Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

IPv6 Challenges and Opportunities

CmdrTaco posted about 5 years ago | from the blah-blah-blah dept.

The Internet 315

1sockchuck writes "Opinions differ on when the Internet will run out of IPv4 addresses, prompting a wholesale transition to IPv6. In recent videos, John Curran of ARIN provides an overview of issues involved in the IPv6 transition, while Martin Levy of Hurricane Electric discusses his company's view that early-mover status on IPv6 readiness can be a competitive advantage for service providers. Levy's company has published an IPv4 DeathWatch app for the iPhone to raise awareness of the transition."

cancel ×

315 comments

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

ipv6... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133031)

I guess we'll be using it when Linux massively arrives on desktops...

corpspeak to english dictionary (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 5 years ago | (#29133043)

According to my copy of the CorpSpeak to English dictionary "challenge" and "opportunity" both say "See 'problem'."

Re:corpspeak to english dictionary (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#29133187)

According to my copy of the CorpSpeak to English dictionary "challenge" and "opportunity" both say "See 'problem'."

Yes, but there are subtle differences. For example, when they speak of challenges, your corporate overlords are telling you there will be massive layoffs soon. However, when they speak to you of opportunities, it means you personally will be laid off immediately.

marketing speak = teh suck (4, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#29133061)

"Challenges" means problems. "Opportunity" = cool features.

Features of IPv6:

Every known star in our universe can now have 252 ip addresses with ver6.

My frigging socks can tell me they need to be cleaned via a script. My shoes can use GPS to track where I'm going, how many miles I walked/ran that day, etc.

Problems of IPv6: Screw it, we'll just nat our existing IPv4 addresses.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (4, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133289)

This, this, o-this-ily-this!

Also I think proponents of IPv6 also tend to overlook the value of DNS. Human short-term memory only has so much space in it. IPv4 addresses tend to be hard to memorize, ergo DNS puts an easy handle on it.

In an IPv6 world you get this memory problem magnified in a huge way:

1) The addresses are now ridiculously long.

2) There's not supposed to be any such thing as NAT (which also means your practice of always having your inside router be x.1 now gets more complex)

3) Many things that don't REALLY need addresses are now going to get them, because we have so many, so lets just go crazy.

To recap, many minor devices will all have a very-long, unique address, and each will be difficult to fit into brain-space alone, let alone together.

This scenario only works in a fully-DHCP world, which is fine for some, but I'll keep my static IPv4 for as long as possible, thanks.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133435)

Are you familiar with how IPv6 actually works? Yes, addresses are now very long--good thing that DNS works with IPv6. (The failure of most implementations to support A6 records is a shame, but AAAA does the job fairly well.) You can still have your "inside router" be :1 if you like, and hey, why not give everything an address--what's the downside?

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133487)

It would really be cool if they did away with DNS after switching over to IP v6.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133499)

It would really be cool if they did away with DNS after switching over to IP v6.

Precisely.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1, Funny)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133517)

You can still have your "inside router" be :1 if you like

You seem to be assuming a non-shared address space. Do you work for IBM?

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (3, Insightful)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133625)

What do you mean by "non-shared"? When you get an IPv6 connection, they don't hand you a single IP address; you get a /64 or a /48, depending on the connection type.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133927)

What enforcement of subnetting recommendations are going to be in place to ensure this happens?

ISP's monetize these addresses now. Who will force them to stop?

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (3, Interesting)

chrisG23 (812077) | about 5 years ago | (#29134243)

Competition. If ISP A is only going to give you 1 IP address because they want to hoard and monetize these IPv6 Addresses, then ISP B is going to offer you oh, 16 million IPs lets say, for the same price, to get you to come to them. 16 million? Thats an insane amount you say, well the ISP can just pull it out of their bucket of gazillions of IP addresses that is their slice of the FUCKING HUGE BEYOND COMPREHENSION IPv6 address space.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29134277)

That same competition exists under IPv4.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (4, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 5 years ago | (#29134411)

Where the fuck do you live where you have more than 2 viable choices for an ISP?

What universe do you live in where the "competition" would realistically compete on this feature?

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | about 5 years ago | (#29133461)

I'm not sure I'm following you here, so what you're saying is that instead of Joe Q. Sysadmin always having his internal router be 10.0.0.1 and all the hosts having 10.x.x.x IPs tied to hostnames he'd have something like 2001:1001:f00f::1 as the router and all hosts would be in the same subnet? Yeah, that's really scary and confusing...

Also, NAT is an ugly hack that doesn't really need to exist, the packet filtering can be handled with a plain old packet filtering firewall just like it used to be done prior to everyone using NAT and what exactly is the point of address translation? Isn't that like going back to pre-IP days when every network seemed to use its own protocol (or in this case, everyone uses local addresses internally and a single or small number of external addresses) and inter-network communication was a PITA?

And I'd rather see devices that don't need public addresses getting them than "The amazing NAT future" where you have to pay big bucks to get a public IP address instead of being stuck in NAT hell (first they came for the residential connections, but I did not speak up because I wasn't running a home server or playing games, then they came for the small business DSL customers but I did not speak up for I was not running a small business and finally they came for the corporate customers and we ended up paying thousands of dollars per server to avoid getting thrown off the 'net)...

/Mikael

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133615)

You're separating the issues, because they're are trivial alone. That's understandable. That isn't what I'm driving at.

When you combine 'everything with an address' with 'NAT needs to die', then 'Joe Q. Sysadmin' will not be allowed to select his own IP addresses. Without an assigned and shared address space, these notions are incompatible.

Do you follow now?

Anyway, the point was, how do you go about memorizing them?

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133683)

The point was, you don't go about memorizing them, you use DNS.

And why exactly (1) does 'Joe Q. Sysadmin' need to select his own IP addresses and (2) can't he with IPv6? I can't just decide to give my server the address 127.48.7.12 or 234.122.9.31 with IPv4, but that doesn't mean that I can't assign one within my address range.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133987)

I can't just decide to give my server the address 127.48.7.12 or 234.122.9.31 with IPv4, but that doesn't mean that I can't assign one within my address range.

Using NAT, you absolutely can. You're sacrificing the ability to communicate with those addresses in the wild, but that option definitely exists today.

And why exactly (1) does 'Joe Q. Sysadmin' need to select his own IP addresses and (2) can't he with IPv6?

He doesn't need to. He may want to. He has that option today.

I don't operate under the assumption that ISP's are going to hand out blocks of IPv6 addresses any more readily than they hand out IPv4's. I understand that others do. I'm not sure why they do, but since it is a futuristic sort of thing, we'll just have to wait and see. Looking at their past and present behavior, anticipating charity is dubious at best. In fact, NAT rose to popularity out of this exact same behavior. Not out of some ephemeral need to create more address space.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (3, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | about 5 years ago | (#29134693)

He doesn't need to. He may want to. He has that option today.

You can assign IPv6 addresses manually to your heart's content as long as you have a block assigned to you, but for client machines there is rarely a reason to do this (just like how you normally don't go about handing out static IPs to every workstation, you set up a DHCP server (or many depending on the size of your organisation) and hand out dynamic addresses to most machines).

/Mikael

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (2, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | about 5 years ago | (#29134235)

The point was, you don't go about memorizing them, you use DNS.

LOL. And network admins, those who are tasked with setting up and maintaining DNS, or those just doing occasional reverse lookups, do their heads just explode?

In the real world, people use IP numbers in a number of different ways, and for just as many reasons, have committed many to memory. You don't have to be a network admin, for example, to know what is behind 192.168.1.1, or that 4.2.2.1 is open for lookups.

This doesn't mean it's impossible to do the same or something similar with IPv6, of course, just that certain complaints about the complexity/awkwardness do have merit.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 5 years ago | (#29133595)

Also I think proponents of IPv6 also tend to overlook the value of DNS.

1) The addresses are now ridiculously long.

I'm confused - first you say that IPv6 proponents "overlook" the value of DNS, meaning that they don't understand its significance. Perhaps you meant to say the opposite - "overstate," perhaps?

2) There's not supposed to be any such thing as NAT (which also means your practice of always having your inside router be x.1 now gets more complex)

Why would this have to be any different? Instead of getting a single or small block of IPs from your ISP, you'll get an entire subnet (or two, or 256). You can keep your router at .1 (or :1) if you'd like.

3) Many things that don't REALLY need addresses are now going to get them, because we have so many, so lets just go crazy.

While it opens up the opportunity to give more devices their own addresses, it doesn't require it. If you're like me and you don't want your fridge to have an IP address, then don't buy a network-capable fridge. However, for those that want networked fridges (or companies that want a large network of sensors in their factory without having to deal with private IP routing hell), they'll have the option.

To recap, many minor devices will all have a very-long, unique address, and each will be difficult to fit into brain-space alone, let alone together. This scenario only works in a fully-DHCP world, which is fine for some, but I'll keep my static IPv4 for as long as possible, thanks.

I'm confused - how does DHCP help us to not have to remember IP addresses? As discussed above, that's the job of DNS. If anything, DHCP makes it a bit harder, since then dynamic DNS is usually required as well.

It is true that IPv6 was not designed with old-school networking geeks in mind - I share your concern about IPv6 addresses being difficult to remember. However, it will be a huge help for actual (non-amateur) network admins, as well as home users (where autoconfiguration will make everything as seamless - if not moreso - than it is now).

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133809)

or companies that want a large network of sensors in their factory without having to deal with private IP routing hell

Exactly the reason that a current customer of mine is rolling out IPv6 across the national enterprise. With a little help from ptrtd [litech.org] , troubleshooting at corporate headquarters can even talk specifically to equipment that doesn't speak IPv4.

It is true that IPv6 was not designed with old-school networking geeks in mind - I share your concern about IPv6 addresses being difficult to remember.

Please explain what you mean; I've found that IPv6 networking tends mostly to eliminate the nightmarish hassles that IPv4 had (classful addressing FTW), and remembering addresses isn't hard once you get used to the scheme. You have a 48-bit prefix that you simply know (and that always starts with 2001:), you have 16 subnet bits that you can organize in a meaningful and standardized way, and the 64 host bits... if you need to connect without DNS, assign a static short address.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 5 years ago | (#29133869)

I'm confused - first you say that IPv6 proponents "overlook" the value of DNS, meaning that they don't understand its significance. Perhaps you meant to say the opposite - "overstate," perhaps?

Dotted addresses suck, ergo DNS. Longer dotted addresses will suck even more. Good thing we still have DNS.

Clearer now?

Why would this have to be any different? Instead of getting a single or small block of IPs from your ISP, you'll get an entire subnet (or two, or 256). You can keep your router at .1 (or :1) if you'd like.

It won't shake out this way. ISP's aren't giving you that many addresses now, and many (if not all) limit and/or upcharge-for the quantity assigned. It isn't difficult to imagine scenarios where is doesn't matter, to be sure, but this kind of convenience is something that NAT has allowed us to take for granted.

While it opens up the opportunity to give more devices their own addresses, it doesn't require it. If you're like me and you don't want your fridge to have an IP address, then don't buy a network-capable fridge. However, for those that want networked fridges (or companies that want a large network of sensors in their factory without having to deal with private IP routing hell), they'll have the option.

I'm thinking about what DirectTV here. These kinds of devices get to become subscription-based. The monetizing options for networked smart devices will be very tempting. Yes, refrigerators are a strange example, but is it really that difficult to come up with a better one on your own?

I'm confused - how does DHCP help us to not have to remember IP addresses? As discussed above, that's the job of DNS. If anything, DHCP makes it a bit harder, since then dynamic DNS is usually required as well.

You're being pedantic now. Does not DHCP carry with it settings as to which your DNS server is, what the gateway is, etc? You're referring to 'non-ameteur' admins with a voice of authority, yet you cannot avoid being confused over how DHCP allows you to set these addresses once instead of many times over?

It is true that IPv6 was not designed with old-school networking geeks in mind - I share your concern about IPv6 addresses being difficult to remember. However, it will be a huge help for actual (non-amateur) network admins, as well as home users (where autoconfiguration will make everything as seamless - if not moreso - than it is now).

In my view, it creates more problems than it solves. Certain people support it because it is 'new' and 'old' automatically means 'bad'. Unfortunately, those are the only IPv6 supporters that seem to post on slashdot. That's okay, but it gets rather old, rather quickly.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (2, Informative)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29134073)

It won't shake out this way. ISP's aren't giving you that many addresses now, and many (if not all) limit and/or upcharge-for the quantity assigned. It isn't difficult to imagine scenarios where is doesn't matter, to be sure, but this kind of convenience is something that NAT has allowed us to take for granted.

I believe that the registries are requiring the provision of /64s and /48s to end-user connections. Even if they weren't, the ISPs would provide at minimum /64s, since most networking equipment can't handle routing prefixes longer than /64 in hardware--i.e., routing anything longer than /64 is more expensive.

You're referring to 'non-ameteur' admins with a voice of authority, yet you cannot avoid being confused over how DHCP allows you to set these addresses once instead of many times over?

IPv6 isn't IPv4. You can use stateless autoconfiguration to find that router, no DHCP needed. The advertisement can also include information on DNS servers. If the DNS servers and default gateway aren't sufficient, you can still run DHCPv6 if you like.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29133881)

Please expand your description of the group that your last paragraph excludes, I'm curious.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133745)

There are also security issues with IPv6. IPv6 has not seen actual testing against black hats yet. Which means you have to deal with another wave of malformed packet attacks, like land, teardrop, smurf, ping of death, and the ones which hit IPv4 stacks hard. It won't be long before someone finds a way to overrun some popular operating system's IPv6 stack and is able to execute code without even needing a service to attach to.

Not to mention that IPv6 has no security whatsoever in its design. Any form of encryption is either a bolt on, or goes on a higher layer, such as how SSL and SSH ride on top of TCP. On the IP layer, there isn't any standard form of encryption.

Of course, we all know about IPv6 and NATs. If you want to hide your internal network, you put it on IPv4. Which means on a "pure" IPv6 network an attacker can easily nmap every single box on your private network, then start running targeted attacks against every single thing, from the router with the last year's firmware to the Linux box that wasn't patched in six months. No sane sysadmin is going to allow anyone on the Internet be able to grab their network topology.

IPv6 was thought out by people who have -zero- clue about security and the scumbags that IT people battle against on a daily basis. If the Internet was the sterile, managed environment of the late 1980s, sure, IPv6 would be perfect. But most businesses have to fight hourly against intruders across the globe looking for the one weak appliance or router.

Leave IPv6 for the ivory towers. I value my business's data and going to be sticking with V4 until someone addresses the security concerns of IPv6, or just ditches the stupid thing for a protocol that has actual security in its design.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

Ares (5306) | about 5 years ago | (#29134753)

Which means on a "pure" IPv6 network with no firewall controls in place at the router an attacker can easily nmap every single box on your private network, then start running targeted attacks against every single thing

FTFY

ipv6 routers will be no different than their ipv4 counterparts now, except that the concept of nat will be eliminated. you will still have to allow specific services through to specific machines from the wan side. you'll just be able to allow more machines to have more services with ipv6, since multiple machines will be able to be presented to the outside world on port 80, port 443, or port 25.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133327)

Problems of IPv6: Screw it, we'll just nat our existing IPv4 addresses.

Between NAT and UPnP (I know it's a dirty word) there just isn't an immediate need for mountains of public 'Net addresses any time soon.
You'll probably start seeing ISPs NAT users instead of giving them a public IP. Considering 90% of their user-base has no need for a public IP (plus, it's another way to get an extra $10/month from those pesky "power users").

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (2, Funny)

swamp boy (151038) | about 5 years ago | (#29133579)

Hmmm.... Every known star in the universe with it's own ip address. Now I think that the promise of cloud computing is finally starting to dawn on me!

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

fava (513118) | about 5 years ago | (#29133877)

Yea, but the latency will kill you.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29133645)

If I wanted to network my socks, I could do so at the moment with a VPN. I'm not going to want them to be publically routable anyway.

You can get things that track where you are going, and how many miles you've walked / run etc. They don't even need an internet connection, never mind a publically routable one.

Not a problem for some (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 5 years ago | (#29134347)

> Problems of IPv6: Screw it, we'll just nat our existing IPv4 addresses.

Big Media might like that a lot. That's not a bug to them but a feature.

ISPs resorting to shoving most people behind NATs is a feature for Big Media, because it breaks P2P.

I know it would break WoW updates and other stuff too, but I'm sure Big Media would consider that an acceptable sacrifice.

It may help produce an Internet that's more like TV or a broadcast medium. The billions of users only being able to get content from a few million servers controlled by those who can afford public IPv4 addresses (which would go up in price).

Big Media might be very friendly with some Big ISPs in the USA right?

So while the IPv6 rollout is likely to eventually happen, it may take quite a long while. Way after the popular "run out of IPv4 addresses" deadlines.

Users would be shoved behind NATs and most of them wouldn't even notice- Fox News, CNN etc would still work for them.

Re:marketing speak = teh suck (1)

Anonymous Struct (660658) | about 5 years ago | (#29134663)

Just as soon as companies figure out how to monetize scriptable socks, we are going to see some serious IPv6 action.

We need IP 15! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133071)

A 15 digit TCP/IP address so that everyone on Earth can have their own TCP/IP address that allows for their own subnet. So, if a criminal does somethign "bad" the cops know who to go for. What can go wrong?!

Re:We need IP 15! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133231)

Somebody hacked my IP! With visual basic!

Hackers will listen to the IP address your computer broadcasts, exploit your windows, overflow your stack, cause general protection faults, and change your wallpaper to goatse [goatse.fr] .

IpV6 reality check (5, Informative)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | about 5 years ago | (#29133101)

Dan Bernstein has chimed in on this before:

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

He is basically dead right.

The people who came up with IPv6 seemed to be too ivory tower: they forgot about
the reality on the ground. Few ISPs are even thinking about IPv6.

-paul

Re:IpV6 reality check (2, Interesting)

spinkham (56603) | about 5 years ago | (#29133425)

Since this rant, google has actually gone IPv6 for IPv6 ready ISPs.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ [google.com]

By no means is the internet IPv6 friendly, and a lot of the points Dan makes are good ones, but he fails to offer any solutions either.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 5 years ago | (#29134671)

Not really.. They don't index the ipv6 address space and 90% of the google pages are still ipv4 only.

The key is indexing ipv6 sites. Until google start that they haven't 'gone ipv6' at all.

Re:IpV6 reality check (2, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29133427)

He is basically dead right.

Umm, about what? He trots out a bunch of hypothetical problems that people have been cheerfully ignoring because they don't manifest in reality. IPv6 is here and working today, even if Dan didn't want to believe it possible.

Re:IpV6 reality check (2, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 5 years ago | (#29133603)

They do manifest in reality: They are why I don't have an IPv6 address: It's to much work for too little benefit. It can be worked around, but it's just more work, and wouldn't really get me anything.

Basically all he is saying is 'accept an IPv4 address as an IPv6 address'. Which would mean that 'upgrading' would be as simple as getting software that can handle being sent IPv6 addresses. (Which basically everyone's already got at this point.)

Instead at the current situation you have to figure out how and were to get an IPv6 address, and either keep an IPv4 as well (and switch between the two as the situation demands) or work out how you are going to talk to the 90+% of the world that doesn't have an IPv6 address. Either of those require extra work, for every person trying to connect to the network.

So, in the current situation, everyone who switches to IPv6 needs to be a network engineer. Because it's a complicated setup at the user's endpoint. Guess how long it'll take Grandma to switch then.

Yes, the network works, but there is no decent upgrade plan.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133861)

So, in the current situation, everyone who switches to IPv6 needs to be a network engineer. Because it's a complicated setup at the user's endpoint. Guess how long it'll take Grandma to switch then.

Actually, it requires almost no setup. The problem isn't Grandma, it's Grandma's (US) ISP. If the IPv6 connection appears from upstream (and it's advertised by the router, no client configuration needed--not even DHCP), it's available for use.

My student ACM chapter once inadvertently leaked router advertisements for our IPv6 connection onto the building's main network and hijacked most of the Web traffic as the machines saw our connection and automatically (and transparently to the users) started routing through it.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29133957)

Instead at the current situation you have to figure out how and were to get an IPv6 address,

If they're using an IPv6-enabled ISP, that's a non-event. It really does Just Work.

and either keep an IPv4 as well (and switch between the two as the situation demands) or work out how you are going to talk to the 90+% of the world that doesn't have an IPv6 address.

Why wouldn't you keep both, out of curiosity? Almost every machine on our corporate LAN uses both protocols. I enable it on the router and the various servers and workstations just started using it without any additional configuration.

Either of those require extra work, for every person trying to connect to the network.

Where "extra" approximates "no".

Re:IpV6 reality check (2, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | about 5 years ago | (#29134145)

Grandma will upgrade to IPv6 when her ISP says your modem needs to be replaced or they have a tech swap her cable modem. The layman argument does not hold water in every situation. Most laymen will plug in their new IPv6 router and not even configure a password, let alone worry about routing tables, etc.

That's like saying grandma can't change her own brake pads, so we'll just let her grind her rotors down. Grandma will just goto a mechanic or in this case, her ISP which is staffed with NETWORK ENGINEERS. It's their fuckin' job to figure this stuff out and move to it for the benefit of their users. Your argument makes it sound like you're just a lazy network engineer who can't be bothered to work.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about 5 years ago | (#29134421)

I fully agree with that. Having to "upgrade" a software to run ipv6 is annoying already. Now, the fact that we have to have BOTH compability, and manage it, is just plain stupid. The adoption rate would have been much much bigger if it was just a mater of using ipv6, then it would have also support ipv4 and that was it.

I also always trough the DJB's URL to show how stupid the implementation was thought. Why wasn't it that simply, an IPv4 would have "contained" N amount of ipv6 addresses? That would have been so much more easy to understand.

Thomas

Re:IpV6 reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134517)

They do manifest in reality: They are why I don't have an IPv6 address: It's to much work for too little benefit. It can be worked around, but it's just more work, and wouldn't really get me anything.

Basically all he is saying is 'accept an IPv4 address as an IPv6 address'. Which would mean that 'upgrading' would be as simple as getting software that can handle being sent IPv6 addresses. (Which basically everyone's already got at this point.)

Instead at the current situation you have to figure out how and were to get an IPv6 address, and either keep an IPv4 as well (and switch between the two as the situation demands) or work out how you are going to talk to the 90+% of the world that doesn't have an IPv6 address. Either of those require extra work, for every person trying to connect to the network.

So, in the current situation, everyone who switches to IPv6 needs to be a network engineer. Because it's a complicated setup at the user's endpoint. Guess how long it'll take Grandma to switch then.

Yes, the network works, but there is no decent upgrade plan.

dont worry about grandma shes only going to have 50/20 with 1 gig for cap any ways

why will she need ipv6 any ways

Re:IpV6 reality check (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about 5 years ago | (#29134691)

So, in the current situation, everyone who switches to IPv6 needs to be a network engineer.

That's bull. End users don't need to know or do anything. At this point, all we really need is for ISPs to provide IPv6 and the rest will happen without users doing -- or knowing -- a thing.

Yes, the network works, but there is no decent upgrade plan.

Also crap. The upgrade plan is for IPv4 and IPv6 to coexist for a few years. Users deal with DNS names, not IP addresses, and applications and resolvers already transparently look for both AAAA and A records and use the AAAA records if available. All of the major OSes have solid IPv6 support in place -- if you don't believe me, install a radvd server on your home network and notice how *instantly* all the machines on your LAN have IPv6 addresses (heck, they all have link-local addresses now) right next to their IPv4 addresses. Of course, if your ISP set up support for IPv6, you wouldn't have to do anything.

The only reason that IPv6 won't currently work for most people even if their ISPs support it is that their current NATing router appliances don't support it properly. But if ISPs implemented v6 support, Linksys, D-Link, etc. would start rolling out devices with proper IPv6 in their firmware. With enough users on the v6 network, web site admins, etc., would add v6 support and AAAA DNS records, which the v6-enabled users would instantly (and transparently) begin using.

The transition plan is solid, and works very well in practice (as you can verify by using Hurricane Electric or another v6 tunnel provider). What's lacking is the ISP motivation, and being able to use a v4 address as a v6 address wouldn't change that at all.

Re:IpV6 reality check (2, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29133613)

Really? Ok, then. I have a Linux box connected to a Netgear router providing NATted connections, itself connected to a cable modem that goes out to Comcast, who provides my pipe and is my ISP. Comcast ISP, by the way, does not support IPv6. If IPv6 is here and working today, I should be able to use it. How do I do that?

If you can't tell me how, than Dan's "hypothetical problems" are very real indeed.

As far as I can tell, what people have been "cheerfully ignoring" is IPv6.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29133835)

Comcast ISP, by the way, does not support IPv6. If IPv6 is here and working today, I should be able to use it. How do I do that?

Switch to an ISP that provides IPv6 (you're surprised that Comcast is behind the times?), or spent 5 minutes enabling an IPv6 tunnel [tunnelbroker.net] to someone like Hurricane Electric from your Linux box.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29134083)

And I should switch from a provider that has provided me with fast, reliable, if somewhat pricey, service because?

(Yes, I know that a lot of people have had really bad experiences with Comcast. And the few times I have had trouble, their customer service has not impressed me. But, by and large, I have indeed had very little downtime from them; that's something I count on, in my job among other things, and I am not inclined to leave it behind)

Or, if I get the IPv6 tunnel with Hurricaine Electric, I expect that will involve HE charging me. What will I be getting for my money?

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

XanC (644172) | about 5 years ago | (#29134337)

I expect that will involve HE charging me. What will I be getting for my money?

You expect wrong.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | about 5 years ago | (#29134761)

It's free, but don't expect reliablility... routed IPV6 is definately the way to go.

Of course actually implementing routed ipv6 is rather technical. You get an ISP that does it.. great.. now find a modem that does it.. that's either hacked linksys or a cisco, or a linux box talking PPPoE to a bridged modem like I have - these require knowledge to set up. Then setup RA, which isn't automatic (you need to pick a network from your ISP supplied /48 since RA only works on a /64).

*then* it's plug and play. Mostly. You've still got to learn about ipv6 firewalling (which isn't that different but the icmp options are all changed).

Re:IpV6 reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133967)

Comcast is scheduled to roll out end-to-end IPv6 next year, actually.

Re:IpV6 reality check (5, Insightful)

r7 (409657) | about 5 years ago | (#29133437)

The people who came up with IPv6 seemed to be too ivory tower: they forgot about
the reality on the ground. Few ISPs are even thinking about IPv6.

Amen to that. But I don't see an academic angle so much as an ILEC angle i.e., IPv6 is being handicapped by large telcos, large ISPs, legacy netblock owners and their proxies in order to drive up fees for IPv4 addresses. The threads on new fee structures, in mailing lists like arin-ppml, make this obscenely clear. IPv4 netblock owners are salivating over the potential for profit from what should be a public resource.

Only thing more disappointing than ARIN's failure to either reclaim unused IPv4 netblocks (and there are plenty of those, both large and small) or speed the adoption of IPv6 is the DOC and FCC's failure to foresee the damage, both economic and to communications, which the coming address shortage will cause.

Re:IpV6 reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133503)

You referenced a document that is 6 years old. Last update was 2003.

Re:IpV6 reality check (1, Troll)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29133705)

And you will noticed that six years later, 99%+ of the Internet *still* doesn't use IPv6. Maybe he was on to something...

Re:IpV6 vs D20 (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 5 years ago | (#29133605)

The reality is that IPv4 has a limited use. NAT, and DHCP can only prolong it's life for so long. Eventually too many people are on the internet at the same time and then you have a problem. You then have to start dynamically reallocating IP addresses across countries and not just around a city or state. This is impractical and would mean the death of IPv4. Yes, IPv6 has been poorly thought out and poorly implemented. Then again the Internet2 which uses IPv6 is used primarily by universities and academia which is where the internet started. It's going though the same life cycle that the original did and will take the existing sport of the Internet when we finally figure out how to break it and have no way to fix it. When that happens is very debatable and will happen, unless society collapses and the internet dies with us.

I just rolled a 1 on vs Society Collapsing... was that good or bad?

Re:IpV6 reality check (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29133611)

Sorry, but while several of the issues he mentioned are major changes, there are well-thought-out reasons for them. All the criticisms could have been leveled against the upgrade to IPv4 as well.

First off, he pretty much ignores the dual-stack transition plan, which is what I've always seen in place for business systems. Precisely because IPv6 is a separate address space, you don't have to roll over from IPv4--you can run them both. Thus both clients and service providers can upgrade and take advantage of IPv6 without breaking connectivity to the IPv4 Internet.

Additionally, application compatibility in nearly all cases is a result of the programmers' failure to use the sockets API correctly. The sockets have supported different address families for decades (zero-one-infinity), and adding AF_INET6 happens transparently to a well-behaved application. (Some protocols weren't well-behaved, but that was a bug in the protocol, not IPv6.)

Yes, the transition would have been smoother had there been a clearer standard for IPv4-to-IPv6 address mapping, but IPv6 does work fine, thank you, and the upgrade is happening largely through aging out of older systems.

IPv6 is the protocol of the future (4, Funny)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29133139)

...and always will be!

for crying out loud ... (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 5 years ago | (#29133821)

... does anybody realize how long have we been talking about ipv6?

august 2009 [slashdot.org] , december 2008 [slashdot.org] , august 2007 [slashdot.org] , jan 2006 [slashdot.org] , july 2005 [slashdot.org] , jan 2004 [slashdot.org] , feb 2003 [slashdot.org] , feb 2002 [slashdot.org] , may 2001 [slashdot.org] , july 2000 [slashdot.org] , july 1999 [slashdot.org] , may 1998 [slashdot.org]

thank the US government (2, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#29133157)

US government contracts are starting to require IPv6 support. This is the main reason I'm seeing for IPv6 adoption. If it weren't for the government, we would all be keeping our heads in the sand until the internet starts slowly failing and Goldman Sachs starts selling remaining IPv4 netblocks to speculators.

Re:thank the US government (3, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 years ago | (#29133233)

US government contracts are starting to require IPv6 support.

And that's what they're getting: IPv6 support. You're getting set ups that *could* run IPv6. They don't, but they could.

Re:thank the US government (1)

KevinKnSC (744603) | about 5 years ago | (#29133853)

But isn't a large supply of systems capable of running IPv6 a prerequisite for actually running IPv6?

Re:thank the US government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133505)

I wonder if the long term end result of IPv6 will it being an edge protocol, while businesses will continue to use IPv4 in house, and when they need to route outside their company, it will use IPv6. This is clumsy, but this probably what may end up happening.

Re:thank the US government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134015)

It's because IPv6 is a joke. [slashdot.org] Everyone knows it is not the next step of the internet, or it would have been adopted sometime in the past 10 years it has existed. Everyone realizes how fail it is except the Government, which seems to explain their incompetence in wanting change Healthcare too. Face it, the Government is incompetent running anything besides HIGH LEVEL oversight of states and the military. Anything else our government touches(with the exception of NASA decades ago) is hogwash.

Just say no to government run internet (IPv6 crap), Healthcare, state laws, etcetera; let the people with real vested interest in these modern invention run them. For instance, the tech world has laughed at IPv6 for the past 10 years, and the American congress has laughed at government healthcare the past 60 years. 'Nuff said.

Re:thank the US government (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#29134157)

I can't tell whether this post is a joke or not.

Current deadline, in case anyone's interested (2, Informative)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 5 years ago | (#29133227)

Stolen from wikipedia:
"As of April 2008, predictions of exhaustion date of the unallocated IANA pool seem to converge to between February 2010 and May 2011"

Re:Current deadline, in case anyone's interested (2, Interesting)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#29133265)

Does that take into account universities and large companies giving back all the class A ip addresses they have that were initially given out back in the day?

(I'm genuinely asking, I don't know)

Re:Current deadline, in case anyone's interested (1)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 5 years ago | (#29133701)

The Wikipedia page on IP address exhaustion [wikipedia.org] discusses this at some length. The Cliff-notes version:

1. There are blocks of under/non-utilized addresses that could be reclaimed, as well as reserved addresses that could be re-purposed.
2. Accomplishing the above would require a lot of investigation (into current usage) and/or reprogramming routers (which were designed with the current addressing system in place).
3. At best, the exhaustion date would simply be postponed.

It seems to me like more trouble than it's worth - especially since it just postpones the problem. If we're reprogramming routers anyways, why not deploy IPv6?

Re:Current deadline, in case anyone's interested (1)

tygerstripes (832644) | about 5 years ago | (#29133703)

Here's a link [potaroo.net] to the latest projection (wikipedia's out of date) which is updated daily. It explains how the estimate is made, so have a read if you're interested (I confess, I'm not)

Anyway, current guess is July 2011.

Re:Current deadline, in case anyone's interested (1)

Gerald (9696) | about 5 years ago | (#29134477)

Does that take into account universities and large companies giving back all the class A ip addresses they have that were initially given out back in the day?

Why the heck would HP, Apple, and every other publicly-traded company with /8s give back address space when they could lease it? (I'm also genuinely asking)

That's ok, the world ends in 2012 anyway! (1)

billlava (1270394) | about 5 years ago | (#29133307)

According to the Mayans (I think they are a sect of Ron Paul followers) the world will end in 2012 anyway. I saw a youtube video about it, so it must be true.

Readiness test checklist (3, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | about 5 years ago | (#29133245)

OK, here's a handy checklist to see if IPv6 is ready for prime time:

Use case: access a common web site (e.g. Slashdot) entirely by IPv6 packets:
1) Look up host's IP via IPv6 packets:
1a) Access a root DNS node via IPv6 packets (look up .org DNS server): CHECK
1b) Access .org DNS node via IPv6 packets (lookup slashdot.org address): ???
2) Access slashdot.org via IPv6 packets:
2a) Route IPv6 packets from my computer to "the Internet": FAIL
2b) Route IPv6 packets from "the Internet" to Co-Lo facility: ???
2c) Route IPv6 packets within the Co-Lo to Slashdot's servers: ???

When you (a presumably technically skilled user) can do that, then IPv6 is ready for the masses.

Re:Readiness test checklist (2, Informative)

Above (100351) | about 5 years ago | (#29133561)

1B)

% dig any org @a.root-servers.net

; > DiG 9.7.0a2 > any org @a.root-servers.net ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 4577 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 12 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;org. IN ANY ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
org. 172800 IN NS B2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org.
org. 172800 IN NS C0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO.
org. 172800 IN NS D0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org.
org. 172800 IN NS A0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO.
org. 172800 IN NS A2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO.
org. 172800 IN NS B0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
A0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN A 199.19.56.1
A0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:e::1
A2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN A 199.249.112.1
A2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:40::1
B0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN A 199.19.54.1
B0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:c::1
B2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN A 199.249.120.1
B2.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:48::1
C0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN A 199.19.53.1
C0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.INFO. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:b::1
D0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN A 199.19.57.1
D0.ORG.AFILIAS-NST.org. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:500:f::1 ;; Query time: 15 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:ba3e::2:30#53(2001:503:ba3e::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Aug 20 15:18:36 2009 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 423

Check.

2a is also a check for me.

Re:Readiness test checklist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133793)

1b) Check, AAAA records for root .org DNS servers, but they just get you the following glue NS records.
slashdot.org. 3600 IN NS ns-1.ch3.sourceforge.com.
slashdot.org. 3600 IN NS ns-1.sourceforge.com.
slashdot.org. 3600 IN NS ns-2.ch3.sourceforge.com.
1c) Access any of the slashdot.org authoritative DNS servers purely by ipv6... that's pretty much fail.

2a) You should be successful with that. There are several options for ipv6 tunneled over ipv4 available. They have worked with off the shelf consumer routers, although I admit to not testing with 2wire's network equipment.

It isn't that it's hard to deploy ipv6. It's harder to have an upstream provider
1) Provide ipv6
2) Provide key infrastructure services (such as DNS) on ipv6
3) Not screw up visibility to a common ipv6 tunnel provider.

After perusing through
http://www.commandinformation.com/ipv6/pdf/IPv6-Prefix-BigISPs_StatusTwo_v002.pdf
I see that sourceforge's upstream provider (savvis) doesn't have their prefix visible to hurricane electric yet.

I'm currently in the middle of a network hosting deployment where ipv6 will be an option, but it's a bigger PITA than it needs to be due to a lack of ipv6 availability from time warner.

There is also a lack of out of the box support for ipv6 on consumer network hardware. I can deploy ipv6 at my home (And actually do for some local traffic), but I end up either needing non-standard firmware for the devices, or configure one of the PCs as the ipv6 router.

Re:Readiness test checklist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134229)

I can access ipv6 hosts easily enough, but only because I've got some nastily complicated hack on my connection that encapsulates my ipv6 packets inside ipv4 and anycasts them out to the nearest gateway. It's a mess, but it gets me access to a very useful ipv6 server or two.

I set it up to look for the legendary ipv6 dump servers - the massive collections of pirate material said to reside on academic networks in ipv6 space, so that the ipv4-only anti-piracy operatives wouldn't find them and only those who can prove their technical skill by attaining ipv6 access may earn access. Turns out... oh, they do exist! But you have to know someone who'll tell you where to find one, and so I was only able to locate a single dump server. Kept me in anime and hi-def movies for months though.

All I care about (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133283)

Under IPv6 will I still be able to block posting access to my Japanese discussion site from African/Russian 419 scammers? I have a nice list of IP addresses that are automatically sent an empty http response when they try to become members. I used to give them a chance but every single one turned out to be a scammer so now I just block whole regions outside of Japan. (And luckily most aren't smart enough to bother with a proxy.) Will I still be able to do this under IPv6?

Re:All I care about (1)

FreeUser (11483) | about 5 years ago | (#29133429)

Under IPv6 will I still be able to block posting access to my Japanese discussion site from African/Russian 419 scammers? I have a nice list of IP addresses that are automatically sent an empty http response when they try to become members. I used to give them a chance but every single one turned out to be a scammer so now I just block whole regions outside of Japan. (And luckily most aren't smart enough to bother with a proxy.) Will I still be able to do this under IPv6?

Yes, you'll just need to know their IPv6 addresses/adress-ranges and block those.

Re:All I care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133571)

No. IPv6 is a joke, and the fact the Government is REQUIRING it further proves the Governments incompetence...and you want them to take over Healthcare! What a joke.

What, again? (5, Funny)

Nobo (606465) | about 5 years ago | (#29133319)

2002 called. They want their impending-IPv6-transition stories back.

Re:What, again? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 5 years ago | (#29133817)

You need to be more patient. The IPv6 transition is going to be impending right up until the point that it happens.

I'm sorry but (1)

Pop69 (700500) | about 5 years ago | (#29133329)

until consumer routers support IPv6 it's a dead protocol

Re:I'm sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133413)

My Airport handles IPv6 just fine. Which is a good thing, I cisco's vpn client borks up everything and i need ipv6 to access my lan.

So, like usual, Apple is ahead of the game.

Re:I'm sorry but (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 5 years ago | (#29133423)

Is milking v4 for all it's worth more profitable than going to v6?

Re:I'm sorry but (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29133557)

until consumer routers support IPv6 it's a dead protocol

Then it must be doing pretty well, since Apple's Airport Extreme router has it enabled by default and even configures a working tunnel for you. Cue grumbling about "but other routers don't!" in 3... 2... 1...

Re:I'm sorry but (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | about 5 years ago | (#29133813)

Apple's market share for routers is tiny compared to Netgear and Linksys. I'm one of the 8% or so of people who uses a Mac, but it talks to a Netgear router.

Re:I'm sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134013)

I'm not sure that a $180 fucking wifi router should count as a "consumer router."

Apple may have grossly overpriced it, but that's still out of the price range that most consumers will spend on their home network. You can get sneeringly superior about how great Apple is when they cost $50.

Re:I'm sorry but (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29134141)

I have a hacked WRT-54G. You presume much.

Re:I'm sorry but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134725)

My dlink DIR-825 (rev B1) supports it out of the box.

IPv6 is necessary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133501)

People don't want to make the transition because it's a hassle.

Sure you lose your easily remember IP addresses for some huge 128 bit string, but it's not a total loss.

IPv6 has a great deal of benefits such as increased browser speed (due to more efficient packet headers), higher privacy (due to increased address space), and increased server efficiency (due to the fact that the server is not performing all the computations - that load is now on your computer).

Ultimately, yes it will make your old computer suck more, but it will make your new computer shine.

Cool But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29133587)

Interesting discussion, and not likely to be solved here.

But let's look at cost. The cost for an IPv4 allocation is basically zero. This obviously conflicts with the scarcity argument.

Once IPv4 starts costing more, either directly on via a secondary market, then we may see some corner IPv6 implementations.

The other side of this is usability. Currently for public connections which is where the address space crunch is, IPv4, not IPv6 has usability. Despite the fact that anyone can get one, IPv6 addresses are not globally usable, but IPv4 is.

So, count me skeptical on this transition.

Re:Cool But... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134599)

But let's look at cost. The cost for an IPv4 allocation is basically zero. This obviously conflicts with the scarcity argument.

Once IPv4 starts costing more, either directly on via a secondary market, then we may see some corner IPv6 implementations.

As soon as somebody tries to sell an IP address, he is clearly not using it according to the rules and has to return it to its Regional Internet Registry.

We need IPV7 (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 years ago | (#29133743)

We need IPV7 that will merge IPV4 and IPV6 in a usable way. Keeping them separate and incompatible is a big mistake. There needs to be a seamless upgrade path from the one to the other, else it will never happen.

Re:We need IPV7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134197)

How? It seems to me as simple as creating a seamless upgrade path from RS-232 to USB.

The thing that gets me... (3, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | about 5 years ago | (#29134053)

...is that even new devices don't support IPv6, even when they're in entirely controlled address spaces.

For example, why the hell don't, for example, cell phones internet capabilities have IPv6? I mean the IPv6 routing would seem exactly designed for cell phones, devices external to the network don't need to reach them, and it's a frickin closed system with device upgrades fairly quickly. If we can't even use IPv6 in closed systems like that, it has failed.

The reason, of course, is because IPv6 is, in fact, an EPIC FAIL in actually working, because no one apparently bothered to figure out any sort of actual transition for it.

It's like, if instead of self-driving cars, they invented self-driving micro-monorails and expected us to buy them. But, don't worry, they have a handy monorail carrying rack we can install on top of our car that not that hard to set up so we can carry our monorail to the monorail tracks fifty miles away.

D. J. Bernstein is an ass, but he's right about this.

IPv6 should have been built by changing the damn format of the packets, but using the exact same IPv4 addresses with a specific prefix, routed exactly the same place. Any router that talked to devices that didn't understand IPv6 could just 'dumb it down' to IPv4, and, they should eventually do the same in reverse!

We could actually include a bit in the packet that upconverted IPv6 packets get, so we could keep statistics on how many packets were IPv6 their entire distance, and how many got converted down and back up at some point. So we could see what networks are actually switching out their equipment, and see what misconfigured gear thinks it's talking to IPv4 devices when it's talking to IPv6, so it needlessly converting. (IEEE 802.2 specifics a way to autonegotiate IPv4 or IPv6 using the EtherType, but it might not always work, and it's only for Ethernet anyway.)

At some point, as routers and OSes got replaced, large amounts of traffic on the internet would end up being IPv6 their entire distance, and at that point we can start assigning the IPv6 addresses that don't have a equivalent IPv4 one.

And, incidentally, we should keep the IPv4 network operational forever. 95% of the people can give their IPv4 addresses back, and as people stop connecting IPv4 devices, routers and whatnot will lose the ability to speak to them but there will still be some devices that cannot be upgraded, some embedded device that speaks only IPv4 or whatever. The company should be able to keep an IPv4 address, and require people to install one of the routers that can still upconvert in front of the device, and it gets routed over the internet and back just like anything else, because, for almost all the trip, it's IPv6. There would be no reason to ever turn off the subset of IPv6 that is IPv4.

Instead we invented a new fucking network that doesn't interact with IPv4 at all. Yes, yes, you can get IPv6 versions of IPv4 addresses, but routers and OSes do not automatically translate them. And it's actually against the rules for someone to try to contact a IPv4 server 'over' IPv6. They have to use their IPv4 address, like there should be a difference.

Re:The thing that gets me... (1)

chrylis (262281) | about 5 years ago | (#29134123)

IPv6 should have been built by changing the damn format of the packets, but using the exact same IPv4 addresses with a specific prefix, routed exactly the same place. Any router that talked to devices that didn't understand IPv6 could just 'dumb it down' to IPv4, and, they should eventually do the same in reverse!

Technically speaking, this is still possible using mapped addresses. The problem is that IPv4 addresses don't map onto IPv6 addresses; only a small subrange of IPv6 addresses can be handled this way.

why are these all videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134055)

grrrrrr

try it tonight (5, Informative)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 5 years ago | (#29134143)

Ok kids. Go home tonight and turn ipv6 on. I know you're all running homebrew linux nat routers.

Here's all you gotta do.

Install radvd. It's a Router Advertisement server. Router Advertisements are how your LAN clients learn what the hell their IPv6 "prefix" is. You're going to use something clever called 6to4, which basically converts your public ipv4 address into the first half of your ipv6 address. You plug that information into your radvd configuration, and voila, all your LAN clients can learn their unique global ipv6 address. Then you just run a little script, which turns up the 6to4 tunnel on your linux nat, and all of a sudden, all your LAN clients have globally routable ipv6 addresses! And once the v6 stack fires up, your computers will try resolving AAAA records, so you might even get to visit some v6 websites!

You're not strictly running native ipv6, since 6to4 is a tunnel to an anycast server (dont worry, there's plenty of them sharing the same address). It emulates pretty damned close though. Enough for you to try it out!

Here's the thing that keeps blowing my mind. Remember back before NAT? The Internet was actually symmetrical back then. Any host could contact any host. Well, it's restored. I keep forgetting I can literally contact ANY lan host from remotely, using its v6 address. Security nightmare? You betcha. Restored services? Makes up for it! Maybe I can figure out what a firewall is, after all!

Sure, there's tunnel brokers out there too... don't waste your time with all that. 6to4 is quick and easy, and it works fairly faithfully. By the time a tunnel broker OKs your info, you could be pinging already with 6to4.

Oh yeah. That malarkey about "ooh my address is so long, it's just not worth it" -- My address is 2002:xxxx:xxxx::1 through ::5. Also, a few weeks ago they released an interesting workaround to memorizing ip addresses, called "The DNS". As ominous as that sounds, it's actually pretty clever and I've been enjoying it for a while.

And yes, ::1 is easily guessable and that makes it hackable. So please, no nmapping the 2002:xxxx/32 subnet tonight. (At the rate of 2^96 pings per second, it should be done by next century)

Re:try it tonight (4, Informative)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 5 years ago | (#29134249)

here's one way of setting a 6to4 tunnel up. i squished some semicolons in cause it's pasting funny.

#!/bin/bash

# Create a 6to4 tunnel in linux.

if [ $# -eq 0 ]
then
    echo "Usage: $0 [delete]";
    exit;
fi;

ipv4=$(ifconfig $1|grep "inet addr:"|awk '{print $2}'|awk -F: '{print $2}');
ipv6=$(printf "2002:%02x%02x:%02x%02x::1" `echo $ipv4 | tr "." " "`);
echo "ipv4 address: ${ipv4}";
echo "ipv6 address: $ipv6";

if [ "$2" = "delete" ]
then /sbin/ip link set dev tun6to4 down /sbin/ip -6 route flush dev tun6to4 /sbin/ip tunnel del tun6to4
    echo "IPv6 tunnel has been deleted."
    exit
fi; /sbin/ip tunnel add tun6to4 mode sit ttl 255 remote any local ${ipv4}; /sbin/ip link set dev tun6to4 up; /sbin/ip -6 addr add ${ipv6}/16 dev tun6to4; /sbin/ip -6 route add 2000::/3 via ::192.88.99.1 dev tun6to4 metric 1;

if ping6 -c 1 he.net 2>&1 1>/dev/null
then
    echo "Verified IPv6 connectivity.";
else
    echo "Can't ping IPv6 network.";
fi;

Wouldn't be surprised to see an ipv4 kludge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29134595)

With so many legacy apps out there I would not be surprised to see some sort of kludge to increase the ip4 space...

something along the lines of using a couple of the unused bits in the ip header to differentiate
between ip4 space 1,2,3 etc....

A pack of Luddites, honestly! (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 5 years ago | (#29134701)

Every time something on IPv6 comes out, there's a thundering herd of people who've never used it but are certain that it's awful and won't ever work. What's wrong with you people? Do you feel threatened because you're used to being the networking expert among your clique and don't want to lose that reputation? If not that, then what is it that's making you sneer at a cool new technology without even trying it first?

I'm not addressing people who tried to make IPv6 work but had problems along the way, or who otherwise had bad experiences with it. That's totally understandable and I'm not going to tell such a person that they're wrong. I am talking directly to the people who've read old articles talking about why it won't work, or who are trotting out the same tired, invalid reasons to dislike it.

Here's what you need to know about IPv6:

  1. It's here and working today, and a lot of people are starting to adopt it.
  2. You can run IPv4 and IPv6 on the same network and machines. I don't know of any IPv6 implementation that can't run alongside IPv4.
  3. DNS works perfectly fine for IPv6. I have a long address on my machines at home and work, but ever have to manually type them anywhere after adding them to DNS.
  4. If you enable IPv6 alongside IPv4 and try to connect to another host, and that host has an IPv6 DNS record, then your machine will try to connect to that address and then fall back to IPv4 if that fails. If it doesn't have an IPv6 DNS record, then you'll connect via IPv4. There's no penalty for enabling it.
  5. NAT sucks. It might seem like a reasonable idea until you're reminded how nice it is not to have to mess with it, then you'll come to loathe it.
  6. There are plenty of good, free, reliable IPv6 tunnels available. I use Hurricane Electric [tunnelbroker.net] , but there are lots of others to choose from.
  7. All modern OSes support IPv6 out of the box.
  8. Many/most consumer routers do not support IPv6 natively (although you can still tunnel through those routers from your Linux or Windows or Mac server or desktop). Some do, though, and an Airport Extreme is still a consumer product even if it's more expensive than some of the others.

I think that about covers it. There's no reason to be afraid of IPv6. If you haven't tried it, give it a shot before bragging about how smart you are for recognizing that it can't work. Again, if you've tried it and had problems, I can understand why you're leery of the idea. If you haven't at least used a free tunnel to see what IPv6 is like, though, then you don't have a lot of room to comment on the subject.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>