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!

Comcast Plans IPv6 Trials In 2010

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the wait-for-the-cross-examination dept.

The Internet 173

Mortimer.CA writes "In a weblog posting, Jason Livingood, Executive Director of Comcast's Internet Systems has stated that they're beginning public trials of IPv6; Comcast hopes 'that these trials will encourage other stakeholders to make plans to continue, or to begin, work on IPv6 in 2010 so that all stakeholders do their part in ensuring the future of the Internet is as bright and innovative as it has been in the past.' Interested guinea pigs can volunteer at Comcast6.net (FAQ). Those who have IPv6 connectivity via other means can check out their IPv6-only web presence."

cancel ×

173 comments

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

ipv6.comcast.net isn't ipv6 only (4, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925604)

I have no ipv6 at this location and it loads just fine here, not exactly 'ipv6 only' like the Dancing Kame ...

Re:ipv6.comcast.net isn't ipv6 only (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927318)

Confirmed by dig:

IPv4:

ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 68.87.64.59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 69.252.76.96

IPv6:

ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96

IPv6? (4, Funny)

Delwin (599872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925620)

Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]

woops.

Re:IPv6? (4, Informative)

mmontour (2208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926218)

Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]

It works for me.

$ ping6 ipv6.comcast.net
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2002:1159:44ef::226:48ff:fe12:a9a7 --> 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=0 hlim=52 time=235.216 ms
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=1 hlim=52 time=245.426 ms

This is through an Apple airport base station via whatever tunnel provider it uses for its IPv6 support. No manual setup, just click the buttons to turn IPv6 on and to block incoming connections.

Re:IPv6? (2, Informative)

Marauder2 (82448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926784)

Looks like ipv6.comcast.net has both A (IPv4) and AAAA (IPv6) records.

$ host ipv6.comcast.net
ipv6.comcast.net has address 69.252.76.96
ipv6.comcast.net has address 68.87.64.59
ipv6.comcast.net has IPv6 address 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
ipv6.comcast.net has IPv6 address 2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96

Re:IPv6? (2, Interesting)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30929226)

Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]

It works for me.

$ ping6 ipv6.comcast.net
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2002:1159:44ef::226:48ff:fe12:a9a7 --> 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=0 hlim=52 time=235.216 ms
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=1 hlim=52 time=245.426 ms

This is through an Apple airport base station via whatever tunnel provider it uses for its IPv6 support. No manual setup, just click the buttons to turn IPv6 on and to block incoming connections.

The 2002 prefix on your ipv6 address says you're using 6to4 address translation/tunneling. The ipv4 address at the time was 17.89.68.239. I'm not sure if its your computer doing the 6to4 tunneling or your airport. I'm thinking it's the computer as its using the 2002 address as opposed to the router doing it all in the background.

Re:IPv6? (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927336)

woops.

I know! What where they thinking by letting people using IPv4 also see that content?

Oh, well... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925632)

Nope. Can't see the IPv6-only web presence from my IPv4-only internet. I guess it got slashdotted.

Re:Oh, well... (4, Informative)

jbb999 (758019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925756)

I can see it on my ipv6 connection, it's on 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59 and seems to work :) For those on the UK wanting an ADSL ISP with ipv6 support I recommend Andrews & Arnold (http://www.aaisp.net.uk/) who have been doing this for years now and provide native or tunneled ipv6 and full ipv6 static addresses to their customers on request. Just a happy customer of theirs :)

Re:Oh, well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926016)

I like to pay a little extra for my broadband, to get a better quality service, and i'll accept high caps because you have to draw the line somewhere and stop nut jobs, but ...

That ISP is surely having a laugh. Separating peak and non-peak downloads takes me back to dialup era with off-peak phone at 1p per min. Surely the idea of always on, is that you can use it any time?

Re:Oh, well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926196)

Almost all ISPs in the UK have some limits on usage, either they are honest about it like this ISP or they have fair use limits, or throttle speeds or some protocols, or they get congestion at peak times and slow down. Or they are heavily subsidising heavy users from their light users and hoping that overall use doesn't increase or they'll be badly caught out.

I know with my ISP that if I get any packet loss or it slows down at all at any time I can report it as a fault and they'll sort it out.
My daytime usage is effectively unlimited because I never get close to what I paid for and at nighttime I can use effectively as much as I like,. I never even come close.
So it suits me completely, I'd rather have that than an ISP that slows down, has hidden fair use limits or blocks certain ports or protocols, or which is running their business on overselling their links and hoping to get away with it...

Re:Oh, well... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927226)

I'm capped too during daytime, and I always get the speed I paid for (sometimes more!), but what they call a "heavy business owner" (10GB/month), I call having to "stretch". And 50/month? I know here in Portugal we get paid less, but that seems expensive. For 60/month I can get 60Mbps down, 3Mbps up, plus digital cable TV and free calls to landline numbers.

Re:Oh, well... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927418)

Almost all ISPs in the UK have some limits on usage, either they are honest about it like this ISP or they have fair use limits, or throttle speeds or some protocols, or they get congestion at peak times and slow down. Or they are heavily subsidising heavy users from their light users and hoping that overall use doesn't increase or they'll be badly caught out
I've just taken a look at AAISPs prices and they don't seem quite as insane as they used to be but they are still very high if you have any significant daytime usage (otoh if you are a home user and either not in the house or prepared to abstain from bandwidth heavy stuff during the daytime they are more tolerable).

If you do have significant daytime usage and want a small ISP with with honest but reasonable limits I would suggest IDNET.

If you can deal with little to no support from a big company and you live in an appropriate LLU area BE and sky probablly give you the best bang for your buck as well as in many areas giving you the highest top speeds (since in a lot of areas BTs infrastructure isn't ADSL2).

I know with my ISP that if I get any packet loss or it slows down at all at any time I can report it as a fault and they'll sort it out.
The impression i've always got with the smaller ISPs like aaisp and idnet is they are at the mercy of BT, they can (and will) pester BT harder than most larger ISPs would but ultimately if BTs network in your area is badly congested your only real way out is to switch to a LLU ISP (I notice aaisp are offering a be based service now but if you can take care of yourself your probablly better just dealing with be directly).

Re:Oh, well... (1)

Deleriux (709637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926074)

But the IPv4 version appears to be a hell of a lot slower than its v6 counterpart.

In fact i've found v6 runs much faster generally (probably cause so few people are using it at the moment). I use it quite often to download new Fedora distros at max speed.

Re:Oh, well... (2, Interesting)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926960)

Except for a few research networks, all V6 traffic runs through the same 'tubes' as V4.
So all else being equal, V6 data rates should be no different than V4.

But all is not equal.

V6 has several refinements over V4, which tend to enhance throughput.

Will they permit NATs? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925692)

I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.

Besides, most IP-enabled toys wont like IP6 (Wii, VOIP boxes, etc.)

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925796)

It is very hard to block NATs even if they aren't allowed.

Trusted Network Connect (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925984)

It is very hard to block NATs even if they aren't allowed.

Hard, but doable. An ISP can "protect the security of its network" by requiring the customer to run a "dialer" or "supplicant" [wikipedia.org] before the ISP will route the customer's packets outside the quarantine. The ostensible purpose of network access control methods [wikipedia.org] is to make sure that the operating system and antivirus signatures on customer equipment are updated and that the botnet-of-the-week isn't running. But the side effect of Trusted Network Connect [wikipedia.org] deployment is that connecting to a home-class Internet requires an approved and unmodified copy of Windows or Mac OS without any programs that interfere with the ISP's business model, such as Apache HTTP Server or NAT software.

Re:Trusted Network Connect (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928938)

I doubt any ISP implementing that would be an ISP for very long. That would cut out all non windows-mac users, and more importantly every user that has a cable/dsl router.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (2, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925814)

Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT. Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.

At which point you just sue them for invasion of privacy, not that you'll get anywhere but its a neat idea.

The other side to that is that your IPv6 router can deal with helping IPv4 devices communicate over the IPv6 backbone as long as the backbone does the proper bridging (according to the protocol) back to IPv4, which they'd surely have to if they don't intend to break of the Internet and become their own useless island.

In short, some very smart people already thought of that problem when designing the system.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (2, Informative)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925870)

Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT. Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.

I am pretty sure there is no difference between a "normal" and NAT packet once it leaves the router. It doesn't matter how much Comcast examines it.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (2, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925950)

But there is. For one thing the TTL will be one lower than "usual". You can hide that, but there are lots of other ways to detect it.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (2, Interesting)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926440)

But there is. For one thing the TTL will be one lower than "usual". You can hide that, but there are lots of other ways to detect it.

The TTL will be decremented because the packet passes through a router which is performing the NAT (Linksys, Netgear, whatever). By blocking hosts based upon TTL inspection wouldn't they would preclude anyone using a home router, or more importantly, having wireless access?

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927084)

The originating TTL of a packet is decided by the application that created it.
Since there is no mandatory original TTL, there is little use in filtering by TTL.

If some ISP decided to start filtering packets based on a low TTL, all application vendors would respond with updates that originated all packets at the maximum TTL.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928954)

What I am failing to understand is this: Why would they want to block NATting? What benefit does this buy the ISP? Are we talking about the ability to force customers to pay an extra fee for each connected device as they do with cable boxes? I dont see that flying with anyone who has non-computer devices, such as DVRs and game systems.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925858)

you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.

As I understand it, the best practice is for an IPv6 ISP to give out a /64. That's still relatively one four-billionth of the space they're giving out now.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926020)

No, that is not allowed (well the police won't stop them, but it's definitely not best practice). Best practice was originally a /48, but now ISP's are allowed to cut all the way down to a /56 if they feel a /48 is too much.

You shouldn't put hosts in anything but a /64, and some don't think there should exist non-/64 unicast networks at all. Personally I believe that at least /128 should be allowed.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926966)

Let's say your ISP has a /32. The ISP uses a /64 for every point-to-point link between their router and your home router, and you have a /64 within your own home. Additionally, you have a second /64 reserved for you to make VoIP easier. Then, your ISP can clearly only have 1.1 billion customers.

I realise the above is a bit silly, but seriously, there are enough /64s for everyone. There is no need for a /128, no need for a /126, no need for anything but a /64.

Even if the ISP was "wasteful" and allocated each residential customer a /56 to do whatever they want with, their /32 will be able to support 16.7 million customers. If you've got more than 16.7 million customers, you just get another /32, in 2000/3 there are 500 million /32s.

I'm waffling. /64 is fine.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927474)

I realise the above is a bit silly, but seriously, there are enough /64s for everyone. There is no need for a /128, no need for a /126, no need for anything but a /64.
The trouble is the ipv6 autoconfiguration mechanisms were designed arround giving each subnet a /64 so if you only have a /64 you either have to limit yourself to one subnet (e.g. no seperate subnet for a segregated wifi network) or configure all your machines manually (and in the case of XP configure them from the command line!)

there are enough /56's for everyone, hell there are enough /48s for everyone (personally I preffered the old reccomendation of giving every site a /48 because it made it clear where the site number ended and the subnets within the site began).

Unfortunately you can bet crappier ISPs will give a /64 at best and a /128 at worst.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

Cato (8296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927078)

As the website explains, one of Comcast's 3 transition strategies is based on DS-Lite, which essentially means a big provider-based NAT that allows IPv4 only devices such as games consoles to connect via a new IPv4/IPv6 home router (dual stack) over v6 infrastructure to an end server that is v4 based.

Re:Will they permit NATs? (1)

grantek (979387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928564)

...or you could just update the firmware

what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxe (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925734)

what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxes also start useing ipv6? they use ipv4 now.

Re:what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable b (1)

jbb999 (758019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925818)

My ISP has given me (and any customer who wants it) 18446744073709551616 IPv6 addresses free of charge, That should keep me going for a while...

but this comca$t that makes you pay as high as $20 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928398)

but this comca$t that makes you pay as high as $20+ per tv for there hardware.

MediaCom Anybody? (1)

skogs (628589) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925762)

I've been waiting for mediacom to roll out some DOCSYS 3 / IPv6 forever. This little town I happen to be in, has excellent infrastructure and is physically capable of running it -- unlike most cities. This town is dependent only on major hardware upgrades, not cable plant upgrades.

Unfortunate abbreviation (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925798)

The main page mentions tunneling IPv4 over what it calls "Dual-Stack Lite technology (aka DS-Lite)". But Comcast must not have been aware of Nintendo's prior use of "DS Lite" for a handheld video game system with Wi-Fi support. Do Nintendo video game consoles even support IPv6?

Re:Unfortunate abbreviation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30925872)

No, they dont.

Re:Unfortunate abbreviation (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926484)

The Wii supports IPv6. The DS Lite doesn't. I don't know about the DSi.

IPv6 only test... (4, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925804)

ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.

We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr [berkeley.edu] as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test. Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

belphegore (66832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926106)

...except that it's not:

[craig@Puck:~]$ host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has address 208.67.219.132
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::69
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::68
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::63
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::6a
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::93
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::67

Re:IPv6 only test... (2, Informative)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926382)

208.67.219.132 is OpenDNS.

-molo

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

belphegore (66832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926682)

Ok. So it's only ipv6 if your DNS provider doesn't return IPv4 records for it... It's still not a good test for IPv6 connectivity. A better test for IPv6 connectivity would be, you know, sending an IPv6 packet and seeing if it gets through.

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927372)

Ok. So it's only ipv6 if your DNS provider doesn't return IPv4 records for it... It's still not a good test for IPv6 connectivity.

Yes it is. A good DNS provider won't return records when there are none. OpenDNS earns money from ad placement on their bad hostname page, so when there isn't a valid record to a hostname, they return a server of their own. An honest DNS provider is a great test for IPv6 connectivity, though.

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

mmontour (2208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926388)

ipv6.l.google.com has address 208.67.219.132

Not from here:

$ host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::93
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::63
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::67
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::68
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::69
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::6a

If you actually try to connect to 208.67.219.132 you end up at "hit-nxdomain.opendns.com" so it looks like there are some DNS shenanigans going on at your end.

In any event, you can't get to the actual Google website with its "bouncy" logo unless you do so over IPv6.

You got trapped by OpenDNS (4, Informative)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926520)

You got trapped by OpenDNS. OpenDNS is VERY agressive at wildcarding network failures:

132.219.67.208.in-addr.arpa. 18794 IN PTR hit-nxdomain.opendns.com.

So even though there is a valid name for ipv6.google.com (the Google DNS servers return a valid reply with a 0-size answer for an A query, and the whole data for an AAA query), OpenDNS instead goes "hey, lets wildcard it and return our server!"

This behavior is why I'm NOT a fan of OpenDNS.

Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (3, Insightful)

belphegore (66832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926804)

Ok.... but without IPv6 connectivity (I turned it off), I type ipv6.google.com in my browser address bar, my DNS lies to me, and my browser magically gets (over IPv4) the google homepage. Using ipv6.google.com in a browser as a test for whether your ipv6 connectivity is working is not a good test. I guess if you're testing specifically for the ability to fetch the bouncy logo from that address, that's one thing -- assuming that bouncy logo isn't available at the ipv4 site that opendns is magically making it look like I'm going to, or redirecting me to, or whatever it's doing (no time right now to sniff traffic and see). But the statement:

ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.

makes assumptions about your network and its services (like DNS) which are not guaranteed to be true.

Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927304)

I get the "OpenDNS search", which tells me that "ipv6.google.com is not loading right now" and shows me the search results for "ipv6 google".

Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927368)

Another approach is simply to do:

ping6 ipv6.google.com

This should hopefully isolate you from broken DNSs returning fake 'A' entries.

Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (1)

belphegore (66832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928040)

Right. That is a much better test, because it's doing what I suggested: sending an IPv6 packet, and seeing if it gets through. You're still subject to possible shenanigans like traffic filtering which might block ICMPv6 ECHOs but allow TCPv6 through.

Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (1)

belphegore (66832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928076)

...and by the way, I'm not sure you can say the DNS is "broken" -- it may be in the case of OpenDNS, but I can definitely picture local DNS administrators implementing a staged IPv6 rollout by having some default IPv4 address returned when a DNS query otherwise only yields AAAA records, and then having a host on that IPv4 address that says "Sorry, you can't access that IPv6 site" or something to that effect.

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

adaviel (1189751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928182)

Request IPv6 records only:
bash-3.2$ host -t aaaa ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::67
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::68

bash-3.2$ traceroute6 ipv6.google.com
  doesn't work from here :-( no tunnel set up

Re:IPv6 only test... (1)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927194)

# host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68

# host www.google.com
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.99
www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.104
www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68 :)

Grudgingly, impressed. (4, Insightful)

Orbijx (1208864) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925962)

If Comcast actually does what they're saying on the tin, maybe the other ISPs will follow suit.

This just might be a good thing.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926134)

Maybe, but it is a difficult sell to customers. They will want to know what ipv6 enables them to do that they can't do at the moment. Being able to visit ipv6.google.com and do exactly the same things that they can do on www.google.com at the moment, and being able to see a dancing turtle at www.kame.net isn't really going to seal the deal.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926360)

Except that, if this relies on customers making a decision, it's dead.

Modern computers support IPv6. Modern consumer-level routers don't necessarily (mine doesn't), so the connectivity provider needs to provide and/or recommend equipment that does. Provide connection instructions that start up both IPv4 and IPv6. Leave the customer out of it, since 99% of customers don't know what IP is in the first place.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

japhering (564929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926534)

Except that, if this relies on customers making a decision, it's dead.

Modern computers support IPv6. Modern consumer-level routers don't necessarily (mine doesn't), so the connectivity provider needs to provide and/or recommend equipment that does. Provide connection instructions that start up both IPv4 and IPv6. Leave the customer out of it, since 99% of customers don't know what IP is in the first place.

If the customer really, really wants to know what is the advantage for him.. the simple answer is continued access to the internet.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927630)

IMO the most likely endgame for IPv4 is the removal of public IPs from home lusers (replacing them with ISP level NAT) to give them to more profitable buisness customers.

Continued ability to use peer-peer stuff efficiantly will be the main selling point of IPv6 to home users, of course peer to peer is something ISPs want to strongly discourage.

I really really doubt that most ISPs would dare cut a customer without v6 supporting network equipment. computers and software off from the internet at this point. Not to mention that most websites aren't available on v6.

One complication is that iirc some of the largest American cable providers have actually already run out of private v4 IPs for thier internal network and so are putting cable boxes on public IPs. If they could move the cable boxes to v6 they could reuse their v4 addresses (whether public or private) for peoples internet connections and thus avoid the need to partition thier network into mulitple addressing domains.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926374)

Big national projects can work, if they are properly managed, and everyone's pulling in one of the corners. The analog/digital switchover is a good example.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926934)

You think the analog/digital switchover was properly managed? Tell that to the hundreds of nearly-bankrupted smaller stations that had to pull millions of dollars out of their collective asses to make equipment upgrades. Hundreds of things about that should have been done differently, not the least of which would rolling changeover deadlines based on market size.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927282)

The selling point for Digital TV, at least in the UK was lots of extra channels.

People get the idea that if you switch to Freeview, you get 45 Channels on your TV rather than the 5 you have at the moment, so they do it.

I can't see what the selling point for the average non-slashdotter is at the moment. Their internet works fine at the moment, so they won't see any need to change it.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926604)

Are you on the same internet I am? The internet that went crazy for the "I kiss you" guy? The same internet filled with people who will sit through a sales pitch to get a $0.10 blinking LED toy?

IPv6 MUST be the best thing ever! It's like the internet PLUS TWO!

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (2, Funny)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927400)

Are you on the same internet I am? The internet that went crazy for the "I kiss you" guy? The same internet filled with people who will sit through a sales pitch to get a $0.10 blinking LED toy?

Sorry, I'm only on IPv4. So, you're tacitly admitting that people who use IPv6 are raving lunatics?

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926628)

There is no "selling point". The move to IPv6 will be transparent to Joe Sixpack pr0n downloader/web browser/emailer, and Grandma Moses. The move is required in order for them to stay in business, and provide services to their customers. Its that simple.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

adaviel (1189751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928274)

From a presentation by Tata Communications: "the promises of IPv6"
Restores p2p communication
Mobility
  * Much easier roaming
  * Better spectrum utilization
  * Better battery life!
Security
  * IPsec mandatory
Multicast
Better QoS (flow labels)
Auto configuration
  * Mobile Ad-Hoc networking
  * Mobile networks
  * Sensor networks
  * Plug and Play networks
Permanent addresses
  * Identity (CLID)
  * Traceability (RFID)
  * Addressability!
  * IP address based billing

But yes, staying in business. Even if you have enough IPv4 to last you for years, you will start to find new services and businesses that you can't use, or can't get to without going through some kind of tunnel/proxy

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926862)

It allows multiple clients to have their own IP addresses. Which means that you don't have any limitations you have with IPv4 while hosting stuff (bittorrent, games). If your router supports IPv6 of course, but I don't think that network appliances are the problem. Things like mobile devices (for which IPv6 would be great) are more likely to suffer because of lacking IPv6 support.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928450)

Which means that you don't have any limitations you have with IPv4 while hosting stuff

It also means that ISPs can now charge you per computer, instead of per IP (that you then NAT to cover your whole house.)

If your router supports IPv6 of course

I have three routers, none of them support IPv6, and without specifically searching I don't know any that do (except Airport.) Often it's hard to tell even holding the box in hands at the store.

I don't think that network appliances are the problem.

Unless, of course, you have such appliances. There are millions of devices [lantronix.com] that are IPv4-only. Support for IPv6 just started, and there is zero chance that earlier products will be upgraded (they are out of warranty by now.)

Things like mobile devices (for which IPv6 would be great)

Mobile devices (cell phones) are self-contained, so they are welcome to have whatever IPv$x they want. These devices are not a problem, and they indeed benefit from IPv6. However everyone else, industrial and residential PC and gadget users, will be in need of some serious 6 to 4 bridging. There are just too many embedded devices which are IPv4 only *and* out of maintenance. We also should remember that majority of network-aware applications are IPv4 only. This is even more true in niche, expensive applications, those that use networked license servers, for example. In their market even if a newer app is available and supports IPv6 you have to buy it again; support on that level is not free.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (5, Informative)

N7DR (536428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926744)

I was part of the team that wrote the IPv6 portion of the DOCSIS 3.0 specs. Although DOCSIS 3.0 added a huge number of features, the two that the cable companies were most desperate for were channel bonding (so they could compete with fiber) and IPv6 support.

IPv6 has been internal testing with major cable operators for several years now. Comcast was always likely to be the first to deploy it (for reasons that I can't go into) but I expect the other major operators to follow suit within a year or two.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927654)

I'm sure I remember hearing a while back that a big american cable provider had run out of private IPs for cable boxes etc and were now using public IPs for new ones. was it comcast? If so that would be a very powerfull reason to want ipv6 support on the network before v4 addresses ran out.

Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (1)

adaviel (1189751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928324)

So, reading this backwards, I presume we need new cable modems for native IPv6 support ?
And if Comcast's doing a trial, I guess they are in production somewhere.

Oh, this is sooo going to suck (0)

Marrow (195242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30925990)

Ipv6 is going to suck on so many different levels.

Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926970)

Explain.

Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30927396)

Couldn't agree more.

Yeah, it increases the number of IPs MASSIVELY, but the drawbacks are way too much, not to mention the idea of having one IP is a rather scary thought, especially since it is rather easy to make enemies online.

NAT could be extended and work more-or-less on current hardware as long as firmware updates are possible.
Currently, NAT depends on subnetting to reach internal IPs, right?
This causes huge problems, such as no direct access to ports on any internal IPs, forwarding, blah blah etc, we all know the pain.

A better solution would have been the addition of X octets in packets that will direct them to a device behind the routing device. (yes, a 2nd Destination IP)
X can start off at 1 initially, but is future-proofed for 4. (or even more?)
Directly accessing an IP behind another IP could be done in this format: X.X.X.X:port;Y[.Y.Y.Y.n]:port/resource.ext
This is incredibly simple to do in comparison to IPv6, most of it only requires a firmware update and updates to the routing rules in whatever servers, hard-coded hardware is going to be a bit of a problem, but any change is expected to cause problems.
While it will decrease space in packets for data (and potentially clog up the net a little more), the benefits far outweigh the problems, unlike IPv6 which is the opposite. (and already uses more space anyway!)

Both routes will cause headaches for network operators, the dual-destination IP approach is just simpler and easier to implement, not to mention familiar.
IPv6 just looks like a major headache waiting to happen. Admittedly it was designed for the sake of not requiring the need to LOOK at IPs due to the large number being capable of assigning more than several IPs to every person alive, but some work requires IP.
The headaches this will cause for people setting up game servers...
ISPs should at least have some sort of DNS redirect that a person can setup to simplify it. (maybe even sell it as a premium service, evil, yes)
user.personal.ISP.TLD:port

If any confusion is found in this post, blame the heat, i'm almost fainting with it. Bring back the snow and cold.

Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927738)

Why? I, for one, look forward to having a unique address for every computer. It is, after all, the original intent of the Internet.

hoi! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926044)

sex with ducks motherfuckers

Eventually... (0, Flamebait)

ATestR (1060586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926066)

By the time IPV6 is fully deployed, the IPV6 space will be rapidly filling up, and people will be talking how we really need to deploy IPV8...

Re:Eventually... (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927070)

Unless we start addressing every individual atom on earth I don't see it being a problem. There are ~3.4*10^38 addresses available in the IPv6 space, so even if every person on earth had a billion devices to uniquely address we'd *still* only use 7*10^18 addresses which would only be a millionth ( < 0.0001%) of the available address space.

So, yeah, I think we're good for a while on it.

Of course, if you desperately need to individually address every single atom in the known observable universe, you could eventually extend it to a 512-bit address space to easily cover that possibility.

Static or Dynamic? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926472)

Will the addresses by dynamic or static? Is there any good reason for them not to be static?

Re:Static or Dynamic? (1)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926732)

Contact your ISP for information on how they'll implement and deploy IPv6. There's an incorrect assumption that customers MUST be given static IPs, or netblocks simply because there's so many available IPs. Only your ISP can decide that. You can bet if they can "sell" IPs as static for an additional fee, they will. Same for netblocks.

Re:Static or Dynamic? (1)

outlander (140799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926884)

It'll be dynamic - the protocol doesn't use DHCP as we know it; it uses 'neighbor discovery,' which is described here: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm [tcpipguide.com]

I've experimented with it on a number of various networks - some professional, some personal - and it's not so bad. THe implementation isn't as complete as IPv4, but given the user base, it's not that surprising....

Re:Static or Dynamic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30928130)

According to the RFC you should get a dynamic /48.

FrisHtA psot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926542)

which a7lows [goat.cx]

Love comcast is working with it's customers (4, Interesting)

cullenfluffyjennings (138377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926636)

I'm impressed that Comcast is talking about it trials publicly and engaging customers. Many service providers run stuff in private, don't tell their guinea pigs, I mean customers that they experiment on, and then just select whatever seemed convent for the service provider. Engaging people in a trials like this, seems win/win for the customers and service providers.

Comcast still sucks (2)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926716)

This is a good thing, but lets not forget how Comcast continually raped their customers and fought for a closed internet. I urge you not to give them too much credit. If nothing else it is nice to know that they are perhaps not *pure* evil.

Re:Love comcast is working with it's customers (1)

LoSt180 (1481103) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928724)

I signed up for the trial, interested if I get a response. Guess I need to start looking into getting IPv6 working on a DD-WRT based router. Hopefully it doesn't break my parents' internet too bad...

And what, pray tell, do these good people do? (1)

The Altruist (1448701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926654)

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=disable%20IPv6 [microsoft.com] (Myself being one of them.) Being as the vast majority of home users and small businesses still send their money to One Microsoft Way, Redmond Washington, the standard Slashdot solution of install Ubuntu/Gentoo/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Buy a Mac might not work for everybody. (I am a dual-booter, by the way.)

Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do? (2)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926866)

They get to be left behind, duh. IPv4 isn't going away anytime soon. IPv6 is getting deployed. Its not going to stop.

Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do? (2, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927388)

Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself. As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.

You ask for www.google.com, your computer does an IPv4 lookup to the router, the router translates that to an IPv6 lookup, caches the IPv6 address, and returns a valid-looking IPv4 address to your computer. When you ask for that IPv4 address, the router knows what IPv6 address it has associated with it and handles the heavy lifting for you. Just like regular NAT, except there's a protocol change too (which is pretty trivial).

Although, to be fair, you can actually load an IPv6 stack on Microsoft operating systems as far back as Windows 98 (DOS kernel) or Windows 2000 (NT kernel) and you may even be able to go further back than that. If you are concerned about IPv6 support on older operating systems than that, you'll have to opt for the router solution.

Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do? (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928844)

And what, pray tell, do these good people do?

I guess they'd undo whatever they did to disable IPv6 in the first place.

c08 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30926712)

percent of the *bSD

most routers? (2, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30926926)

I guess it means most companies (aka dlink, linksys, etc) have to get off their ass and add support to their routers since most home routers don't support ipv6.

Re:most routers? (1)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927234)

DLink already does, their DIR 615 comes to mind...

Re:most routers? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927470)

It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:

http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers [sixxs.net]

Re:most routers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30928424)

Support. Support?... What's this "support" thing you speak of??? No, if you want IPV6, they will gladly sell you a NEW router. ...support. To funny, Hah!

Re:most routers? (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928426)

I would image they're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who don't have it. Really, all it'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with "Compatible with IPv6!!!" on the box? Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space.

Autodiscovery will have to fully mature... (2, Interesting)

rritterson (588983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30927698)

For what it's worth, I signed up for the trial. Despite the level-1 tech support's crappiness, and the relative overpricing of their services, Comcast's network department does a pretty good on the backend. Our area has gone from 3mbps to 16mbps (with a 50mbps tier available) in 8 years, and has already completed the analog reclamation process in our area. Good on them for getting a head start on IPv6.

I presume they are going to want to do end-to-end IPv6 eventually, instead of assigning a single IPv6 address to my modem, and then continuing to use IPv4 NAT behind it. However, if they are going to do that, several things are going to have to change:

1. Router default settings will have to change. Out of the box, most home routers use NAT by default, and, since most people don't change the settings (based on the number of 2WIRE### SSID's broadcast to my house), they'll have to redo them for IPv6.
2. Auto discovery services will have to get better. I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them. The other 2 OSes will have to catch up, because, while a quartet of triplets is annoying but manageable to type, an IPv6 address will be a bear to copy down.
3. A debate between static and dynamic IP addresses will have to take place. Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went. It'd be akin to a routable MAC address. However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently. But there are several obvious downsides to continuing to use totally dynamic IPs.

Finally, as an aside, it's interesting to me, at least, how Apple Airport Base Stations do IPv6 routing automatically via a tunnel provider (as another commenter noted). Comcast doesn't support any IPv6, but when I'm connected to my router at home I get full IPv6 support transparently. Apple doesn't even mention this as a feature on the box, and it's not highly configurable either. So why did they spend all the effort to get it that way? Are they trying to stay so far ahead of the IPv6 curve no one will ever complain they're behind?

Re:Autodiscovery will have to fully mature... (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928356)

I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them.

That would be strange, since Linux uses exactly the same system as OS X (mDNS) for advertising local machines and services. You didn't disable the Avahi daemon, did you? It's generally enabled by default in new installations. You should be able to refer to any Linux machine on your local network as hostname.local, just as with OS X.

Windows is a bit behind on native support, of course, but you can install Apple's Bonjour for Windows [apple.com] software to get the same effect.

lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30927840)

I still fail to see why we can't just extend the address space of ipv4 all of those new ipv6 features are just wasted overhead bullshit. Here's looking forward to my net being disabled for a month and being extorted to buy some new modem or other crap only to have my ping never return to the way it was before :(

I'm in...oh wait (1)

sajuuk (1371145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928030)

I would totally be in on this. What, its Comcast? Bwahahahahahaha, forget it then. Not available in my neck of the woods. Seriously, I think this is just a ploy for them to figure out how to do their throttling, packet inspection, and spying on an IPV6 network.

Why not making the Chinese pay ? (0, Flamebait)

djscoumoune (1731422) | more than 4 years ago | (#30928566)

I'm feeling the Chinese are the only ones that can benefit from the ipv6 and they would get the help of everyone for free ?! Economically it would be foolish to make the world switch to ipv6 for nothing. China is not fair to anyone they don't respect patents and counterfact items so I don't see why we should make them the ipv6 gift. Make them trade this ipv6, let every ISP in the world test it and then regroup and ask China to trade ipv6 for something. It doesn't have to be money : pollution reduction laws or human rights sound fair. Anything they can do fast and not just a promise would do. They're the ones who'll run out of addresses not us.

More Spam Pleez, and Jumk Mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30929256)

IPv6 yeah, for making somebody some money. Go ahead and spray us with all the radiation you want fellas because you live in it to. Nothing like a little more autistic babies.

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>