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 Adoption Will Grow With Smart Grid Adoption, Hopes Cisco

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the watch-for-rent-seeking-through-legislation dept.

Networking 169

darthcamaro writes "A lot of people in the US have not seen a use case for the use of IPv6 yet, since we've got plenty of IPv4 addresses. But what happens when the entire electrical grid gets smart? The so-called Smart Grid will need a networking transport mechanism that will connect potentially hundreds of millions of people and devices. Networking giant Cisco sees IP (internet protocol) as the right transport and IPv6 as the logical choice for addressing. 'Pv6 is an interesting discussion and one that occupies a lot of bandwidth at Cisco,' Marie Hattar, Cisco's vice president of network systems and security solutions marketing said. 'Some people say that for smaller deployments, we could get away with IPv4, but the smart grid has a number of parts. The point is that if you're looking to build this [smart grid] out, why not build it out on the scalable protocol from the get-go?'"

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

wait - what IS a smart grid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459381)

What's a smart grid?

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459431)

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459699)

long article is LOOOOOOOOONG.

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459527)

According to Joe Biden, it's something that's going to help small businesses if the bridge leading to their establishment way out in the sticks is busted.

Speaking of smart stuff, does anyone know if the iPhone App Store has an app to automate the process of the Fed buying debt from the Treasury? As long as the money is moving from one pocket to the other quickly enough, maybe nobody will notice that we're broke!

Sincerely,
Ben Bernake

P.S. - I also need an ACORN underage immigrant whore-finder app. I need to find some good underage immigrant pussy-for-hire in my neighborhood, and I hear that Obama's community organizer buddies are experts in such matters!

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459547)

What's the website number?

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459817)

It's a system that can automate itself, enabling you to fire al lot your existing engineers.

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459997)

A football/Rugby/Soccer field with one guy having a minimum IQ of 110. That is as smart as the grid gets.

Re:wait - what IS a smart grid? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#29462337)

"Smart Grid" is a new fad. You can think of it as the 2009 equivalent to 1995's "Information Superhighway".

oh the headache ... (-1, Flamebait)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459413)

... when can we stop talking about IPv6?

Re:oh the headache ... (3, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459435)

when can we stop talking about IPv6? Just as soon as the IPv7 standard is released?

Re:oh the headache ... (2, Insightful)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459463)

When IPv7 standard is release we will talk about how no one will fill up all the address in IPv6 and there is no reason to switch to IPv7. When the IPv8 standard is released then we will talk about how easy it actually was to switch to IPv6 in the first place so there is no reason to stick around on IPv7. Maybe after IPv9 we will hear the end of IPv6 but it is highly unlikely.

Re:oh the headache ... (3, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460421)

In perspective, IPv6 is 5Ã--10^28 addresses for every man womand and child alive. 70kg human has around 7*10^27 atoms in their body. Or about 7 IP addresses per atom.

Each 1.020144 * 10^-14 sq meter of Earth could have an IP address.

It's 252 addresses for every known sun in the observable sky.

Not making any 640k statements, but damn that's a lot of addresses.

Re:oh the headache ... (2, Interesting)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461715)

Sure, IPv6 allows for far more individual addresses than we'll probably ever use. The idea is that, unlike with IPv4, we won't be forced to use every single one of those addresses. Instead we'll have the freedom to group them in ways which make sense--like purely hierarchical assignments, which greatly simplify routing, and unique, locally auto-generated host addresses. It's sort of like the way the name "John Smith" (which is hardly unique) consists of around 47.5 bits, assuming 4.75 bits per letter (26 letters + space). That leaves far more addressing possibilities than we need (about 10^14, vs. less than 10^10 humans), but the extra bits are useful in that they lets us skip inconvenient identifiers like Efmq Duisx.

Re:oh the headache ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29461945)

[...]but the extra bits are useful in that they lets us skip inconvenient identifiers like Efmq Duisx.

What's my Uncle Efmq have to do with anything? You're not the Jesse from over on Peachtree, are you?

Uncle Efmq's always telling us stories about what "Jesse, bless his heart" broke this week.

Re:oh the headache ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29462253)

Hey! My name is Efmq Duisx you insensitive bastard!

Re:oh the headache ... (1)

FrankieBaby1986 (1035596) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461899)

If i'm not mistaken, isn't there some part of the IPv6 standard (perhaps private nets?) where addressing works by having hosts pick a completely random number and use that, since the chances of collision are so slim?

Re:oh the headache ... (2, Insightful)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459837)

Does this mean we'll have to modify the quote to "There's no place like ::1"?

Re:oh the headache ... (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460747)

IPv7 will be like ALL the odd numbed IP schemes, expermental only. We will wait until IPv8 comes out in 50+ years.

Re:oh the headache ... (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459457)

When everyone's deployed it and it's boring.

I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (2, Interesting)

vertinox (846076) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459425)

But I'm not sure what protocol they use to check my electricity and water meters remotely.

I doubt its IPv6, but it would be a logical thing to do simply because of network addressing.

I mean even with private IPv6 addresses, it would still provide an easier way to identify the devices.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459669)

Its ipv4 on a private network. They can use 4billion in addresses if they want.

There is nothing that says you can not tunnel ipv4 over ipv4 and still have a private network as big as the real internet. This is exactly what all the different guys going after this are doing.

Also think about it. Do you realllllllllllllllllllly want your power grid to be tied to the real internet? IPV6 is a waste of time in the 'utility' market. Never mind the existing protocols that would all have to be chucked out or be routed over ip to get them to work. Not going to happen. These dudes move at glacial pace and for good reason. With say facebook going down there are a bunch of people who can not chat to their 'friends'. But say a sub station goes down. There is thousands of volts and amps jumping around, people with out power/heat, possible death.

They use modbus or a simple ascii protocol usually hooked to a remote wireless device to check your stuff. It is not exactly rocket science.

The real market will be porn somehow. It always is.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459913)

Also think about it. Do you realllllllllllllllllllly want your power grid to be tied to the real internet?

Well, maybe not, but there are still big advantages with using IPv6 even if it isn't on the public network. For example, you can use addresses that are guaranteed to be globally unique - this means no readdressing problems when you suddenly decide 2 completely independent networks need to talk to each other.

This is what has stunned me about the telephone industry - they are spending billions on replacing their antiquated SS7 networks with IMS networks. The IMS protocols were _designed_ to be run over IPv6 (but of course, IPv4 and IPv6 are so similar that they have actually been made to work on both), but most of the telcos are rolling out IPv4 networks. Nothing like spending vast amounts of money to replace one obsolete network with another.

IPv6 is an established and proven technology, there really aren't many good reasons not to use it in a new network.

IPV6 is a waste of time in the 'utility' market.

I'm not sure how it can be described as a "waste of time" since that would imply it would take longer to implement than an IPv4 network. If you're starting from scratch and not having to interoperate with the existing internet, an IPv6 network takes no more time to implement and is a bit of a no-brainer (getting a much more future-proofed network at almost the same cost). Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people in charge of such projects do indeed have no brains.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461409)

>> this means no readdressing problems when you suddenly decide 2 completely independent networks need to talk to each other.

What if one of those independent networks is running IPv4? Fail.

And that is why IPv6 continues to lose.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (3, Insightful)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459697)

I doubt its IPv6, but it would be a logical thing to do simply because of network addressing.

They might be using IPv6 soon enough, check out 6lopan [wikipedia.org] , an IETF group working towards getting IPv6 working on low-power networking devices like Xbee modems, etc. IEEE 802.15 transceivers are low-power, will mesh easily, and are very common in power meters.

Having global addressability saves a lot of hassle, and should not be confused with global reachability. Seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460131)

Smart meters are only part of the smart grid, although where they're being deployed it's considered essential to it. And the jury is still out as to how they're going to do the remote reading in many places - that will involve networking, and considering the millions of end points it may end up being a purpose-built protocol running across purpose-built hardware. IPV6 is all well and good and well thought out, but security is a big concern of the electricity companies and they're not entirely wedded to Internet protocols, which may not be considered sufficiently hardened to them. Get it wrong and the juice could be turned on at an inappropriate moment, killing somebody.

And the new networking framework doesn't just apply to the meters, either - distributors are planning to improve their back haul networks from high voltage infrastructure on down to the substation level too. Part of the reason for smart metering (along with remote reading) is to get a better usage profile - that is, when, during the day, the peaks and troughs of usage occur in any part of the network. There are big bucks to be saved by coupling that knowledge to demand-side electricity management.

In Australia we have a national electricity market, and both bulk electricity and retail customer transactions are traded across a common market settlements system called MSATS. It's already geared to handle the higher load of transactions that smart metering will impose, and has since 2001.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460403)

My meters use the phone line using either a 28k or 56k modem (not sure which). My DVR also uses the phone line. That makes sense since the phoneline is the most-widely available service.

As for smartgrid, I'll be extremely annoyed if I come home to my hot house, turn-on the A/C and my thermostat tells me I have to wait an hour. Grrr.

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

jeffstar (134407) | more than 5 years ago | (#29462093)

that won't fly.

Your hot water might be a bit less hot or your pool not as clean though

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460719)

The two main wireless protocols in contention for use at the home level are 6LoWPAN ( http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/6lowpan-charter.html [ietf.org] ) and ZigBee Pro ( http://www.zigbee.org/ [zigbee.org] ). ZigBee is the much more interesting network for this application

Re:I know my utility meters can be read remotely. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461377)

I'm working on smart grid stuff at the moment, and IPv6 is used. But these things are NOT connected to the network at large. These grids are all private networks, so it won't promote IPv6 stuff on the "public" internet, except perhaps to drive more sales of routers that have to understand IPv6.

Cisco is pretty much a latecomer to this arena from what I can see, hoping to leverage their router sales to utilities rather than let them be able to pick and choose the network infrastructure.

Translation (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459455)

Companies will soon actually have a reason to throw out their old routers and buy new ones, hopes Cisco.

Re:Translation (1)

chrylis (262281) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459479)

The routers are fine, it's only layer-3 switches that have to be replaced.

Although on that count, could Vyatta and friends *please* get up to speed with IPv6 support? The underlying engine's supported it for years...

Re:Translation (2, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459645)

throw out routers? haven't ciscos been ipv6-capable for at least a decade now?

ipv6 is really old stuff. all routers that are 'worth anything' should be v6 capable already. those that aren't probably don't NEED to be, anyway.

not everything needs a world-wide public address. NAT 'security' is actually a Good Thing(tm).

Re:Translation (5, Interesting)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460187)

throw out routers? haven't ciscos been ipv6-capable for at least a decade now?

Pretty much (although you might have to buy a firmware upgrade... but then if you aren't running a recent firmware you're probably infested with security holes anyway).

those that aren't probably don't NEED to be, anyway.

That's rather untrue though. If you're going to deploy IPv6-only systems then *all* the routers on the network need to do IPv6. Yes, this even includes the home DSL routers, most of which currently on the market *still* have absolutely no IPv6 support, even though we only have about 2 years until IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses. Anything else is going to involve kludging things to work through IPv4 to IPv6 gateways, or tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4 to bypass the non-compliant devices.

The whole IPv4 address exhaustion problem is a really good example of people sticking their heads in the sane and hoping the problem goes away - most ISPs seem to not be interested in preparing their networks for IPv6 at all (PlusNet told me that they had no plans to roll out *any* IPv6 support over the next few years and EntaNet seem to have halted their IPv6 trials). Some time towards the end of 2011 there will be a "sky falling" moment similar to what we saw at Y2K when ISPs realise they are basically screwed and are going to have to do an expensive rush-job of deploying IPv6 over their networks in just a few short months.

not everything needs a world-wide public address. NAT 'security' is actually a Good Thing(tm).

Argh! Please will people stop spreading this crap. There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT. You get security from stateful packet inspection. NAT requires stateful packet inspection to work, but there is no significant security advantage (and many really serious operational disadvantages) provided by running NAT instead of just a stateful firewall. Also, most home NAT routers provide no stateful firewalling, only the limited stateful tracking required to make NAT work, and can therefore easily be bypassed by anyone on the upstream segment (which may be a few hundred random members of the public in the case of some cable setups).

Security is better served by doing proper stateful firewalling, and this is probably best achieved by removing NAT from the equation so that people don't have a false sense of security. Removing NAT also solves a lot of operational problems, as there are an increasing number of protocols that can't be made to work well through NAT (and whilst many people regard this as a flawed protocol design, there are sound reasons for designing these protocols in this way).

Re:Translation (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460655)

Security is better served by doing proper stateful firewalling, and this is probably best achieved by removing NAT from the equation so that people don't have a false sense of security.

Now that's just being silly. Most people aren't going to be influenced by such a lesson, because they fundamentally don't care about such issues. NAT is still a good thing, although I do agree with much else you say.

I disagree with your contention that most routers don't offer stateful firewalls; check the age of your information, most of them do now.

For my choice, I run a nice little NetGear wireless router at home. It's IPV4, uses NAT and includes a stateful firewall. (The router is quite good, but I've found the NetGear wireless Ethernet cards at the PC end rather suck on many levels. Get the router, ignore the cards). I regularly check our home systems (six of them) for malware, zero day exploits I read about, etc. and we're all pretty clean. Our ISP (Optus) offers a firewalled connection too, which helps. And the kids know better than to click links indiscriminately. You can teach 'em that.

Re:Translation (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460801)

Now that's just being silly. Most people aren't going to be influenced by such a lesson, because they fundamentally don't care about such issues.

They start to care after they lose all their data and pay for their computer to be cleaned of malware for the tenth time.

Car analogy alert: people don't care that putting diesel into their petrol car is bad. Oh wait, yes they do when they have to pay lots for it to be fixed.

Also, router manufacturers do have to build _some_ security into their products. They will always do the bare minimum they can get away with, but once you take away NAT, the bare minimum happens to be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

I disagree with your contention that most routers don't offer stateful firewalls; check the age of your information, most of them do now.

As recently as a year ago I was finding that a lot of the consumer routers did nothing to stop me accessing the LAN from the WAN port, so long as I had tweaked my routing appropriately (i.e. if you have 192.168.0.0/24 on the LAN and the router's WAN port is 1.2.3.4/24 then I can plug a machine into the WAN port as 1.2.3.5/24 set to route to 192.168.0.0/24 via 1.2.3.4 and get access to anything on the LAN. This is because the routers weren't *blocking* incoming traffic that didn't match any existing connections - i.e. they were just using the SPI functionality to drive the NAT engine rather than to drive a firewall as well).

Re:Translation (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460691)

That's rather untrue though. If you're going to deploy IPv6-only systems then *all* the routers on the network need to do IPv6. Yes, this even includes the home DSL routers, most of which currently on the market *still* have absolutely no IPv6 support

Yeah, when ISPs actually do go IPv6 it will be a beautiful day for DD-WRT and OpenWRT. There will be whole businesses around reflashing those routers and reselling them, while most manufacturers will not release an update including IPv6.

There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT.

Unless your ISP is compromised, the combination of using non-routed addresses and dropping source routed frames (as everyone and their mom does by default) means that a NAT does provide some significant security. Attacks generally rely on packets reaching their destination.

Security is better served by doing proper stateful firewalling,

This part is true.

Removing NAT also solves a lot of operational problems, as there are an increasing number of protocols that can't be made to work well through NAT (and whilst many people regard this as a flawed protocol design, there are sound reasons for designing these protocols in this way).

In some cases yes, in some cases no. FTP is just stupid no matter how you slice it, sorry. Most newer protocols have some facility for NAT traversal, or at least work with a SOCKS proxy.

Re:Translation (2, Informative)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460931)

There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT.

Unless your ISP is compromised

Your ISP doesn't have to be compromised. Many cable systems are set up so that the cable segment is basically a bus and the cable modems are bridges. Anyone on that segment can adjust their routing appropriately.

Also, even if you're not on such a network I don't think it's a particularly good idea to trust that another party's network is secure.

the combination of using non-routed addresses and dropping source routed frames (as everyone and their mom does by default) means that a NAT does provide some significant security. Attacks generally rely on packets reaching their destination.

No... No it doesn't. The ability to track the state of all the connections and drop packets that don't belong to any that were established by a local machine gets you the security. It just so happens that NAT requires that you implement this underlying framework, but keep this framework and remove the NAT and you still have about as much security. The only thing NAT gets you over and above this is to hide your internal network topography, which is of questionable value and turns out to be very harmful to a lot of legitimate stuff many people want to do.

In some cases yes, in some cases no. FTP is just stupid no matter how you slice it, sorry.

No, FTP isn't stupid - it was invented before firewalls were thought of and did the job it was designed to do very well. However, most people don't use the full functionality of the protocol and can therefore get away with something more simplistic that plays better with these newfangled firewall things.

Most newer protocols have some facility for NAT traversal, or at least work with a SOCKS proxy.

NAT traversal is flakey at best - even the STUN RFC admits that it is not, nor can it be, reliable. STUN (and other forms of NAT traversal) are a best effort way to make the best of a bad job and they work most of the time, but by no means should they be considered a good solution.

As for SOCKS, I've not seen anything using especially recent protocols provide any kind of support for SOCKS proxies. Certainly when it comes to applications that need to use UDP, whilst SOCKS 5 does support UDP I've never actually seen anything try.

Let Corps pay for IPv6 (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460965)

What's going to happen is that the internet is going to be broken up by country, so that each country will have its own set of IP addresses for IPv4. So, the people that want genuinely global internet coverage will get IPv6, but those of us who just want to be in one country can use the smaller, simpler and more efficient IPv4

Re:Let Corps pay for IPv6 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460987)

What's going to happen is that the internet is going to be broken up by country, so that each country will have its own set of IP addresses for IPv4. So, the people that want genuinely global internet coverage will get IPv6, but those of us who just want to be in one country can use the smaller, simpler and more efficient IPv4

I think if that were to happen you'd very suddenly realise that a lot of the services you use aren't hosted in your own country and you'd be off to get yourself an IPv6 connection.... Frankly, I can't see that ever happening though.

Re:Translation (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461959)

There is practically *no* security provided by a NAT.

untrue.

try to ping my home address. its 10.a.b.c (you know what I mean).

go ahead.

now ssh to me.

now try to port scan me.

want to finally admit that there IS *some* security to nat? its not as secure as a smart firewall but its WAY better than being 'directly on the net'. way way better (for most of us).

Re:Translation (2, Interesting)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459653)

Surely any decent router which miraculously doesn't support it yet could have support introduced in a firmware update? There is nothing about IPv6 that should require hardware updates.

Re:Translation (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459785)

your talking about Cisco's lovely IOS - routers are cheap and as long as they have the interfaces and backplanes you need will do what you want. (unless you do some ungodly evil filtering/processing of every packet)

It's the SmartNet and IOS that is the real cost - and no not all of the IOS releases from 5 years and older have ipv6 support

Re:Translation (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459809)

I would not be so sure. Most hardware manufactured recently was built with IPv6 in mind, so is probably a firmwareware upgradeable. There are hardware features, like express forwarding are hardware specific and would need to have enough space allocated for specific address lengths.

Wishful thinking (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459505)

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date... what makes them think it won't work for the "smart grid"? Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world? After all, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

sxedog (824351) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459659)

As long as they leave my coffee maker alone, I'm fine

Re:Wishful thinking (3, Informative)

solevita (967690) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459677)

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date

Except, of course, that isn't really true. I've had to try and run a VPN endpoint on a NAT'd host because our ISP wasn't giving us what they'd advertised. That wasn't fun and if more people are going to want to run VPNs in the future, we're going to need more IP addresses.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459711)

IPv6 != addressable from anywhere in the world. If i have a lan that is not connect to the internet it still communicates using IPv4. There are many nice tricks in IPv6's hat that make it much better than IPv4+nat+... for any new network. Ignoring the additional space that would allow a much better layout, you have multicast which is nice for the smart grid

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

oasisbob (460665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459747)

After all, what could possibly go wrong?

... someone deploys this tech without sensible ACLs and firewalling? We face those same problems now.

Re:Wishful thinking (5, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459749)

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date

Much the same way that up to Aug 28, 2005, the New Orleans leeves were successful in holding back every conceivable rise in water level.

NAT works as long as you have simple networking needs--nothing much more than web and email. As soon as you need to use VPN, or VoIP, or try to get two or more people to play the same game behind the same firewall, it becomes readily apparent what a pain NAT is. In some cases, the application is doing all sorts of trickery to try to keep the user from noticing the issue. In others, the user is left on their own to deal with it. That doesn't even count a bunch of potential applications where the developers realized that they wouldn't be able to get around NAT, and thus never built it at all or simply toiled in obscurity.

Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?

NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology. There is some use in that, but it comes at the expense of everything mentioned above. On balance, NAT comes out wanting. If you still really want to hide your topology, you can still use NAT on IPv6, but this should be the exception, not the rule.

Re:Wishful thinking (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460165)

NAT != Firewall. The only thing NAT provides you with over a packet filter is hiding your network topology.

Personally, I'd say that it does a little more. As long as your router drops incoming requests on the floor instead of forwarding them, it protects your LAN from port scanners. That, of course, doesn't make it a firewall, but it is a step in the right direction. There's nothing NAT can do to protect you if you click on the wrong link because whatever comes back is a response, not a request, but still, for the average office, it's better than nothing.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460255)

Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.

Anyway, you can have your firewall drop all incoming traffic by default, opening up specific ports to specific machines as needed. It's still easier than NAT, since you don't also have to fool around with forwarding those ports.

Some applications have hardcoded ports, which makes it almost impossible to have more than one of these running at once behind the same NAT. A simple packet filtering firewall can handle this fine. Admittedly, those applications are poorly-written, but you're still going to have to deal with them in the real world.

Or don't bother with any sort of gateway. I'm personally a fan of perimeterless networking, where each machine is expected to handle its own firewall. Done right, it can make administration easier, give better security, and keeps laptops safe no matter where they're connected.

Re:Wishful thinking (3, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460523)

Router's don't drop requests, at least not by default. Firewalls do. Best Buy has never sold a single router, no matter what it says on the box.

I have a home LAN, with a router. In order to get bittorrent working correctly, I had to set up this machine with a static IP on the LAN, and tell my router to forward all rquests on the appropriate ports to that IP. I have my own domain, and I've used dynamic DNS to let me use SSH to connect to my home machine when I'm away from home. Again, I had to tell the router where to send incoming requests on Port 22. Now, you may prefer to call that a "residential gateway" as Wikipedia does, but most people would look at you funny if you called it anything other than a router.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460547)

. I'm personally a fan of perimeterless networking, where each machine is expected to handle its own firewall. Done right, it can make administration easier, give better security, and keeps laptops safe no matter where they're connected.

If you want to allow, say, VLAN 100 to access VLAN 105 on specified ports that would be difficult to do on a computer level since you could only filter on ip-range / ports. And that would be rather insecure unless you're using ipsec. Also you will have management overhead when there's a security bug in the firewall software. But I too like having firewalls on servers and computers. But rules for outgoing connections and between vlans is managed centrally. It's a good additional layer if you can manage it, but don't use it as the only layer.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461487)

Personally, I'd say that it does a little more. As long as your router drops incoming requests on the floor instead of forwarding them, it protects your LAN

NAT does not drop anything.

But we may still need nat with ipv6 as ISP may sti (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461563)

But we may still need nat with ipv6 as ISP may still only give you 1 ip and make you pay more per ip.

I can see comcast doing that like they do with tv pay $6-$20 per box for rent + outlet fee.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459771)

Addressable is not the same as accessible.

Still, I don't see IPv6 adoption happening until you can actually have it provided by most ISPs for residential access, have it go through a cheap ADSL/cable routers, and deliver the web pages people want to access.

From what I've heard, less than 1% of the web is IPv6 accessible, less than 5% of residential internet connections allow IPv6, and very few home routers support it.

It's basically like NetBEUI or IPX - used on LANs, but not on the Internet.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

chrylis (262281) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459975)

Every home router I've seen does IP in software, so they ought to be updatable with a firmware upgrade. All it will take is for one major ISP to roll out IPv6 to customers and start advertising "next generation Internet" support for the others to put it on their while-we're-replacing-old-equipment list. Sure, it'll take a while, but it'll happen sometime.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460433)

less than 5% of residential internet connections allow IPv6

Untrue. Very few residential internet connections will do *native* IPv6, but 6to4 works reasonably well. What this basically means is that you can still roll out IPv6 on your internal network and you can still reach IPv6 services on the internet, it's just that the traffic is tunnelled across your ISP inside IPv4 packets until it gets to your nearest 6to4 anycast gateway.

Re:Wishful thinking (1, Interesting)

growse (928427) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459819)

You mean, every IPv4 application you can conceive of....?

Don't lets limit the rest of the world because you're too stupid to realise that NAT and IPv4 causes huge problems on a day to day basis for a lot of people.

Re:Wishful thinking (3, Interesting)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460367)

NAT/IP Masquerade has worked well for scaling IPv4 in every conceivable application to date...

Except it hasn't, NAT is a kludge that happens to work with simplistic client/server protocols in common use (such as HTTP). It doesn't even work well with some old standard protocols, such as FTP, without protocol-specific packet mangling.

NAT breaks pretty much all peer-to-peer protocols, which are rapidly becoming more common. Want to do VoIP, or start a direct file transfer between 2 IM clients? If you have NATs in the way then that gets unreliable. STUN makes things work a lot of the time, but even the STUN RFC admits that it is not, and cannot be, reliable. Systems like Skype try to hide these problems by abusing unfirewalled clients to route traffic between NATted clients (often without the unfirewalled user's knowledge), but the problems still exist and such "solutions" start to fall to pieces as the proportion of unfirewalled hosts dwindles.

what makes them think it won't work for the "smart grid"?

I'm guessing that the electricity supplier is going to want to be able to talk directly to your electricity meter, etc. Having a NAT in the way makes this less reliable since they won't be able to talk to it unless the meter has already initiated the connection through the NAT.

Or to put it differently, do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world?

Do not confuse global addressability with global reachability. Assigning every device a globally unique address is valuable, even if it is on an isolated network. It makes it easier to connect 2 isolated networks together when you realise that you actually need them to not be so isolated from each other.

That said, I can think of a number of appliances that I wouldn't mind being globally reachable: My MythTV system is already globally reachable - if someone mentions a TV programme that sounds interesting, I can use the web browser on my phone to tell it to record that programme. I wouldn't mind my oven to be internet addressable, so I could remotely ask it to turn on and cook my dinner in time for me getting home. Being able to turn my heating on when I'm at the airport after coming back from holiday would be useful. Taking things a bit further, if I could ask my fridge what I'm running out of when I'm in the supermarket, I could save some hassle.

After all, what could possibly go wrong?

There are obviously security concerns to be addressed. But at the same time, designing a network so it *can't* be extended in the future seems somewhat short sighted.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460377)

do you really want every appliance in your house directly addressable from anywhere in the world? After all, what could possibly go wrong?

Part of the appeal, according to the electricity execs we've surveyed recently (study to be released soon) is the idea that people might like to know better where their money is going on a per-household-circuit level. A better dashboard, if you will. (warning: car analogy follows) It's like the dashboard of your car - you have a speedometer, tachometer, various warning lights - yet your house has nothing of the sort to show you your energy use, and you're using a similar amount of energy (car energy use approximates household energy use, it turns out). There's a hope that overall energy use will be cut down if people have better knowledge of where they're using it, and giving people that sort of dashboard option may help. Electricity is a big part of a lot of people's spend, and if they save money and the electricity providers save money, everybody benefits.

Take-up will be proportional to how helpful it can be made, how easy it is to access, and how secure it can be made, how compliant with privacy regs.

An interesting side observation from our survey is that the C-level people we've spoken to are concerned about the same things we are - effect on climate, safety of the workforce, renewable energy sources, and they're quite passionate about wanting to make a positive difference. They're not quite the rapacious bastards I thought they were.

when the entire electrical grid gets smart? (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459519)

We can just assign each electron it's own IPv6 address.

I call I don't have to work on the routing tables...

Re:when the entire electrical grid gets smart? (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459987)

IPv6 only allows about 3.4 * 10^38 addresses.
Not nearly enough!

Windows 7 and Server 2008 (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459533)

Microsoft is pushing IPv6. Many people will be switching to IPv6 and not even realize it.

Re:Windows 7 and Server 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459577)

Maybe so, but most of them are behind v4 networking equipment.

Direct Access (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461355)

I think they will be very successful as well, as soon as people start comparing Direct Access to the hemorrhoid of IT, the VPN.

Direct Access works, and it works very well after a somewhat tedious configuration. Tunneling IPv6 through IPv4 will extend the life of many an SMB router, too.

NEGATIVE! Seperate it from public! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459601)

No, the smart grid should be a completely seperate network, only backed by the Internet/public network as a fallback to primary grid network failure. And even then severe security measures should be met for such a bridge. My point still stands, the grid should be implemented on a seperate network (not completely publicly accessible), and in that case using IPv4 on both will be just fine.

Re:NEGATIVE! Seperate it from public! (3, Funny)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459863)

Don't worry! You see, by using IPv6 you can guarantee that no normal host on the Internet is ever going to be capable of reaching it! :)

Get a Clue! (4, Interesting)

refactored (260886) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459627)

I waded through the replies with a fist full of mod points hoping to mod the cluefull up... but there weren't any!

The internet and especially all the Linux nodes on the internet are designed from the ground up to have a static IP addresses and IP names and be their own DNS and own Mail smarthost and web server and ....

Between the control freaks, the clueless, and the bean counters in Microsoft and the ISP's we have an internet with...

  • an artificial scarcity of ip numbers and ip names that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.
  • the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.
  • an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

IPv6 will _never_ be allowed into the current mix.

Re:Get a Clue! (2, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459797)

Protip: We were networking long before IP. If you were talking about MAC addresses, you'd have a point.

Yes, ISPs suck.
No, believe it or not, IPv6's ridiculously slow uptake is MS's fault.

Yes, IPv6 will be here one day.

Re:Get a Clue! (4, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459973)

  • an artificial scarcity of ip numbers and ip names that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.
  • the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.
  • an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

Only your first point has anything to do with IPv6. Switching to a new protocol isn't going to make your machine any less "emasculated", and P2P is being suppressed over bandwidth costs (though I'm not even sure how much that's true - I use bittorrent all the time). People who aren't running some kind of web service aren't going to see any benefit from IPv6.

Re:Get a Clue! (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460671)

an artificial scarcity of ip numbers

Artificial? Not really - the scarcity of IPv4 addresses is real. Yes, a lot of it is caused by the rather address-wasteful way that IP subnetting works, but that is hardly an "artificial" scarcity, it is just an artefact of how the protocol works.

and ip names

Presumably by "IP names" you mean domain names? There is no scarcity here the DNS system can cope with a practically unlimited number of domain names.

that the ISP's can rort a fortune out of their users for a service that costs them less to provide than the cost of billing their customers for it.

I'm not seeing any ISPs around here ripping off their users to provide IPv4 addresses. In fact, every ISP I've ever used has been happy to hand out small IPv4 networks to their users at no extra cost. I currently have a /29 global scope IPv4 network hanging off the end of my ADSL. Most ISPs worth a damn in the UK will give you a /29 for free with no questions asked, and usually anything up to a /27 if you can provide some justification for the need.

Sure, some ISPs rip people off for the cost of domain names, but there is plenty of competition in the area - the ISPs pick up business from clueless people who know no better, everyone else goes to the cheap mainstream registrars. This has nothing to do with scarcity any more than you might claim that a high street PC shop like PC World can rip clueless customers off because computer hardware is "scarce", even though the clueful customers are buying their hardware from elsewhere at a fraction of the price.

an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

Except it isn't. In fact, quite the opposite is happening - peer to peer applications are rapidly gaining a significant share. Things like peer to peer filesharing, VoIP, games, etc. are the things that will drive IPv6 since they require an agnostic network that makes no distinction between client and server. Other drivers for IPv6 are the multicast support (a big factor for streaming TV services), mobile portability (increasingly important as people roam between networks with their mobile gadgets), etc.

IPv6 will _never_ be allowed into the current mix.

Its already _in_ the current mix. Sure, it hasn't made a significant impact yet, but there was a time when the web wasn't significant, peer to peer file sharing wasn't significant, and VoIP wasn't significant.

I'm afraid I think you're wrong - in a couple of years time the IANA IPv4 pool will be exhausted and the choices will be simple: adopt IPv6 or get squeezed behind layers and layers of ISP-based NAT. With the current mix of peer to peer technologies, there is a large chunk of the user base for whome that is unacceptable (those of us who use VPNs, VoIP, remote management, etc. on a day to day basis), thus there will be a significant market for ISPs offering IPv6 connectivity. Sure, IPv6 connections may well be more expensive than the run of the mill NATted home IPv4 connection, but there are already a significant number of people who pay more for better connections so I don't see this as a big problem.

Re:Get a Clue! (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460717)

The internet and especially all the Linux nodes on the internet are designed from the ground up to have a static IP addresses and IP names and be their own DNS and own Mail smarthost and web server and ....

Thirty years of experience ought to have taught the geek that almost no one wants to manage systems and services on that level.

the vast majority of machines being dumb emasculated drones begging for content from the big media industries.

Wilmington, Delaware had a music-by-wire service in 1909:

The rate of charge for this service is very reasonable. It is three cents, for each ordinary piece, and seven cents for grand opera. The subscriber must guarantee $18 per year.
In most cases the actual amount of music used makes that revenue greater than the regular telephone rent. In addition to this, pay stations are installed in restaurants, cafes, hotels and other public places, where selections can be obtained by depositing a coin in the box.
The returns from residence stations run from fifteen to twenty cents per day, while pay stations have averaged as high as $10 in a week. On the whole, it has been estimated by its introducers that the service will pay local telephone companies from thirty to thirty-five per cent on their investment.
Distributing Music Over Telephone Lines [earlyradiohistory.us]

KDKA began broadcasting in 1920. RCA launched the first national radio network in 1926. The geek who complains that users want prime media content from the major providers was born 100 years too late.

The only fundamental difference between the geek's pristine Linux machine and the "emasculated" HP running Vista or Win 7 is that the HP will likely ship with a Blu-Ray drive, a licensed Blu-Ray player and an HDMI output for multichannel theater sound and HD Video.

Amazon. Blockbuster. iTunes. Pandora. Songbird. WinAmP. Rhapsody. YouTube.

Protected content. Unprotected content. Free services. Subscription services. It all works just fine with the native Windows clients.

an a tightly controlled web where peer to peer traffic is being squeezed out.

The real threat to P2P is the instant download stream.

The Netflix client built into the HT receiver, the 65" Vizio HDTV, the Samsung Blu-Ray drive.

 

I don't know about you all...but as for me... (2, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459633)

I'm waiting for IP version Kevin Bacon.

It's the only way to ensure your packet is going to positively absolutely get from point A to point B in a timely, efficient, and stylish manner.

Keep your stupid IP ver 6. Pffft. It's about as elegant as Lemur poop. IPvKB, on the other hand...now THAT'S a protocol.

The last thing we need is for the power grid (3, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459657)

to become self-aware AND connected to the internet. It will spend the whole day looking at ionic porn instead of providing power.

"ooh baby, I can see your net positive charge, come put it in my net negative charge..ooh, you like like bonding....yeah baby...ooh, you want to get kinky and go 3 atom covalent?"

Re:The last thing we need is for the power grid (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459767)

Wouldn't you be putting your net negative charge in the net positive charge?

Charge transfer being done through electrons, of course. Anyone doing it with positrons will be turned into a pillar of salt.

Re:The last thing we need is for the power grid (4, Funny)

Cheesetrap (1597399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459909)

Wouldn't you be putting your net negative charge in the net positive charge?

Hey don't push your politics on me, man!

Can't Wait (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459751)

I can't wait to DDoS your fridge, then call you up (over VoIP) and ask you if your fridge is running.

Re:Can't Wait (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460359)

Why don't you just subscribe to his fridges twitter feed?

Obligatory Joke (1)

riffzifnab (449869) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459815)

So a priest, a rabbi and an atheist walk into a bar. IPv6

as long as it isn't connected to the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29459845)

as long as it isn't connected to the Internet, who cares?

they can use IPv4 and allocate the entire 4B IP addresses to devices. nobody will have any problem with this.

it's only when they then want to connect to these systems over the Internet that there becomes a problem (and even then, it's only a problem if they insist on routing to/from them instead of proxying)

if they decide to use IPv6 (and why not for a dedicated environment, they shouldn't be interacting with the outside world, and they may have more than 4B devices someday), it still shouldn't affect anyone connected to the Internet because those people should not be talking to this network in any way other than through the approved, authenticated gateways that can deal with any translation issues needed.

the Linux desktop will drive ipv6 (4, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459859)

IPv6 adoption, I predict, will increase markedly in The Year of the Linux Desktop.

Re:the Linux desktop will drive ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29461975)

Too bad IPv6 doesn't set up for a snappy acronym like "It Still Does Nothing" or "Never Twice the Same Color".

*grumble* those guys couldn't even do that much.

Another effect of the smart grid (1)

rcolbert (1631881) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459881)

In addition to the run on IP addresses, the new smart grid will force most utilities to increase their data storage footprint by nearly a hundredfold. One energy company CIO in Texas recently estimated that their few dozen TB of data collected today might easily grow to 40+ PB over the next few years based on the massive amount of data created by the smart grid that they would ultimately have to store for some intermediate period of time. I hope that all the power that the smart grid saves offsets the row after row of storage cabinets that are required to prop it up. If you work in sales for a major storage player, I'd recommend you start lobbying to be assigned to the energy vertical now. Christmas will come early.

If it's so interesting... (5, Insightful)

Gerald (9696) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459887)

"IPv6 is an interesting discussion and one that occupies a lot of bandwidth at Cisco."

So why can't I get to www.cisco.com via IPv6?

Re:If it's so interesting... (2, Interesting)

chrylis (262281) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460011)

Especially ironic since just this afternoon I was looking at a Cisco Press book that gave a lookup for www.cisco.com as an example of IPv6 DNS.

The smart grid doesn't need public IPs (4, Informative)

Desert Tripper (1166529) | more than 5 years ago | (#29459895)

Most grid control systems are on private (192.168 style) networks not connected to the general Internet for obvious reasons, and "smart-grid" meter-reading systems that are currently implemented or planned use other methods of addressing (packet-radio protocols, etc.) So, the "smart grid" argument in the article is misguided at best.

Re:The smart grid doesn't need public IPs (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 5 years ago | (#29462327)

Not sure where you're getting your info from. Both my local utility power, MID, and the big California utility PG&E (who provides my natural gas) use IPv6 for all their smart meters.

You've got to address those meters somehow so you can read/poll them.

Huh? (-1, Flamebait)

endus (698588) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460199)

Clearly a lot of programmers and not a lot of network/infosec people on here. Some of you seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about or what you're doing. Trying to run a VPN endpoint on a private IP?? Just get another static address to run the endpoint and use the privates on the internal LAN. Not hard if your company is not actually in bankruptcy while you're trying to set this up. Advocating every host run its own DNS/mail relay? Oh, yea, no potential problems there...FYI...not everyone who uses a computer lives in mom's basement and has nothing to do all day but configure services which are already provided by any ISP/corporate network. Equating moving to IPv6 with networking every electrical device in your house? Ummm..huh?

The best comment was this one...

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1373053&cid=29459455 [slashdot.org]

...that pretty much says it all.

Re:Huh? (1)

growse (928427) | more than 5 years ago | (#29460591)

What's IPv6 got to do with information security?

100s of Millions of Addresses (1)

chrismiceli (1639623) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461103)

Hmm, we need "hundreds of millions of people and devices" connected. IPv4 has 2^32 addresses, so 2^32/10^8 = ~43, so IPv4 provides "hundreds of millions" of addresses, in fact, it provides 43 hundreds of millions of addresses. No need to worry about IPv6 at all.

IPv6 is the protocol of the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29461141)

...and always will be!

Having recently setup IPv6 ... (1)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461279)

I recently redid the routing on my network to add support for IPv6 through a tunnel broker. In all actuality, if your hardware supports IPv6, its VERY trivial to setup with autoconfiguration as long as you don't have a network configuration that requires DHCPv6 (such if you want ipv6 DDNS to work).

On the flip side though, getting it setup across a tunnel broker is extremely tedious, and difficult. That being said, being able to route into the machines on my network directly is an absolute blast. Makes me wish I had a real IPv6 from my ISP.

Patricksomerdmnum (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29461627)

You know the most hilarious part of all this? We're currently running a protocol that the designers had NO intent of scaling. So then some of the SAME designers have turned around and come up with a scalable address scheme and protocol and NO ONE wants to use it - except for the Chinese. You know they have over a billion people over there? All of em - even the dirt farmers - seem to have a freakin computer that wants to hack my bank account!

anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29461755)

This assumes that 1) network over electric utility gains user share 2) network over utility bribes the hell outta regulators to overcome both entrenchment and lobbying

luck with that

IP as transport? (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461759)

I believe TCP, UDP and others are the transport protocols. IP is not a transport protocol. Just as the summary says:

Networking giant Cisco sees IP (internet protocol) as the right transport and IPv6 as the logical choice for addressing.

IP is used for addressing, doesn't matter whether its v4 or v6. It, however, is *not* the right transport because it isn't a transport method in the first place.

And as a response to someone who said that MS is pushing IPv6....Apple is as well by including it in OS X for a long time now. That doesn't mean you have to use it though. I did hear recently that Comcast will be providing IPv6 addresses to customers in the near future. That should be interesting.

odd, I work in the soon to be "smart grid" (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461839)

And I've heard nothing of this great need for change to IPv6. Score another one for misguided, uninformed media and sensationalism used as an advertising tool. Yawn, move along, nothing to see here.

Top 10 why IPv4 will be around for decades... (0)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 5 years ago | (#29461985)

10. Who the fcsk wants to ping 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 on a daily basis ?!?
9. As *some* organizations migrate to IPv6, their IPv4 addresses will be released for use by other organizations!
8. IPv6 is a waste of bandwidth with its huge headers. PPS (packets per second) router ratings go way down - so you shorten your network hardware life-cycle + pay much more bandwidth while payload throughput is the same is less - this is very wasteful.
7. Re-training your entire IT staff on IPv6 is going to be a huge pain in the *** and will drive costs up, not only in training but the extra downtime caused in the first couple of years due to human error.
6. Initially you'll likely have to increase your IT budget just to purchase IPv4 to IPv6 gateways, as few large organizations are going to attempt a big-bang flip.
5. The probability of errors in troubleshooting & configuration increases 4 fold as the addresses are 4 times as long, nevermind they are Hex to boot.
4. 95% of the features of IPv6 can and area already being done in IPv4 years ago.
3. There's tonnes of free $$ to be made in renting out IPv4 space in Asia. Just ask the Telcos!
2. Organizations running critical propriatary software (i.e. not off the shelf) (i.e. banks, hospitals, military, etc) are going to have to spend BILLIONS in software re-writes, QA & testing... for what visible gains. Where's the IPv6 ROI case ?!??
1. And lastly, don;t forget KISS and If it ain't broke... DONT FIX IT!

Wake me up when * I * run out of IPv4 addresses.
Adeptus

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?