Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

IPv6 Adoption Up 300 Percent Over 2 Years

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the final-curve-will-be-interesting dept.

The Internet 425

Mark.J - ISPreview writes "The Number Resource Organization, which is made up of the five Regional Internet Registries, has revealed that the rate of new entrants into the IPv6 routing system has increased by 300% over the past two years. The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out. IPv6 addressing (e.g. 2ffe:1800:3525:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf) was invented as a longer and more secure replacement." IPv6 is still gaining ground slowly, particularly in the US.

cancel ×

425 comments

First iP!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003059)

1.1.1.1

wow (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003071)

And the rate of downloads of Ubuntu 8.10 is up infinity percent in the past two years.

Re:wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003523)

In other news, every milk drinker in the past 5 centuries have died and Franco is still dead!

up 300%? (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003073)

you mean it went from 1 person to 3 people?

Re:up 300%? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003159)

No, up by 300% would means there are now 4 users.

</pedant>

Re:up 300%? (4, Interesting)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003561)

No, the rate went up by 300%, not the total number of entrants. I.e., instead of 1 person/year we're now up to 4 people/year ;)

Re:up 300%? (-1, Offtopic)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003631)


wow. I mean, like.. wow
100% of 1 is 1
200% of 1 is 2
300% of 1 is 3
or
100% + 200% = 300%
1 + 2 = 3


Where the heck do you guys get 4 from?

Re:up 300%? (3, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003713)

We get it from basic English skills. It's "up 300%" not "300% of what it was".

1 -> 3 = 300% of what it was.
1 -> 4 = up 300%.

Again:

300% x 1 = 3

1 + 3 = 4

Re:up 300%? (4, Informative)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003745)

If something increases by 0%, that means it stays the same, not disappears completely. If something increases by 100%, that means it doubles, not stays the same. Induction can take it from here.

So this means ... (-1, Redundant)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003081)

that now there are three IPV6 networks, rather than just the one 2 years ago ?

Re:So this means ... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003143)

No, now there are four networks.

If you're gonna make fun of the summary at least make sure you can work out what an increase of 300% from 1 is.

Fun with statistics (-1, Redundant)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003087)

"The number of IPv6 networks has increased by 300%" could easily be interpreted as the number going from 1 to 4.

Of course, that's not exactly true from RTFA, but it's a classic method of lying with statistics.

Re:Fun with statistics (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003179)

Why is that lying?

what's that ip address? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003103)

Doing a trace route to that IP address went from my computer, to China, then back to my laptop, one more hop, and then timed out. Weird!

Re:what's that ip address? (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003145)

That's the first thing I did, too (thinking a "why you post my address?" post was probably lame). It timed out after some 25 hops.

Trying it again now, whatever it is -- it's slashdotted! Oops, sorry I guess.

First time we've slashdotted an unknown target?

Re:what's that ip address? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003675)

Maybe IPv6 is some kind of routing bytecode that is executed on your machine instead of an address. It looks suspiciously long to be merely an address.

IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1, Insightful)

Drachs (29694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003109)

God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.

There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.

IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003209)

Kapor is in his element now, fluent, thoroughly in command in his material. "You go tell a hardware Internet hacker that everyone should have a node on the Net," he says, "and the first thing they're going to say is, 'IP doesn't scale!'" ("IP" is the interface protocol for the Internet. As it currently exists, the IP software is simply not capable of indefinite expansion; it will run out of usable addresses, it will saturate.) "The answer," Kapor says, "is: evolve the protocol! Get the smart people together and figure out what to do. Do we add ID? Do we add new protocol? Don't just say, we can't do it."

Source: http://www.mit.edu/hacker/part4.html [mit.edu]

Also posted before, for example at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1046105&cid=25933303 [slashdot.org]

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003267)

God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.

And everyone who's a network admin knows that it is.

Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

Great, so I can re-write every application to support a half-assed workaround like NAT. I'd much rather have each host bugging the crap out of the router to forward a specific port, please! than to just get the migration over with and be done with it. If you think that NAT+uPNP is a replacement for IPv6, then you need to find a hobby more suited to your skill level.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003385)

rewrite? What world are you living in where you didn't already have to do that? The corp where I work has a huge number of ip4 addresses, and we actually average about 1 per business unit...That's not even 10% of our assigned ips. Even if we wanted to put more things directly on the net, we'd never be able to afford the corporate mandated security architecture for every exposed machine.

Sounds to me like you're the one living in hobby-land. Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003487)

Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.

Unless they want to use something as exotic and unpopular as BitTorrent, you might be right.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (4, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003667)

Incompatibility with bittorrent is often regarded as a feature by corporations.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003733)

Or you could forward the port? The two machines in my LAN that I want BitTorrent on work just fine. If someone else in the company installs it, I'll try to get them fired anyway.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003545)

Ugh, I meant to say more before I posted. Anyway, here's the rest:

The main reason I mentioned publicly addressable hosts was that the OP brought it up when he mentioned UPnP in conjunction with NAT. No, you don't need (or want) every host to be directly reachable. When you do, though, a real end-to-end solution like IPv6 is vastly preferable to a slew of machines behind the NAT asking for port allocations.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (4, Informative)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003665)

Most machines don't need an externally accessible IP.

Which has nothing to do with the IPv4 vs IPv6 debate. Regardless of which stack you use, you are never forced to have externally accessible IP addresses. This is what firewalls, routers, and reserved, non-routable addresses are for.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1, Informative)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003457)

Just what are you writing that your apps require a public IP? Every app I - and the many companies I support - use have no problem with NAT. Most of our apps, of course, run internally in our network, which of course uses a private internal network, class A,B or C depending upon size.

I'm quite happy with NAT.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003613)

Just what are you writing that your apps require a public IP?

As mentioned in another comment, I was responding to the OP's mention of NAT+UPnP as a substitute for public addressing.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (5, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003673)

Lots of them.

Any kind of webserver. Try running two of them on the same IP address.

Of the above, especially websites using SSL. Can't have more than one per IP address.

FTP is a horrible pain when NAT is involved.

Many video conference applications.

Programs like instant messengers with file transfer.

BitTorrent and any form of P2P in general.

IPsec in transport mode

Many games. Two players trying to play online doesn't work at all with some games, no matter how much you fiddle with NAT.

Remote desktop. When troubleshooting, I can't just ask the person I'm helping to install VNC, because then I'd have to explain to them how open the port.

I'm sure the list can get a good deal longer, but this seems enough.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0, Redundant)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003795)

Any kind of webserver. Try running two of them on the same IP address.

Seriously? I guess you have never heard of virtual hosting.

Remote desktop. When troubleshooting, I can't just ask the person I'm helping to install VNC, because then I'd have to explain to them how open the port.

If you can't provide them with a batch file that opens port 5900 for you, then stop trying to do remote support. Also remote desktop != vnc.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003783)

I'm quite happy with NAT.

Then your networking needs are simplistic at best. Take a look at how many coders are forced to implement "NAT punch-through" - and this is for fairly simplistic requirements. Wouldn't it be nice if the networking stack actually took care of the end-to-end details - as intended? And there are still times where heavily NAT'd networks still have problems with "NAT punch-through" if the need is as complex as peer to peer. Ya, I know...complex stuff like peer to peer. Wow.

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have things "just work" while getting all the additional benefits IPv6 provides? Most in the know think so.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003499)

So you rather rewrite all your application to handle IPv6? You must need more work to do. Here is real life with real life.

1. Many Legacy Applications which will cost millions of dollars to move over first to an OS/Hardware that can support IPv6. Then debug them and fix problems that have been resolved 20 years ago that resurface. BTW Most of these apps have poor documentation at best.

2. Communication with less hip people. You may want to convert to IPv6 but the company you are sharing data with isn't so savvy. So you need to wait until they are ready. And they won't switch because you haven't

3. Old Infrastructure ok your software can do it. Now you need to replace the infrastructure.

So try to explain to your boss that it is better to spend 3 Millions of dollars for IPv6 jump. vs. Spending an extra $100k a year to keep the existing app running with NAT+uPNP patched code. (BTW if you fail to see the math it will take 30 years to get a return on the investment. )

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003511)

Great, so I can re-write every application to support a half-assed workaround like NAT

Then you did it wrong. Quit assuming you have a clear path back to the client. An outbound connection from the client to the server is all you should need. Use that as a command connection. If you need more connections for data transfer and whatever else, you signal the client to send more connection requests to you. Even if the whole world switched to IPv6, the same "problems" you insist upon will still be there. People will be still going through a firewall/router, with all incoming connections blocked by default... so you STILL can't assume that you will have a clear path back to the client.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003549)

Then you did it wrong. Quit assuming you have a clear path back to the client. An outbound connection from the client to the server is all you should need.

Quit assuming there's always a client and a server. Ever heard of P2P?

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003761)

Not that I agree either way but in peer-to-peer there isn't some sort of magical new way of making connections going on. You bittorrent software just acts as both a client and server simultaneously.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003773)

There is always a server. Even multicast has a server.

However, with P2P, a client acts like a server some of the time, and as a client others. It fills both roles as needed.

Quit talking out of your ass.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003287)

We pay $8-$10/mo each for our ~150 IP addresses, and we're a relatively small company.

I really don't think $1/year will make that much difference.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003355)

You pay that much for having the address? Holy fark.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003455)

We do the same, and we have a huge number of unused addresses. The way they're sold, you end up getting x with each class of line, so you buy a T2 or a T3 and you get a big pile of addresses, but we nat and proxy everything so we use hardly any of them.

Hell, I get 5 free with my DSL account, and 5 bucks more a month wouldn't be a deal breaker even there.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (4, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003353)

Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

NAT is a hack, and uPNP is not universally supported -- not in the routers themselves, and not in every program you might want t ob accessible.

Besides which, there are a limited number of ports, and you're still preventing people from picking a standard port and leaving it open, to connect to it later -- for instance, if my ISP NATs me, how do I ssh or vpn back home? Let alone run a webserver out of my house..

That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.

True, but consider that IPv6 would prevent anything like that from happening again.

Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.

I'd also very likely see my own public-facing IP go away, and more and more ISPs NAT-ing all their customers -- who are then doubly-NATed behind their routers -- which is then a gigantic pain in the ass to deal with, versus simply upgrading to ipv6.

I'd also likely see my hosting costs go up a bit.

All to manage this artificial scarcity, and push it back for awhile -- which could be so easily dealt with by simply upgrading to ipv6, and giving an IP address to every device on the planet -- and, as a nice side effect, making it possible for me to assign a public-facing IP address and DNS entry for every toaster in my house.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003791)

anything that could potentially become self aware and harm me will never have an IP address. not in this house.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003445)

God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.

There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

That really isn't entirely true.

NAT and uPnP may work well for your average home user... But it causes some headaches in larger networks. And if you've got a pile of servers that need to be globally accessible - like webservers - you don't really have an alternative to multiple IP addresses.

That's not even getting into all the millions of unused IP's being held by the early internet companies.

This is certainly true. There are several huge blocks of IP addresses sitting unused. Freeing these up would go a long way towards keeping IPv4 alive. At least for a while...

IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.

It might very well vanish overnight... But it'll return eventually. The fact of the matter is that we keep coming up with new reasons to route information over the Internet. And all these new devices and gadgets require an IP address.

One of the cities that we support recently bought a new chiller for their ice rink. Their old one was just managed in-house. You had to be standing in front of the device to do much of anything. And if it was malfunctioning they had to send someone out to eyeball the machine. Their new one has a network jack and can be monitored remotely through a web interface. So we had to get them bandwidth and a static IP address so they could keep an eye on things even when nobody was physically at the civic center.

Sure, there are some absolutely stupid and frivolous things we're doing these days. Folks don't need to be able to surf the Internet from their microwave oven. But it is getting to the point where we expect to be able to gather information from just about everything, and view it just about everywhere. Folks expect to be able to hit Google or Wikipedia from their cell phones. Lots of industrial equipment can be managed remotely. I know I routinely troubleshoot issues remotely.

To a certain degree we can hide these devices behind NAT... I can have a dozen web-enabled appliances in my house and just use different ports forwarded through a single NAT'ed IP address to access them. But what about devices that don't necessarily sit behind a router? What about my web-enabled phone?

And what happens when the ISPs start running out of addresses? Are they going to install giant NAT routers themselves? Are we going to wind up with several layers of NAT?

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (0)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003591)

You state:

Their new one has a network jack and can be monitored remotely through a web interface. So we had to get them bandwidth and a static IP address so they could keep an eye on things even when nobody was physically at the civic center.

and:

I know I routinely troubleshoot issues remotely.

Try LogMeIn or GoToMyPC, or something similar. I manage nearly 100 remote PCs thru LogMeIn, and only 3 of them have static IPs.

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (2, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003513)

Yes, NAT is wonderful.

Like when I want to play a game online with me, a friend in my house, and people over the internet. Then we're sometimes confronted with that the game wants specifically port 12345 on UDP open, and there's no way to NAT that to two computers at once. There goes at least half an hour of everybody's time, plus another half an hour to convince the less technical players that no, it's not working and it's not going to.

UPNP doesn't solve this problem, and is yet another horrible hack that should never have existed in the first place, along with NAT. Thanks to UPNP any crap you get infected with can request the router to open a port for it to receive instructions. Isn't that wonderfully convenient?

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003515)

There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

Yeah, unless you still hold out hopes that the internet could live up to its original promise of being a network of peers, where a person's home computer could be their server when they are out.

Throwing people behind ever increasing layers of NAT erodes the functionality of the internet. If your goal is simply to disprove that IP addresses are running out, that may be acceptable. If you don't want to turn the internet into a series of essentially uni-directional gateways, then it isn't.

I want a static IP. And it's not even an unreasonable request, we have the solution right here, it's just going to take time to get adopted. So what's yer beef?

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (2, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003527)

God, I'm tired of it being repeated that IPV4 addresses are running out. Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.

There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

I'm so tired of seeing someone post this rubbish every time these articles come out. uPNP is a security issue and many routers either don't support it or smartly have it turned off. NAT is a hak at best and limits the power of users while creating no end of issues for others. Anyone that still believes NAT is a solution compared to IPv6 is uninformed at best.

Unless you see companies giving up massive IPv4 blocks (which isn't happening), we ARE running out of addresses. Period. We have two choices, force blocks to be freed, which is unlikely, or migrate to IPv6. IPv4 has so many issues, only a dope would spend political clout freeing IPv4 when we already have IPv6 which addresses the core issue while fixing so many of IPv4 woes.

Does, "pick your battles", mean anything?

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

fyonn (115426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003537)

Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible{/i>

and also not universal. there's also NAT-PMP and they don't interoperate. so if you've got a router supporting UPnP, and your machine/app supports NAT-PMP then it's not gonna work.

dave

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1, Flamebait)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003611)

IPv4 is running out, you idiot.

Please, next time you feel the urge to post nonsensical drivel, think about it first. NAT + uPNP is NOT perfectly capable and compatible. It's a fucking ugly hack, causing numerous security issues or making them worse like the last DNS vulnerability. Also, if all the IPv4 ips would be sanely distributed and rationed, people calculated that we'd only gain a few months, a year more tops until the pool runs out completely.

Why charge for IPs when all you need is to switch to a different numbering, solving the problem properly? You do realise that sticking with IPv4 will be a huge economic burden on the long term, don't you?

Everybody who's not a journalist should know that it's not true.

But how can I argue with that! Everyone who's not a journalist knows it's not true, well except the little fringe lunatic organization holding together the actual allocations of IPv4 addresses in Europe called RIPE, or the similar organizations all around the world. In fact, "There is now consensus among Regional Internet Registries that final milestones of the exhaustion process will be met in 2010 or 2011, at the latest, and a policy process has started for the end-game and post-exhaustion era." [ripe.net]

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003643)

IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.

You miss the point.

Internet now has much much more participants than 10 years ago.

IPv4 are running out because compromise was made on management side. Essentially, Internet management is loose because people want to encourage participation. Do not forget that Internet is merely set of connected proprietary networks, operated by all possible entities. And every of the entities wants to have some address space to grow.

I frankly do not see any problem with going to IPv6 as most of the network equipment was ready for several years now.

There's no reason every person on earth needs an IP. Nat+uPNP is perfectly capable and 100% backwords compatible.

Had you ever tried to operate middle to large sized network, you would understand that adding extra layer at every interconnect would make Internet infrastructure at least twice more expensive. I'd say that costs would at least quadruple since such smart equipment, supporting dynamic resource management, costs at least 4 times more if compared to its plain version. (e.g. compare prices on "switch" vs. "managed switch" to see the difference).

Making Internet infrastructure expensive => killing Internet.

P.S. And do not get me started on the "uPNP" bogosity which doesn't even belong to the discussion...

Re:IPV4 addresses are NOT running out (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003739)

IP's just need to be charged for on a early basis. Start with $1 per year per ip to EVERYONE who owns an IP's and you'll see the "IP Shortage" vanish overnight.

Ordinarily, I'd be the last person on earth who'd suggest charging a fee for entirely virtual goods. The current domain registration and SSL certificate signing systems are both a complete farce at best and a bloody scam at worst.

But there has to be better management of IPv4. I've worked for (or with) ISPs and web hosting providers who waste IPs like you wouldn't believe. At one ISP, every hosting customer is given four IPs free with their account and only about 20% ever use more than one. Entire /24s are allocated for some goon's project that never sees completion and the IPs are never freed up and reused. Where I currently work, there is not a single 192.168.x.x or 10.x.x.x network. I've seen more than one shop where every device on the internal office network (including wifi APs and printers) is given an Internet IP and then firewalled off from the Internet.

I know these companies pay something for their IPs, but currently they're cheap enough that they can be wasted left and right. That needs to stop.

Oh yeah, uPnP, nice, nice (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003765)

Have you ever looked at the specs? Did you understand anything?

I thought so.

Here's a simple case where you can't argue there's enough IPv4. Soon all mobile phones will be IP capable. Each having a unique address would be nice. BOOM! Impossible with IPv4. Not even enough room in 10.0.0.0/24 *right now* to put all mobile phones.

Confusing headline (1)

Bwian_of_Nazareth (827437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003115)

So which is it... change of rate of adoption (as the summary indicates) or adoption (as the headline indicates)? (And no, I have not RTFA.)

up 300%!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003123)

so we went from 20 ipv6 systems to 60. yippie...

I so wish that the major backbones would grow a pair and simply start a migration plan and force all customers to upgrade to ipv6.

Oh wait, they would have to spend money to upgrade their gear as well...

Impressive (0, Redundant)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003165)

So now the total number is what... 4?

300%? (2, Informative)

philippic (1008271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003177)

Ah, the IPv6 Mess [cr.yp.to] .

300% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003199)

That's impossible. No one can give more than 100%. By definition that's the most any one can give.

Free cake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003207)

From 2 to 6 users! Cake for all 6 of you!

Um dx/dt != x (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003211)

The title is misleading, the rate of adoption went up 300%, that doesn't mean there are 300% more users.

fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003213)

woot

0*1 = 0, 0*2= 0 etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003227)

In other news:
The number of solid gold statues in my living room increased by over NINETHOUSAND percent

300% increase?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003259)

from 2 to 6 people??

So this means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003261)

that it went from 1 person, to 4?

So there's three users now? (-1, Offtopic)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003281)

By next year it could be as much as seven or eight!

The big boys are actually seeing some buy-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003285)

My company sells some monitoring software to people like Verizon Business and other MSPs and the big boys are finally seeing some IPv6 buy-in. There's a government mandate or two floating around as well (for their governmental services) that require it as well. It's one of our priorities in the next year or so.

That looks silly.. (1, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003291)

I'm not sure why but I was always under the impression that an ipv6 ip looked more like ipv4, ie, 192.168.1.1.1.1. The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?

Re:That looks silly.. (2, Interesting)

josquint (193951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003351)

The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?

IIRC, it does. I thought it appended the MAC address to the first part of the IP, and the second part is assigned(statically?) by the DHCP(?) server.

The OTHER "Mac" Addresses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003601)

What's not mentioned in this article is the fact that a significant percentage of the increases are coming from Macintosh OS X systems being brought online, which enable IP6 by default.

Re:That looks silly.. (2, Informative)

HBI (604924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003427)

Well, one good reason is that MAC addresses do not have embedded routing information in them and do not pass off the local network. They were intended for local identification of the interface and have manufacturer information and a serial number in there by default.

Another is that the MAC address space is smaller than the IPv6 space.

Re:That looks silly.. (2, Informative)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003429)

Which part are you complaining about? The use of hex? The use of colons? The length? The use of hexadecimal digits is to make it shorter, I think (since the addresses are so long). I believe the colons are to unambiguously distinguish them from IPv4 addresses.

One thing the summary didn't show was the use of the double-colon. IPv6 addresses commonly have long sequences of zeroes in them, so you can write something like 3f::4:1e:f106 and everything between the :: is zeroes (enough zeroes to make it the right length).

It depends on how the networks are set up, of course, but a lot of IPv6 addresses will have MAC addresses embedded in them. The idea is that you as a consumer get a /64 subnet (instead of a single IP). You might typically then have 256 hosts in that subnet, and each host can have as many devices as it wants (each device distinguished by its MAC).

Re:That looks silly.. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003557)

IPv6 has 64-bit addresses. MAC addresses are only 48-bits wide. Some addressing schemes use MAC addresses as part of the address to ensure no IP conflicts can exist.

Re:That looks silly.. (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003597)

I'm not sure why but I was always under the impression that an ipv6 ip looked more like ipv4, ie, 192.168.1.1.1.1. The way it actually looks, why not just use MAC addresses?

You could, probably, represent both IPv4 and IPv6 identically if you really wanted to... I mean, ultimately, they're both binary numbers. It isn't like the computer is actually dealing with dotted decimals - that's just to make it human-readable.

IPv6 uses hexadecimal instead of just plain decimal to make things shorter. Otherwise the addresses would be simply ginormous. And it uses colons, instead of periods, to unambiguously distinguish it from IPv4.

As far as using MAC addresses... The only reason they look at all similar is because MAC addresses are also typically written using hexadecimal. Beyond that there isn't much similarity. MAC addresses are relatively short, and wouldn't provide anywhere near the address space that IPv6 does. I don't think they're routable either. And they aren't necessarily unique - just unique enough to make sure you aren't likely to have duplicates on your own network.

If I recall correctly, IPv6 auto-configuration does make use of your MAC address. The idea is that you'd get a static IP block from your ISP, and instead of each device on your LAN getting a private IP address that isn't globally routable your router would generate globally routable IP addresses by appending the device's MAC address to the static IP block your ISP gave you.

Of course you wouldn't have to do that... You could still take a single IPv6 address and NAT everything behind it if you really wanted to... And I guess it might make sense from the standpoint of providing a basic level of security... But there's no reason you couldn't just implement a real firewall instead.

300%!!! (0, Redundant)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003343)

Wow - usage went from 1 to 4! Outstanding!

I think the slowly... (1)

Raleel (30913) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003363)

particularly applies to the US, not necessarily the adoption part :)

Obviously technologically superior (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003367)

The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out. IPv6 addressing (e.g. 2ffe:1800:3525:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf) was invented as a longer and more secure replacement.

Look! IPv4 addresses just have numbers and dots. IPv6 addresses have numbers AND letters . . . and colons (TWO stacked dots)!

No question, which one is better, and tastes better, and lasts longer, and is less filling.

I'd like the IPv6 prefix dead:beef, please and thank, you.

Re:Obviously technologically superior (1)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003775)

You can want on dead:beef:: all day long - me and Windows ME have had ::dead:beef for a decade now.

How many years before we run out of IPv4? (0, Redundant)

ACK!! (10229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003389)

I mean it seems like I have been seeing this statement for years. We are running out of IPv4 addresses and the sky is falling. There has to be something real behind at least part of this right? So does anyone have a real number or time in which we will really run out of IPv4 addresses?

Re:How many years before we run out of IPv4? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003485)

http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003403)

46:49:52:53:54:21

Sorry about that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003419)

I will turn off my two routers ASAP.

periodically? (0)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003431)

The news is important because IPv4 addresses (e.g. 123.23.56.98), which are assigned to your computer periodically, are running out.

I dunno, most computers I know that receive IP address leases periodically use 192.168.x.x and 10.x.x.x because they are DHCP'd off a LAN. Please let me know when we run out of those. On the other hand, many computers with permanent IP assignments or consumer modems that request public IP addresses may be in danger...

Re:periodically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003763)

For pete's sakes, do you know how much trouble it is to diagnose a connection for voice or video chat? It could be anything between their connection, their firewall, their NAT, my firewall, my connection, and my NAT. Lets take out two of those NATs and the diagnosis becomes 100 times easier because more often than not the problem is with the NATs.

That's my IP you insensitive clod. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003443)

123.23.56.98 is my IP, you insensitive clod.

So is 127.0.0.1 for future reference.

Relative instead of absolute? Round percent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003465)

Normally this is what you do to spin an adoption increase from 1 to 4 in a positive light.

IPv6 address for slashdot.org (5, Insightful)

Radoslaw Zielinski (1378711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003475)

Any chance Slashdot could get IPv6 connectivity?

Progress in this direction is "stuff that matters", after all...

Re:IPv6 address for slashdot.org (1)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003793)

^^ mod up ^^

yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003483)

a 300% increase of 0 is still 0

Enough jokes about it going from 1 to 3 people.... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003491)

Seriously, what percentage of internet nodes are now IPv6 compliant? Anyone have those numbers?

Re:Enough jokes about it going from 1 to 3 people. (1)

revxul (463513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003605)

I had to get mine in. I'm done now. I also, in seriousness, want the raw numbers.

Wow (0, Redundant)

kd3bj (733314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003497)

Great news! What _other_ two systems are using IPv6 now?

I'll switch when my ISP does (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003501)

First off, anybody who thinks that NAT is a long term solution to the IP address shortage is fooling themselves. NAT is a stopgap solution that has a scant handful of years left in it (some estimates say as little as 3-4 years). IPv6 is the only long term solution we have at the moment.

The biggest thing holding me back from switching is that my ISP [verizon.com] doesn't seem to care one whiff about switching. The only way I have available to get on is to set up a tunnel, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of IPv6. I don't want to run IPv6 just for the sake of saying that I run IPv6, I want to run it so I can have an address for every device and finally get rid of the annoying NAT solutions.

Who needs to do what? (1)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003553)

The one thing I don't understand about all of these IPv6 stories is who are we waiting on? Do I need to make some change to my router? My computer? Should I be calling my ISP demanding that they make the change?

User traceability & Up 300% from a tiny base (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003585)

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" [Mark Twain]

Yes, IPv6 is up. It could hardly be otherwise from such a small base. However, I still have major concerns about privacy/anonymity/security and separately about overhead.

I would not be at all surprised to see IPv6 as the choice of policemen and totalitarian states. Far easier user traceability.

oooo (0, Redundant)

revxul (463513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003593)

I know I'm gong to be modded down for this crack, but...

Wow! It went from one user to three!

So where is the IPv4 to IPv6 translator servers? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003625)

Seems like we all could switch over fairly easily if there was a DNS type of system for translating between the address spaces.

Would work like this:

Every current IPv4 address would be assigned a concurrent IPv6 address.

When a client node requests an IPv4 address, that request gets routed to a DNS type server somewhere close by which translates it to an IPv6 address and passes the request on to the proper end node along with the requesters IPv4 address for return responses which then get routed similarly.

As more IPv6 client and server nodes come on line, more and more simply pass through the translation router with no modification.

i'm sure I've vastly simplified things, care to comment?

IPv6.66 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003627)

Just wait until IPv6.66, Fractional Satan Edition. Only then will our colons contain enough bits to address every atom in the universe.

So what? What should I be doing? (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003635)

It seems like every month we see something more about IPv6, and the pressures to move to it, etc. etc. My question is, from both a corporate and home end-user perspective, what should I be doing?

We're a small company, in a small office. We have a T1, we run a Windows domain, and host our own web and mail servers. We have NAT inside the office, and holes poked through our firewall for the external facing servers. We're all on XP workstations. What should we be doing, if anything?

At home, I'm on a residential cable modem. Everything is behind a WRT54G running DD-WRT. I'm running Ubuntu on my laptop, my wife has XP. I've got a couple other hobby PCs, but nothing publicly accessible yet, but everything inside the network is locally addressed 192.168.etc. What should I be doing, if anything?

Reserve an IPV6 block (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003671)

How would I go about reserving an IPv6 block for myself? Is there a central agency controlling that yet? Is a reservation free, or is there a periodic payment?

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26003687)

Three users then.

Make it work! (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003767)

I seriously considering setting up my internal network for IPv6 and trying to get connected to the web via IPv6, but ran into so many roadblocks that I just gave up.

It's no wonder adoption is so slow if this is the way things are.

Amazing. (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26003771)

So the number of users has skyrocketed from 4 to a whopping 12.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...