretty cheap, compared to having a consultant go through millions of lines of code. You do it every three years anyway.

IPv6 will happen as quickly as DVD did.

Wait a second... (1)

PJCRP (1314653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317111)

AAISP Blogspot

Hold on...

AAISP - Broadband you can work with

Waaaaaaaait...

Andrews & Arnold Ltd is a telephone service provider in the UK...

Can anybody say FUD business tactics?

Re:Wait a second... (3, Informative)

lga (172042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317329)

BT provides the backbone network and local loop used by most UK ISPs. AAISP is trying to provide IPv6 and can't because BT won't fix a bug in their network. Where's the FUD?

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317817)

Precisely, well put. The posting is of the status page from AA to their customers informing them of why AA are unable to support IP6 for them (they are one of only a few ISPs who offer IP6 to subscribers).

IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (4, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317119)

There is a small but growing number of folks who think IPv6 may be stillborn. The rationale goes something like this:

1. It's very expensive to upgrade an infrastructure of non-trivial size to IPv6 and that's only one of the several serious disincentives against deploying IPv6.

2. IPv6's rate of deployment to date can only be described as an abysmal commercial failure.

3. IPv6 fails to solve the Internet's core routing problem (reference the IRTF Routing Research Group). It's possible that a protocol which does solve that problem will leapfrog IPv6's deployment.

4. 2^32 addresses IS enough for everybody, IF most client computers are behind a NAT firewall. The count is too low only if most client computers need their own globally-routable address. That most client computers need their own globally-routable address is a dubious claim in light of today's wide deployment of NAT.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317245)

1. It's very expensive to upgrade an infrastructure of non-trivial size to IPv6 and that's only one of the several serious disincentives against deploying IPv6.

Waaah Waaah! We cheaped out during our last hardware upgrade cycle so we'd have to upgrade everything this time around! Waaah!

2. IPv6's rate of deployment to date can only be described as an abysmal commercial failure.

True, this is partly because a lot of ISPs will simply say NO to customers asking about IPv6. The ISP I'm using at home basically told me they are officially "testing" IPv6 for residential users but that this testing is very very limited and that business customers who want IPv6 get to pay extra for it. So I'm using a Sixxs tunnel for now.

3. IPv6 fails to solve the Internet's core routing problem (reference the IRTF Routing Research Group). It's possible that a protocol which does solve that problem will leapfrog IPv6's deployment.

The main problem IPv6 is supposed to solve is the same problem that the original IP protocol was supposed to solve, the lack of end-to-end addressing on the internet.

4. 2^32 addresses IS enough for everybody, IF most client computers are behind a NAT firewall. The count is too low only if most client computers need their own globally-routable address. That most client computers need their own globally-routable address is a dubious claim in light of today's wide deployment of NAT.

NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds. If you think this isn't so then you need to get your head out of the sand/your ass (your choice) and pay better attention.

/Mikael

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317447)

"NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds."

Yeah, but the pretty thing is that we are the ones suffering the problems caused by NAT, and spending on the workarounds. But the ISPs are the one economizing at the IPv6 migration.

You can arguee until the end of time that on a competitive environment, if the consumers want, somebody will supply them. But that doesn't make the broadband market competitive.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317777)

NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds.

Sorry, but you sound exactly like the Bellheads of yore who argued that the Internet was a horrid kludgy mess, and whay everyone actually needed was ATM to the desktop. Afterall, they argued, there's absolutely no way you could get effective video or voice over a medium with no decent QoS, end-to-end bandwidth reservation system etc.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317781)

My NAT router doubles as a firewall. I like that my computer is not directly accessible to anyone.

I bought a good router that is compatible with all of the NAT traversal methods so my stuff works.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318157)

You could, um, still use a hardware firewall.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (-1, Flamebait)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318163)

What you want is a firewall then, something that does packet filtering, not NAT. I really can't be bothered arguing about this for the millionth time, as the kids say "LAERN 2 NETWURKS".

/Mikael

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (3, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317953)

NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds.

It's exactly the non-brokenness of IPv6 in this regard that makes some people think twice about it. NAT is perfect for consumers, because you can't have *servers* strewn about every household with it, while you can perfectly consume (as you should). With IPv6 you can have every device having its own (even static) IP and as such can have it act as a reliably reachable server. This thought is a nightmare for some.

Re:IPv6 is a dud (maybe) (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318165)

With IPv6 you can have every device having its own (even static) IP and as such can have it act as a reliably reachable server. This thought is a nightmare for some.

Not for me!! When you return home to find a truck-sized box of butter on your doorstep, you'll know to go to your fridge and turn off the 'automatically reorder on low stock' option on its internal webserver. Mouhhaahahahahhaa, my dreams of dairy domination will take over the world!

Now, who needs more cheese.....

Its easier now (1)

sdemjanenko (1296903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317173)

i would think that some sort of mandate would be put out forcing any new networks that are put down to be IPv6. I mean its not like we do not see this coming. Maybe people have the mentality of Moore's law that electronic will be cheaper in the future so we might as well keep putting it off. But heck, those IPv4 networks will just upgrade themselves.

IPv4 exhaustion is a myth (1, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317225)

from the same alarmist that warned about global warming, market dropping and dodo extintion. Nothing to see here, move along (but not too much, you will hit someone's else IP space).

Misleading title (2, Informative)

johnw (3725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317249)

The title "No IPV6 for UK broadband users" is significantly misleading. BT are far from being the only broadband provider in the UK. My ISP - using ADSL over BT lines - provides me with full IPv6 connectivity and has done for some time.

BT and the other big players are targeting the mass market and Joe Public hasn't even heard of IPv6 yet, let alone asked for it. If you want competent technical support then you don't use BT or any of the other mass-market players.

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317419)

Care to share which ISP you are using?

Re:Misleading title (2, Informative)

admcd (23824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317437)

In this case "BT" actually means "BT wholesale", so the issue applies to any ISP which uses BT's DSL platform. This includes both AAISP (the ISP in the linked article) and Entanet (resold by various other ISPs), the only two UK ISPs I know of who offer native IPv6 over DSL.

who are they, i'd like to swap pls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317489)

title says it all

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317585)

"IPv4 considered harmful" considered harmful.

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317897)

The problem is that ISPs using ADSL over BT lines (non-LLU) cannot provide native IPv6 because BT's equipment has a bug and they won't upgrade.

The ISP complaining about this is one of these ISPs that has been providing native IPv6 over non-LLU.

RTFA!

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317935)

On a technical front, yes, ISPs (like AAISP) offer perfectly working native IPv6 over many BT lines. It is only some that don't work and only native IPv6. But commercially BT apparently are saying that if that stops working they won't fix it - this is what has happened and why it all came up.

I thought IPv6 had encryption built in, UK gov .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317281)

will not allow. BT will enforce UK gov. policy

Bob

Commercial home products and IPv6 (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317311)

As far as I'm aware, business-grade networking stuff has been IPv6 aware and compliant for a few years now, but I've yet to see a Router marketed towards the home user that seemed to support it. I bought myself a new Wireless-N ADSL2+ router/modem comby unit only a few weeks ago and IPv6 isn't mentioned anywhere near it. I'd love to see a good Router that supported IPv6 and didn't cost 3 figures, does anyone here know of any out there?

Is it possible for ISPs to run an IPv6 network while the home users still use IPv4? Would it be possible to assign them any ol' IPv4 address, have the BT servers slap an IPv6 packet around it and send it on without breaking everything?

I'm guessing this is the real problem with upgrading the network - you can't just upgrade a few big hubs here and there, you need to update EVERYONE using the network and I doubt many people are going to take kindly to having to fork out £50 (because that seems to be the price all the ISPs here quote for their own supplied routers/modems) just to keep using their internets, which have worked fine for years anyway, forcing ISPs to foot the bill for all that new hardware.
However, the least they could do is support IPv6 and just roll it out to new customers, while encouraging old customers to switch over (such as faster speeds - spend £50 and get a "Free" bandwidth upgrade, or something). If new customers go directly onto IPv6, there shouldn't be a problem with regards to costly upgrades and we'll not run out of IPv4 addresses (Simply because nobody should be allocating more) before everyone has a chance to migrate to the new networks.

here in the states (3, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317401)

we are switching over from analog to digital television transmission in february 2009. at that date, analog tv will simply disappear. if you have an older tv without a converter, it simply won't work. to get this to happen, the government and broadcasters had to sit down, make a timetable, and implement it

in this way, and ONLY IN THIS WAY, were we ever going to switch to digital transmission. furthermore, in this way, and only in this way, will any country ever make the switch to IPv6

there is no free market solution to this problem. in fact, according to principles of the free market, you are punished for making the extra expense and becoming a first adapter: you spend all this time and money, and no one is going to consume what you offer on the new protocol. why? because everyone is making their material avaiable on IPv4, so that's where the audience stays. the inertia is heavy

so either everyone switches to IPv6, or no one switches IPv6. there is no gradual changeover, because there is no incentive, and only punishment for all of the effort, for being a first adapter

governments have to mandate IPv6 changeover. that is only way IPv6 will ever happen. doesn't matter in the slightest how superior IPv6 is. punishment of early adapters trumps all observations of technological superiority

Non-story. (3, Informative)

Pahalial (580781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317409)

The whole issue has come about because of a bug in CISCO equipment which BT use which is affecting use of IPv6 for some of AAISP's customers. It only affects some of BT's network. Even though we believe this bug was identified and fixed by CISCO a long time ago, BT appear to be refusing to rectify the problem, preferring to simply say they do not support IPv6.

So in short, as soon as they start having to pay more for IPv4 blocks, they'll update their firmware. Merely some billable network admin hours, not millions of pounds wasted as the summary implies.

Offshore IP address drilling (4, Funny)

jassa (1092003) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317417)

The solution to IPv4 address exhaustion is offshore IP address drilling, but Obama would rather punish small business owners with outdated equipment!

...I think I've been watching too many political conferences/debates.

tubgirrl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317453)

coHunteRpart, [goat.cx]

naaahhhhh...this is the plan (2, Funny)

OutOnARock (935713) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317519)



They'll just NAT the whole country, everybody, behind one honking big firewall and monitor everybody's traffic :)

At first this was funny, but on review it got a little bit scary.....

IPv6 vs. IPv4 (2, Insightful)

savanik (1090193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317543)

Haven't they noticed the IPv4 exhaustion report yet?

IPv6 will continue to be used until the pain of using IPv4 exceeds the pain of switching to IPv6. The issues are many, varied, and thoroughly discussed elsewhere. My personal highlights are NAT having eliminated most of the address space limitations - most companies, even medium-large ones, can make do with 4-8 external IPs - and the complete and utter unwieldiness of IPv6 addresses. No way am I going to be able to memorize one of those, ever. DNS will become mandatory to do anything. That, and nobody uses IPv6 in the first place.

Just more IPv6 scareware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25317667)

I, for one, do not welcome our new IPv6 underlords.

Qwest in the US too... (1)

neowolf (173735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317747)

While I don't know of their entire network structure, I've been trying to get an IPv6 block from Qwest in the USA for over a year now. The last thing I heard from them is they "might" be "beta testing something" next year.

I'll admit I haven't actively looked in about a year, but I don't believe there are any broadband ISPs in the USA actively working on IPv6.

Considering the figures for IPv6 that have been paraded around- everyone should be able to get their own block, and every device can have it's own IPv6 address. We don't seem to be any closer to that than we were five years ago. Hasn't it been over ten years since IPv6 was first RFC-ed?

Re:Qwest in the US too... (1)

neowolf (173735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317807)

I meant to clarify too- this is for a DS3 line for the business I work for, not just something like DSL at home.

IPv4 is drying up - and i'm not helping (1)

KingJ (992358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317761)

I moved to a new UK ISP today (away from BT) and included free of charge was a block of 8 static IPv4 addresses, on a 'home' package. Don't know what i'm going to do with all of them... It seems that it's only BT the ISP that are doing this however, not BT Wholesale, who are required to provide open access to any ADSL provider on the phone lines. Therefore, while my data with my new ISP travels across BT's phone lines, it's switched into my ISP at the local exchange, completely bypassing all of BT's nasties.

It's BT... (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 5 years ago | (#25317819)

Do you actually believe they'd do something good for their customers?

Our lines are way behind, and we don't even have the excuse of the low-density population the US does.

The UK is by far behind when it comes to this kind of thing, and it's only getting worse.

Speaking of IPv6 (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318003)

Speaking of IPv6, you'd think that the leading tech news site would, in 2008, be supporting it.

$ dig +short slashdot.org aaaa
$

Africa != UK (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25318013)

So, Afrinic has moved to IPv6 but the kingdom where the sun always shines (at least at one time) is still stuck on IPv4. Interesting.

We can switch to IPv6 in about week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25318101)

All we need to do is make sites such as thepiratebay, imdb, google, youtube IPv6 only.
Customers pressure will do the rest.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?