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!

Google Engineers Say IPv6 Is Easy, Not Expensive

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the step-one-is-hire-smart-engineers dept.

The Internet 233

alphadogg writes "Google engineers say it was not expensive and required only a small team of developers to enable all of the company's applications to support IPv6, a long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main communications protocol. 'We can provide all Google services over IPv6,' said Google network engineer Lorenzo Colitti during a panel discussion held in San Francisco Tuesday at a meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Colitti said a 'small, core team' spent 18 months enabling IPv6, from the initial network architecture and software engineering work, through a pilot phase, until Google over IPv6 was made publicly available. Google engineers worked on the IPv6 effort as a 20% project — meaning it was in addition to their regular work — from July 2007 until January 2009."

cancel ×

233 comments

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

Yep.. (4, Insightful)

UPZ (947916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345803)

Things are easy when you're GOOG

Re:Yep.. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346331)

I suspect that having a comparatively short history, and thus not much legacy software(and little of that from third parties) probably makes life very much easier.

Re:Yep.. (5, Funny)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346423)

Things are easy when you're GOOG

Yeah my first reactions was that this is a lot like Les Paul telling people that playing guitar is easy.

Re:Yep.. (5, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346975)

Some years ago, Eddie Van Halen said that guitar playing "is not as hard as brain surgery"

Sometime later, he got an offer from a brain surgeon to trade some guitar lessons for some brain surgery lessons

Re:Yep.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346935)

I wish it were easier for me to take this shit! Christ, I've been on the pot for 20 minutes and only have begun to turtle head. Look out boys, it's gonna be a long afternoon! Wootles :( I mean Wootles :)

easy? (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345831)

I wouldn't call something that take 18 months to do "easy".
Maybe that's why I don't work at google :-|

Re:easy? (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345931)

In a company of 10,000+ employees, it took a 'small team' only 18 months to convert and test what took 11 years to build? I think that's pretty good.

Re:easy? (4, Insightful)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345975)

It may be "pretty good", hey it may be great. But if they're saying that it's easy enough for anyone to do, that's jsut not the case. At 20% of 18 months, that's almost 4 months of solid labour. If you told me that my business needed to take 4 months to do something, I'd tell you it had better be revenue-generating.

Re:easy? (3, Insightful)

VPeric (1215606) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346289)

On the other hand, it's 4 months for the whole of Google. And Google is huge. So it's a fair assumption that it'd be much less than 12 months for something a fraction of Google's size.

Re:easy? (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346679)

Google is NOT huge, and it is very young.

To get a real corporation on IPv6 will takes years of constant work, and even then you'll still have legacy systems hooked up to analog lines doing whatever it is they do on their data/fax modems.

The reality is there are TONS of legacy systems out there that can NOT be replaced with any currently available "solutions".

Re:easy? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346721)

On the other hand, Google really rocks the homogeneity, so I would suspect that length of task doesn't scale with size all that evenly.

If you have 100,000 computers doing some task, you already have means in place to update them cleanly and easily(or you are doomed). Making and testing the changes will account for 90+% of the time, just pressing "deploy" at the end will be (comparatively) trivial. An outfit with 100 computers still has to do the first 90%

Re:easy? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346301)

At 20% of 18 months is for google with its tens of thousands of computers.

I have IPv6 at my home and I got it set up in maybe 3 hours at the most, and that is with one person, 15 computers, 2 routers, and setting up a DNS server.

Re:easy? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346365)

What are you, a retard? It takes 4 months of solid labor for Google. Are you Google? No, you're not Google.

Re:easy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346793)

Am too Google, you insensitive clod!

Re:easy? (1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347081)

I have fewer personnel, and many more "products" than google. Oh, and a much less forgiving set of clients. For me to upgrade such things, I have to go and test all of my products -- everything I've built for the last 15 years. And then handle every one of my 100 clients -- and upgrade them. Google has it easy. All of their stuff is in one place. They also have the scale and redundancy to upgrade things without taking them down. I don't. Oh, and my clients have their own hardware that is compatible to the old spec. You expect me to tell them to buy new hardware?

Re:easy? (1)

profplump (309017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347377)

How many of your products do anything at all with the IP address? Seriously, TCP works the same way over IPv4 as IPv6, so unless you're writing 40 versions of a network stack or something that reads IP address for something more complicated than checking that old.address == new.address, I don't see how much testing you'd need outside of the network itself.

Re:easy? (3, Informative)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346369)

If you told me that my business needed to take 4 months to do something, I'd tell you it had better be revenue-generating.

If you're Google, and you're thinking long term (something severely lacking with many people), it is revenue generating...especially if they're in the forefront of providing support for the technology.

Re:easy? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347449)

If you're Google, you have a very small market share in China, and are desperately trying to increase it. Consumer connections in China are going to be IPv6 or double-NAT'd IPv4 (so most things that punch holes in NAT won't work) very soon due to the way in which v4 addresses are allocated. Being the first service to work on China's v6 network is going to give them a big advantage in a rapidly-growing market.

Re:easy? (2, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346407)

If you told me that my business needed to take 4 months to do something, I'd tell you it had better be revenue-generating.

That's the big problem with the IPv6 transition.

Regardless of how easy or necessary it may (or may not) be, it isn't going to generate a whole lot of revenue right now. Maybe for a web-based company like Google it might actually get them some revenue... But for your average business that just uses their network to email, browse the web, transfer some files, etc... It'll take some money and some labor, but won't really get you anything in return.

It's hard to pitch something like that to management.

Re:easy? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346733)

It should also take a lot less time and fewer resources for companies smaller than Google--or at least, with a smaller web presence.

That's the rub, though. Companies with a large web presence have more incentive to enable IPV6. Companies that aren't technologically-oriented will be easier to migrate, but will be less likely to do so soon. It parallels the emergence of the web, to some degree.

Re:easy? (3, Insightful)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347189)

That's a big falacy. Google has all of it's stuff in one place, and with the scale and redundancy to maintain it all without taknig things down. I'm a small web company. I have more "products" than google, and more distinct clients than google. For me to upgrade some software, I need to talk to every client that uses it, I need to convince them to buy new hardware or adjust their existing hardware. I need to teach them how. I need to convince them that it's beneficial in the first place. Then I need to change dozens of projects being used by nearly one hundred clients without taking anything down.

Every one of my clients says the same thing: "I'm running a business here. I don't have time to redo things that work.".

So when ipv4 stops working, then I'll be able to convince them. Same goes for me, by the way. I have nothing to gain by switching to a new protocol. The old one works fine.

Re:easy? (1)

tukia (1375091) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347101)

That's if you're assuming that they're not spending most of the time waiting for approvals from various departments to touch their network products and also to schedule any equipment upgrades. I was involved once in an IPv6 pilot project for a certain government and most of the time spent was just waiting for permissions to touch various equipments. The actual task could probably be done in a day (or hour?) or a week if there's a need for equipment or topology upgrades. And yes IPv6 is easy; easier than IPv4. Most network manufacturers now support IPv6 out of the box. If your old router does not support IPv6, most likely there will be firmware upgrade that would fix this problem. But of course to get wirespeed IPv6 switching and routing, you would need a hardware upgrade if that capability is not already present in your device.

Are you sure it took 4 months of solid labor? (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347243)

"At 20% of 18 months, that's almost 4 months of solid labour" Is that how the 20% projects worked? Or could individual employees be involved in any number of 20% projects? If so then they could have spend considerably less than 4 months on it. Not to mention that even if they where all on it 20% of each day that means that they were working on it in short bursts. Likely working on a project this way will take longer because employees are spending a higher percent of their time just figuring out where they left off, loading programs, booting up/etc... vs time actually working.

Re:easy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347387)

In a lot of companies, 18 months of labor would still see them piddling around with Use Case diagrams, much less 4 months solid. And I know companies smaller than Google that routinely spend more than 4 months on non-revenue generating projects. Sometimes because an outside agency made them so so, sometimes because the revenue-generating projects won't run without them.

Then again, I worked in one organization where the CEO couldn't understand why he couldn't just fire the whole mainframe OS support team. After all, THEY weren't "Revenue Generating".

Re:easy? (3, Interesting)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346265)

Everything is easy for a team of PhDs that has free time on their hands.

Re:easy? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346743)

Spoken like someone without a PhD. What you say is true only where the value of 'everything' is defined as 'procrastination'.

Re:easy? (2, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347529)

Spoken like someone without a PhD. What you say is true only where the value of 'everything' is defined as 'procrastination'.

And if anyone on the team has TWO PhDs, then even procrastination becomes mind-bogglingly difficult.

Re:easy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346777)

It took 11 years to build all of Google. How many of Google's apps really give a rat's a$s about whether the network they're riding on is IPv6 or IPv4? If their code is at all modularized, it's probably less than 0.01% of their entire code base. In this light, 18months is a lot less astounding.

Re:easy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346911)

cool, it take me 10s to boot this computer which took 25years to achieve the current state.
oh wait, more like 50years
It even has ipv4 and ipv6 builtin! 10s !

fucking irrelevant comments like ours being modded up make me feel humanity is still going into the wrong direction

Re:easy? (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347401)

Bah, if Google had done it right in the first place, it'd have taken one guy updating a couple/few libraries!

Re:easy? (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346115)

How big is Google's network compared to most companies?
And also consider the people doing this weren't working on it full time and were a relatively small team.

The hardest part of deploying IPv6 is actually getting IPv6 network transit... Very few ISPs will offer it, or charge a high premium for it ontop of their ipv4 charges such that it isn't worth the expense.

Re:easy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346637)

And ipv6.google.com still poorly work from an ipv6-only host...

They must be joking.

The Real Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27345845)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real problem convincing the ISPs to enable IPv6? I've been enabling IPv6 on machines for years now, for all the good it's done me. The packets rarely make it out of my network, and that's only when the border router agrees to traffic IPv6.

Re:The Real Problem? (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346061)

Yes, I think this is the biggest barrier to adoption, and I'm not just talking about for residential connections. I was recently hunting for IP transit in center-city Philadelphia and found that very few carriers provided IPv6. For now, we're playing "wait and see".

Addition to regular work? (3, Informative)

slummy (887268) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345875)

Google engineers worked on the IPv6 effort as a 20% project -- meaning it was in addition to their regular work -- from July 2007 until January 2009.

Google allows it's employees to use 20% of their WORK DAY for personal projects. So technically this wasn't "extra" work.

Re:Addition to regular work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346831)

So you're saying my paid 15 minute breaks are work? That seems to be your definition.

Re:Addition to regular work? (5, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347587)

Google allows it's employees to use 20% of their WORK DAY for personal projects.

But that's the 20% that the rest of us spend drunk. Bad deal, evil Google!

So it would take regular people what, 40 year? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345877)

I can imagine some of the conversations that would happen at regular places of business. *shutter*

Re:So it would take regular people what, 40 year? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346605)

I think you mean shudder [reference.com] , not shutter [reference.com] .

An elegant solution (5, Funny)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 5 years ago | (#27345945)

Despite being an elegant and technologically sound solution, I think IPv6 will be adopted universally within a few years.

Re:An elegant solution (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346155)

Thanks for the new sig. I've attributed it to you in my journal, but the sig line is to short to do so.

I am honored. (1)

Sybert42 (1309493) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346201)

Thanks.

Re:An elegant solution (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346989)

'The year of IPv6 on the network'

v6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346023)

damn, I haven't even gotten around to installing IPv5 yet, so I'm certainly not going to be loading v6 anytime soon!

Re:v6? (2, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346561)

You think that's bad? I'm still stuck with IPv3.11 for Workgroups!

Corporate users (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346029)

What about convincing many corporate users who have come to believe over the years that private IPv4 NATed networks are an essential part of their security?

Re:Corporate users (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346343)

What about convincing many corporate users who have come to believe over the years that private IPv4 NATed networks are an essential part of their security?

Already taken care of.

Private Addresses in IPv6 [wikipedia.org]

It is technically very easy (3, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346041)

It's very easy to do. Most if not all servers are currently IPv6 compatible and most of the software has this type of stuff abstracted away by the operating system.

Then all you need to do is ask your provider for an IPv6 range and put some records in your DNS, enable your clients for IPv6, tell your routers that they'll from now on see IPv6 addresses as well (usually already in the firmware or it's in an upgrade somewhere) let your DHCP server give out IPv6 addresses and then you're done. Add an IPv4 to IPv6 gateway if your provider doesn't support IPv6 yet.

This all can be done in several steps and IPv4 can keep chugging at the same time as well so there is practically no downtime to the systems. It's the same as adding an IPv4 range to your network (if you ever run out of space in your range) except that there are more digits and that some of your older hardware needs a small upgrade.

The problem is that it requires manpower to do so which isn't cheap. In an organization like Google it takes a group a while at 20% of their time. In many organizations, those groups are 1) not as competent, 2) don't have 10% of free time, let alone 20%, 3) this has to be justified as far as manpower costs go.

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346213)

Then all you need to do is ask your provider for an IPv6 range and put some records in your DNS, enable your clients for IPv6, tell your routers that they'll from now on see IPv6 addresses as well (usually already in the firmware or it's in an upgrade somewhere)

I was with you until the bold portion. The thing is, if you are running enterprise-grade equipment, great. Many SOHO businesses, OTOH, are using consumer routers. Most of these do not support IPV4 OOTB and are not capable of being an IPV4-IPV6 gateway without modification.

SOHO users may be better off building a firewall/router out of a cheap PC. Home users are kind of out of luck unless they are tech savvy.

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346393)

Yeah, and the Wife Acceptance Factor of a new router probably won't be high for many people.

"You can get the new router, but that means you can't get any more computer hardware this year."

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346765)

On the plus side, crap consumer routers have a nasty habit of dropping dead every 18 months, so you can deal with legacy hardware by just waiting.

Re:It is technically very easy (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347371)

On the plus side, crap consumer routers have a nasty habit of dropping dead every 18 months, so you can deal with legacy hardware by just waiting.

Funny, I've had my LinkSys WRT54G for about 2.5 years and it sti

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347465)

On the plus side, crap consumer routers have a nasty habit of dropping dead every 18 months, so you can deal with legacy hardware by just waiting.

Zyxel P334W and Netgear WAB102 dual-band access point. Both have been going for years, though I have had to replace the Netgear power brick twice, both times after electrical storms.

I doubt I'd need a new router for IPV6, either. I'd need a new modem/bridge from my ISP, and then I'd live dangerously and run on the Real Internet, with no NAT (actually I almost am now; a couple of my boxes are 1:1 NAT). Except my wife's PC, which I'd probably handle temporarily by routing it through my Linux box.

I'd probably need new wireless gear, though.

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347655)

crap consumer routers have a nasty habit of dropping dead every 18 months

My SMC WBRP2804 has been persistently undead for almost 6 years.
Are you implying that it's not crap???

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346505)

When talking about Windows server, which in most businesses is Operating system your talking about, only 2008 is IPv6 100%. 2003 is not 100% IPv6 and some stuff must be done either via config files or command line. Not that this is bad thing but when your looking at GUI Console, you don't see IPv6 information which could lead to confusion. Easy example is that 2003/XP look up AAAA DNS records over IPv4 instead of IPv6. Also, Active Directory over IPv6 is not supported as well. Vista and Windows 7 support IPv6 natively along with Windows 2008. Till those operating systems are largely used in Enterprise, we will still see IPv4 being rolled out.

My guess is IPv6 will not see wide adoption in United States till IPv4 addresses are completely exhausted and their price skyrockets which should happen around 2011/2012. Native IPv6 deployments (where IPv4 address are not given to clients) till 2014-2016.

Re:It is technically very easy (1)

_avs_007 (459738) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346709)

It's very easy to do. Most if not all servers are currently IPv6 compatible and most of the software has this type of stuff abstracted away by the operating system.

You can't generalize all companies this way. Sure, Windows Vista and Windows 7 have IPv6 integrated in, and the OS abstracts the IPv6ness away from you, but that doesn't mean your problems are solved...

For example, Vista supports IPv6 out of the box while XP doesn't. Does this mean that simply upgrading your box from XP to Vista, and moving your apps over, is enough to make your apps IPv6 capable?

But anyways...

1. Windows XP uses a dual-stack to support IPv6, wheras Vista does not. Vista has one TCP/IP stack that does both IPv4 and IPv6. XP has two TCP/IP stacks, one that does IPv4 and one that does IPv6. To support IPv6 on this system, you'll need to bind to both TCP/IP stacks, and call into the correct modules, otherwise your code ain't gonna work with IPv6.

2.) What if you have to deal with embedded systems? Some of our systems are embedded, where everything is done in hardware. Much of this hardware does NOT support IPv6, because when it comes to fabbing chips, companies tend to want the lowest cost possible, so they will opt to not waste gates with IPv6 support if they don't plan on using it... It'll take some time to re-engineer these components, re-fab the chips, and re-validate the embedded system, etc.

3.) Just because the OS abstracts IPv6, does not mean the application does. What if your app expects to pass around IP addresses in dotted quad notation? What if somewhere in your code, it hard-coded the initializers for the sockets library to IPv4? What if you didn't map enough memory in your data structure to hold an IPv6 address? What if the change requires you to remap all your fields? That means every producer/consumer in that transaction chain will need to be updated and validated.

4.) All your infrastructure can support IPv6, and all your software can properly pass around IPv6 addresses, but that doesn't mean you are done... What if you have applications that use multicasting? IPv4 multicast addresses are not interchangeable with IPv6 multicast addresses. What if the change requires you to register a new multicast address with IANA? That's not a short process, believe me, I've gone through that process. So once you get this new IPv6 multicast address, you have to modify all your code to actually use it, etc. This can involve both software and hardware, as again, you could have embedded systems in the mix as well.

Not easy, and not the core problem (4, Insightful)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346111)

Define 'small team' - 5 people? 200? What's a 'small team' at Google?

The fact that Google makes such a big deal about only hiring the best and brightest and PhDs and such also indicates this isn't 'easy'. If it took a team of people who are regarded to be the best and brightest in their industry, with numerous PhDs on the team (or at least at their disposal on campus) *18 months* to do something (even part time) that still means that this is going to be a bigger issue for most companies.

Consider that the bulk of Google's apps that would need to be 'converted' have been written in the past 3-4 years (docs, maps, earth, etc.), and likely were written by people who put modularity and efficiency much higher than the average developer does (or is allowed to, in many cases) and you'll conclude that average developers who've inherited undocumented legacy code from previous average developers will have a much harder time than expected.

The core problem (as someone else pointed out) is consumer-level adoption - ISPs, routers, etc. It's somewhat chicken and egg, and perhaps having Google announce 100% support for it, this will give other players in the field the encouragement to put more effort in to transitioning over.

Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (5, Funny)

ewenix (702589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346379)

Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?

Perhaps the best and brightest spent 18 months of extra time on the massage table and drinking smoothies.
Then recently edited the .conf to include the line $IPV6 = 1;

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (2, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346401)

Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?

Because, just as you said, Google hires the best. These guys needed a challenge. They gave themselves one.

(I'm kidding.)

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346527)

The core problem is ISPs getting off their duffs to support IPv6. I'm ready for it at home (save for an old cable modem), but my ISP doesn't yet support DOCSIS 3.0 and IPv6, and this is a common problem.

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (1)

ivicente (1373953) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346861)

Lastly, why didn't Google (of all companies) bake IPv6 in to these main apps when they were first written?

What? And miss all of the Slashdot hype for making the 4->6 conversion?

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347083)

Define 'small team' - 5 people? 200? What's a 'small team' at Google?

Brin, 2 Asian hookers (1 Thai, 1 Vietnamese), the pilot and the copilot.

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347161)

Exactly.

Call me when Google uses a "small team" to convert a couple of hundred undocumented or poorly documented apps written in C and running on an old system like VMS since the mid-80s. Then I'll still have concerns about the business case during an economic downturn.

Re:Not easy, and not the core problem (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347217)

The fact that Google makes such a big deal about only hiring the best and brightest and PhDs and such also indicates this isn't 'easy'. If it took a team of people who are regarded to be the best and brightest in their industry, with numerous PhDs on the team (or at least at their disposal on campus) *18 months* to do something (even part time) that still means that this is going to be a bigger issue for most companies.

I bet most other company networks don't look like Google's (for better or worse),

Consider that the bulk of Google's apps that would need to be 'converted' have been written in the past 3-4 years (docs, maps, earth, etc.), and likely were written by people who put modularity and efficiency much higher than the average developer does (or is allowed to, in many cases)

Where in TFA or Google's PDF do you find anything about converting applications taking much of the time? I doubt that was needed -- but it is likely that they had to test the applications, if they had never been used with IPv6 before.

and you'll conclude that average developers who've inherited undocumented legacy code from previous average developers will have a much harder time than expected.

I suspect most of the application work was reconfiguring, and comparable to the work it would take to switch to another IPv4 network range. Finding those odd, yet vital, scripts with hard-coded IP addresses in them, and so on.

(I say suspect, because I've only done vaguely similar things.)

Gateway/Routers? (4, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346431)

Does anyone have a list of current networking hardware that is IPv6 ready? Specifically I am interested in any gateway/routers that support IPv6 out of the box, in the sub-$200 category.

I know about DD-WRT, but I don't want to have spend time hacking my router.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (2, Informative)

Zenzilla (793153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346591)

Hacking your router would take you less time than the time it took you to post.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (2, Informative)

Conception (212279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346703)

No joke. It's just a firmware upload.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347445)

No joke. It's just a firmware upload.

And making sure your router can support a third-party firmware.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347503)

He'll spend the same amount of time updating the firmware on whatever he buys. Whether he updates it to alternative router firmware, or official firmware, it still (likely) has to be updated from whatever it shipped with.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346593)

That is the wrong question to be asking. Almost all new routers/switches support ipv6 out of the box, the question is how many of them support ipv6 in hardware at all. The answer to that question is undoubtedly a mcuh smaller set.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347115)

For the home router segment, the traffic isn't high enough that it matters, and most of them don't support IPv6.
Of course with IPv6 the home router is no longer important really as NAT will no longer be necessary, but it will still nice for Joe Clueless User to have a hardware firewall appliance anyway I guess...

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346753)

I have this router [newegg.com] , it does ipv4 and ipv6 dual-stack and the built in VPN features are great.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346893)

Last time I checked the only one that supported it out of the box was Apple's Airport Extreme.

I've heard "the usual suspects" (Linksys, Dlink, Netgear) have added it since then, but I haven't been looking to confirm that, and I'm not sure if it ships enabled or not.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347025)

The best one I've seen so far is the Apple Airport extreme, offers easy tunneling service also if you don't have native IPv6 yet.

Re:Gateway/Routers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347089)

DD-WRT v24 with IPv6 enabled may be broken according to the Wiki. There are supposed to be fixes around.

With NAT, who cares? (1, Insightful)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346441)

Seriously?

I am in no rush to make this argument to my higher ups, as if I don't have enough work lately. NAT works fine for us and we support over 17,000 desktops.

Re:With NAT, who cares? (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346543)

NAT sucks because port forwarding sucks. If you're ever at an organization with enough IP addresses for users, it's like a breath of fresh air.

Most universities are like this. No fucking around with, well, anything. Want someone to download a file? Copy it to a directory, set up FTP on the directory, and give them your IP address. That was easy.

It's like how IP was supposed to work, after all - any Internet-routed IP address can route to any other Internet-routed IP address.

Re:With NAT, who cares? (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346807)

IP was also supposed to work in an environment where you trusted everyone else. In the real world there will be at least one firewall between you and the rest of the world so you're not really cutting down on any administrative overhead.

There is nothing inherently wrong with port forwarding, it's not that much different then proxying. The problems that pop up are because of applications that are still being written like they are running on one big network where everyone is nice and trusts each other.

Re:With NAT, who cares? (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347345)

You seem to be repeating the popular misconception that NAT is the same as firewalling. In fact, NAT makes firewalling much more complex than it should be and NAT adds no security to a properly designed firewall. You say "There is nothing inherently wrong with port forwarding, it's not that much different then proxying." Are you implying that for a host on one network to communicate with a host on another network, it should expect to always go through a proxy or port forward of some kind? Thankfully, that's nothing like the real Internet and I hope it never gets that bad.

Re:With NAT, who cares? (2, Interesting)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346707)

NAT is fine for desktops, but you'll be complaining quite a lot when IPv4 addresses run short enough that you have to start NAT'ing servers...

Re:With NAT, who cares? (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346855)

We don't have a lot public facing right now so for my position, I suppose I don't have a lot to worry about :)

I can see the logic, but for a company like Google where there's a LOT of public facing stuff, and for a person like me, it's really not an emergency, nor worth the effort.

and legacy stuff? (1)

misfit815 (875442) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346465)

Porting ongoing development efforts to IPv6 doesn't bother me in the least, even when you consider the impact of a non-revenue-generating task to be completed.

What I wonder is what we're going to do with all of that legacy software that's out of its support cycle. As a consumer, I'm worried that I'm going to have replace old, stable, DRM-free, purpose-built, paid-for software with bloated, memory-hogging, DRM-riddled, subscription-based junk just because nobody wants to make the old stuff work on IPv6.

So big, we have to use maths (5, Funny)

ircharlie (317640) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346517)

This made me laugh. From TFA:
"
IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses and can support approximately 4.3 billion individually addressed devices on the Internet. IPv6, on the other hand, uses 128-bit addresses and can support so many devices that only a mathematical expression -- 2 to the 128th power -- can quantify its size.
"

Re:So big, we have to use maths (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346803)

I, for one, prefer sizes that cannot be quantified by mathematical expressions.

Re:So big, we have to use maths (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347501)

So does your mom.

Re:So big, we have to use maths (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27346815)

Well the part you quoted did say "qualify" not "quantify". In other words, the amout of individual addresses available in IPv6 is beyond the numbers even many scientists and economists are comfortable using.

Re:So big, we have to use maths (1)

Spyder0101 (1485837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346955)

2^128==3.40282366920938463463e38

Re:So big, we have to use maths (3, Informative)

Quietust (205670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347119)

Or, if you like big numbers with lots of commas, 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (compared to the 4,294,967,296 in IPv4). Of course, a very large number of those (but still an insignificantly small fraction) are reserved for various purposes and cannot be used for normal addresses, but the same is true for IPv4.

Re:So big, we have to use maths (4, Funny)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347595)

Sorry, I cannot allow you to post that. That number is impossible to write.

Re:So big, we have to use maths (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347147)

Can you give us those numbers in terms that are in common usaage? Like LOC (Libraries of Congress), GB (Golf Balls), DTM (Distance to moon)

Clocks still ticking (5, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346525)

Everything is still in Beta. Don't think they can close any line items yet.

Re:Clocks still ticking (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347391)

Dude, at Google everything is always in perpetual beta.

There is a huge penalty with IPV6 vs. IPV4 (0, Troll)

laing (303349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27346895)

Whether your routers/switches are "store and forward" or "cut over", there will be additional latency and significantly more overhead involved in routing IPV6 traffic. If the entire net were converted to IPV6 today, it would melt. Fortunately people will likely continue to use IPV4 for a long time and the IPV6 traffic will grow slowly enough that router technology will improve as necessary.

Re:There is a huge penalty with IPV6 vs. IPV4 (3, Informative)

tukia (1375091) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347443)

there will be additional latency and significantly more overhead involved in routing IPV6 traffic

Errmm.. I think you would actually find out that with some IPv6 features like route aggregation and the checksum-less IPv6 header, things should be faster. But yes IPv6 routing without hardware capable of switching IPv6 packets will definately be slower.

If the entire net were converted to IPV6 today, it would melt.

The only reason it's going to melt is because the majority of "IPv6 support" out there uses software-based routing

Fortunately people will likely continue to use IPV4 for a long time and the IPV6 traffic will grow slowly enough that router technology will improve as necessary.

Router technology IS already here. Most hardware vendors already support IPv6 switching.

Re:There is a huge penalty with IPV6 vs. IPV4 (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347497)

Care to back that up with explanations or citations? Or are we modding up all arguments by assertion these days?

Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347687)

You have to specify why it would be harder to route IPv6 traffic than to route IPv4 traffic. Because on one level, you're wrong, and on another, you're kind of right. I'm guessing the reason you're saying that is because most routers don't have IPv6 implemented in hardware, and has to use the CPU to route IPv6 packets. But on the other hand, IPv6 is easier to route, so in the long term it'll be more effective to use IPv6.

DO NOT WANT (0, Flamebait)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347029)

IPv6 is neither difficult nor expensive. Nor, for the most part, desired.

Compatible? NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27347075)

Most hardware & software is NOT really IPV6 compatible, even when listed as such. Take Microsoft IIS6 on Windows Server 2003 for example. Using a specific IPv6 address for a website is not allowed, only host names. This makes it impossible to use a web server for more than 1 domain for many.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/WindowsServer2003/Library/IIS/4c7c6bce-213a-4125-bc36-2202e3b4c8c8.mspx?mfr=true
IIS7/Server 2008 fixes it.

really support ipv6? (1)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347143)

except for the fact that they dont really support ipv6.

You have to "opt-in" for ipv6 service, and then they will validate that you have a ipv6 connection suitable for google, and they, at their descretion, they will send you AAAA results requested by certain dns resolvers of your network. And this isn't available for anybody but big ISPs that go through the process.

Instead if you want ipv6 google without all this hub-bub you have to mangle your dns resolver to get dns for google off an unofficial resolver that is whitelisted and does caching. (resolver2.lrz-muenchen.de works)

For a company that professes network neutrality the claiming that their whole infrastructure supports ipv6 is phooey. Also, they seem to think differently of ipv6 addresses and at least with me blocked my ipv6 address from their site claiming i was crawling them. I have never had a ipv4 address blocked like that, and i share it when a number of people.

Google should stop breaking the way the internet works and selectively giving their services out. They shouldn't be messing with the protocols and forcing ISPs to get permission to use their site.

From beneath my tinfoil hat... (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27347663)

It could be said that Google has a vested interest in IPv6; everyone has unique IP addresses. No more NAT. Further, a large percentage of these IP addresses will be generate from the MAC address of the device. Great for tracking^W targeted advertising.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?