×

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!

Mac OS X Problem Puts Up a Block To IPv6

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the twenty-five-or-six-to-four dept.

OS X 204

An anonymous reader lets us know of an experiment conducted in Norway to determine real-world problems in using IPv6 today (Google translation; Norwegian original). "According to a Norwegian article in digi.no, Redpill Linpro did an experiment with regard to IPv6 on one of the largest online newspapers there (www.vg.no). They added a hidden iframe that pointed to an IPv6-enabled domain to test real-life problems about the reported IPv6 holes. The result was that mainly Mac OS X, older versions of Opera, and a few Linux distributions exhibited problems. For Mac OS X it took 75 seconds to time out before failing back to IPv4." From the consultant's report: "Mac OS X has a problem in that it will prefer 6to4-based IPv6 over IPv4-based connectivity, at least if its local IPv4 address is an RFC 1918-based private address as commonly found in NAT-ed home network environments. This is unfortunate, as 6to4 has shown itself to be much less reliable than IPv4."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

204 comments

Chicago (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091488)

25 or 6to4?

Re:Chicago (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092074)

I just got off the phone with some one of my connections in Apple's product development department.

Apparently the math required to implement IPv6 uses far too much battery and processor resources so Jobs opted to abandon its implementation.

Re:Chicago (5, Funny)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092260)

Apparently the math required to implement IPv6 uses far too much battery and processor resources so Jobs opted to abandon its implementation.

And it's not shiny, maybe one day they'll implement it as iPv6

Re:Chicago (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092480)

And it's not shiny, maybe one day they'll implement it as iPv6

Ahh yes your right, It has to have Apple's very affective from of marketing voodoo attached to it.

1) Wait until IPv6 is rolled out across the internet
2) Wait another 5 years for the rest of the industry to be using it without any problems
3) Hold a press conference showcasing a prototype of a Mac running on IPv6
4) Claim it as a new innovation that the world has never seen and generate ridiculous amounts of unnecessary media hype
5) ?????
6) Profit

Troll? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092594)

Come on mods. Get some sense of humor. Some things are funny even if they make fun of your favorite toy.

Re:Chicago (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092666)

Pfft the GP is overrated ...

Whatever happened to bashing on Apple and getting flagged as funny, now its just AC this AC that, and being flagged troll troll troll?

You rag on MS you get flagged as funny but you bash on Mac its worse then making fun of Linux/Google these days.

That's very Unslashdot IMHO

Go on flag me as Offtopic, but don't think for a second I can't see whats happening here .... All you geeks have gone and bought yourselves iPhones! Shame on you!

-jcr

Re:Chicago (4, Interesting)

dr. chuck bunsen (762090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092856)

Nope, no iPhone here, Android. And even then I think that WebOS has the best mobile interface by far, just shitty hardware and no community. But I did leave my Linux desktop collecting dust ever since the OS X public beta disc arrived in my mailbox. But please, bash Apple all you want. The more they start to slowly ignore OS X in favor of fucking around with these silly mobile distractions, the less I like them. In fact, I was never what you would consider a fanboy, no iPod, iPhone, iAnything...I simply recognized the beauty of their nix offering and made the switch on merit alone. I did get excited when they released the Xserve line and the Xserve RAID. Had they followed through with that opportunity I feel like it could have been huge, but they ignored it, and it was never more than poop in a box. Of course, they had a huge obstacle trying to build a better server OS than Linux, as the GUI means nothing in that world. They probably recognized they couldn't win the server market with a bad ass GUI, and left it at that. Anyway, to be on topic, this isn't exactly news. It's already been documented, and can easily be fixed, and will work properly in a future update out of the box. I mean fuck, really? It's 2010, does the fucktards really think they are the first ones to do this, and that they've uncovered some major fuck up that is going to ruin the future of the internet. I doubt it. I think some asshole massaged a summary of a non-news story to get a bunch of fucktards like me to waste their time discussing it. At least they've supported IPv6 for a long while now, unlike some other OS companies... Quick, mod me down for not playing along!

Re:Chicago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092924)

I feel the same way you do about Apple. Mac OS X is awesome. iPhone/iPad, very limited. I'm also a proud Pre user. I hope HP does something good with Palm, but they've done nothing but fuck up everything else they've acquired lately.

IPv6 resolution with NTP (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091490)

There's also a bug in NTP on 10.6 that causes it to not fall back on IPv4 resolution if it can resolve over IPv6, even if IPv6 is disabled on the machine. So while not an IPv6 hurdle, it is a bug in IPv6 implementation.

RADAR bug is: 6736177

Re:IPv6 resolution with NTP (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091944)

Do I even want to know how NTP, presumably running largely in userspace(if OSX behaves like other unixes in that regard) is even capable of resolving over IPv6 if IPv6 is disabled?

Does OSX interpret "disabled" to mean "enabled; but politely instruct userspace programs to ignore that fact"?

Re:IPv6 resolution with NTP (2, Informative)

Mike Rice (626857) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091994)

It looks like an NTP bug. I have seen this behavior on non-Macos machines.

Re:IPv6 resolution with NTP (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092014)

I suspect (but have no proof) that this involves an ipv4 dns connection that receives AAAA records. When NTP sees that there are ipv6 servers available, it doesn't fallback to ipv4 even when ivp6 networking is disabled. So nothing weird going on, just a bug.

ugh, apple get with the program!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091510)

Fucking Macs! Mine's always fucking up. I am glad I use Windows 7 at work.

Re:ugh, apple get with the program!!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091936)

I see it as a two birds one stone sort of scenario.

Advantage 1 - Upgrade the internet have more IPs for everyone.

Advantage 2 - Stop Macs from polluting our internets with their gay Metro-sexual; Prius driving; Jobs loving; Turtleneck sweatery asses.

Mac OSX flaws (-1, Troll)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091516)

You mean the older brother of the jesus phone doesn't perform miracles too? I'm so disturbed.

Re:Mac OSX flaws (-1, Troll)

Warlord88 (1065794) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091644)

Q: What specifically is better about the Apple Macintosh?
A: It comes with a license to be smug and sanctimonious.

Re:Mac OSX flaws (-1, Troll)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091698)

Q: What specifically is better about the Apple Macintosh?
A: It comes with a license to be smug and sanctimonious.

Don't forget about the decoder ring that allows us to conjure up the spirit of Obi Wan, um, Steve Jobs at a moment's notice. It's like a mood ring, only that our mood is always Steve Jobs!

Re:Mac OSX flaws (0)

shar303 (944843) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092146)

Well the last time i saw Jobs he wasn't looking that great. Once he "becomes more powerful than you can possibly imagine" then you'll need the iOuija accessory - and that won't come cheap.

Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (2, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091520)

I wonder if this is a Mac issue or if IPv6 just isn't proper;y supported "out in the wild" yet? TFA doesn't mention a Windows test.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (4, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091684)

How is their a difference? if Mac did not properly support IPv6 then it is their problem.

And I assume it did not mention Windows because they had no problems, the site seemed to just be listing problems.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091766)

If it's Mac only then it's a Mac issue. If it's all platforms then it's an IPv6 issue.

As it turns out it's Mac, Opera and some flavours of Linux.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091850)

Some people actually believe the Apple hype that their products are perfect.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091790)

Depends on how you phrase it. Yes , it is an ipv6 issue .. An issue on how Apple implemented IPv6 on OS X. Is this a problem with the way IPv6 was deployed in the test realized by Redpill Linpro or that IPv6 just isn't supported in the wild yet? I doubt that. We've replicated his results on several tests in the wild and in the lab. In fact, we run constant monitoring of these things and we saw clearly when Opera fixed the problem in their browser as we saw a clear drop in brokenness as reported by our experiments. AFAIK, Google runs some experiments on this as well (https://e-learning.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-57/presentations/Colitti-Global_IPv6_statistics_-_Measuring_the_current_state_of_IPv6_for_ordinary_users_.7gzD.pdf ), so I wouldn't be surprised if their whitelist-only method for receiving AAAA records is because of that.

Also, have you wondered why IPv6 isn't deployed by all the big sites just yet? Think of the number of hits a big site such as google, msn, cnn, etc gets. If you consider a 0.1% brokenness rate, this means a considerable number of users will have problem and this will damage the reputation of those sites (let's be honest.. How many non-geek users will know how to debug IPv6? In some cases, like the users who get IPv6 via 6to4 thanks to their Airport Express, they won't even know that they have IPv6 and they will just blame those sites). On all our tests, we've been actively collecting data and, when we identify the cause, we give this data back to vendors so they can fix their crap. It's a slow process, but we're seeing progress.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091916)

The issue doesn't show up on Windows 7 at least. I have both v4 and 6to4 connectivity, and tests like this one [ipv6-test.com] show that my default protocol is still IPv4.

Re:Mac Issue Or IPv6 Issue? (3, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092194)

Interesting, never realised such a site existed...
It says that i have "global unicast" address type, no 6to4 mapping, and it even tells me my mac address that was used to calculate the v6 address...

The speedtest also indicates that both protocols are roughly the same speed, and my machine defaults to v6 if it can.

John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091522)

jcr, what's the real story behind this? You were heavily involved in the quality assurance of Mac OS X when you worked at Apple, were you not?

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091818)

yes. i used to work for apple. i also like to put my initials at the end so i can feel special. it lets people know that i'm important. who cares that my name would already appear above the post. but to show that putting my initials are justified, i'll post anonymously.

-jcr

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (2, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091876)

Kid, I'm not going to quit initialing my posts no matter how many times you newbs bitch about it. Get over it.

-jcr

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092118)

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

-jcr

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092218)

Kid, I'm not going to quit initialing my posts no matter how many times you newbs bitch about it. Get over it.

You're sexy when you talk tough.

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092650)

With a retort like that... now I understand why the post says used to work for Apple.

Hint: jcr is the newb.

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (1, Troll)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091826)

I was never in QA. What gave you that idea?

Anyhow, this issue is news to me. If you don't want your Mac to use IPv6, all you have to do is unselect it in the network prefs pane.

-jcr

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092420)

If you don't want your Mac to use IPv6, all you have to do is unselect it in the network prefs pane.

But how will people learn that their slowness is due to the operating system attempting to use IPv6 over a router or ISP taht supports only v4?

Re:John C. Randolph, give us the real story. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092436)

Don't I need to get permission from Jobs first?

puts up a "block"? (3, Insightful)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091534)

Hardly. Sounds like something that's pretty simple to fix before IPv4 addresses run out.
An interesting article none the less.

Not so simple (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091712)

This presents a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely until it's fixed. We'd like the transition to be smooth, such that it's already complete, before IPv4 addresses run out or become rare...

Re:Not so simple (3, Interesting)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092002)

This presents a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely until it's fixed.

No. It's a reason to avoid (host-based) 6to4, which is too unreliable to be useful.

Re:Not so simple (2, Interesting)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092050)

No. If I'm hosting a Web site, for example, this is a reason to avoid IPv6 entirely, since I can't expect all my n00b users to turn off 6to4 on their Macs.

Re:Not so simple (2, Insightful)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092124)

Agreed, it's a reason to avoid IPv6 on the server. It is certainly not a reason to avoid IPv6 on the client altogether.

Re:Not so simple (3, Insightful)

j h woodyatt (13108) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092232)

We'd like the transition to be smooth, such that it's already complete, before IPv4 addresses run out or become rare...

At this point, the transition is either going to be a very bumpy ride, or it's not going to happen at all. Smooth is no longer an option. Get used to it.

Re:Not so simple (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092328)

...Why? Certainly from the end-user perspective, it could still be quite smooth, if not for an issue like this.

Re:puts up a "block"? (-1, Flamebait)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092908)

Hardly. Sounds like something that's pretty simple to fix before IPv4 addresses run out. An interesting article none the less.

But this is Apple, Lord Steve will just declare IPv6 to be bad and banish it from the kingdom.

As an Apple aficionado is about to tell me, they don't need IPv6 as AppleTalk is the future of the web.

Cat, Volley Ball, Tiger (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091548)

"Mac OS X, older versions of Opera, and a few Linux distributions exhibited problems"

What? That's like saying my Rolex, Fishing Poll and some other wristwatches have an issue with something. Sometime tells me the OS X in the headline was just for sensationalism.

i dont use (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091622)

i have ipv6 disabled on debian and fc13. im not sure if ubuntu has it enabled by default either??

Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091638)

...when, most notably, also Opera versions prior to 10.50 are affected!

OK, OK, and apparently many Linux distros prior to recent patch of glibc. From the original source [fud.no] (love the url): "Also I'd like to thank Opera Software for working with me and fixing the problem in their browser, and Fedora, Canonical, Gentoo, Novell, Mandriva, and Debian for applying my patches to glibc in their respective Linux distributions."

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091720)

Because it's cool to hate Apple, or at least 'typical' Apple customers, so any time there is a product fault or a questionable business move we're going to hear about it, just like years ago there were more stories about Microsoft being schmucks than there were stories actually related to Linux or BSD. Now that Oracle has Sun in-tow, we're seeing more stories about poor ol' Sun, mostly as a back-handed attack on Oracle. It's the tao of the slashdot.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091794)

It's always worth pointing out when those who are so smug about being superior to Microsoft fux something up that Microsoft got right.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091990)

Because it's cool to hate Apple, or at least 'typical' Apple customers

There's also a bit of hate on opera. While there's not as much compared to apple, when you factor in market shares, they're probably a lot closer.

To make a car analogy, you don't see much hate on the Malaysian Proton Wira [wikipedia.org] in the states, but compared with how many there are driving around, there's probably a good amount of hate compared to a Ford Taurus.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1, Flamebait)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092150)

Of course the 'typical' Apple customer is hated, when he complains about unfair press for a problem doesn't affect the current version of any other major piece of software.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (2, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092282)

Because it's cool to hate Apple

Or, as per his post, because they are the only ones that haven't actually fixed the problem yet?

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (4, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091782)

Apple is now hated slightly less than MS, which is pretty significant given how maybe a decade ago they were not hated at all. That's what happens when you become a corporate behemoth.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1, Troll)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091946)

or attempt to behave like one even tho the market share should not indicate that the behavior fits.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092860)

Actually if you go by market cap Apple's is just behind MS. So they are equally big companies but with different market shares. Yes Apple pulls in slightly just slightly less income than MS with a much smaller market share.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092224)

MS on the other hand seems to be less hated these days. The gap is shrinking from both ends.

Speaking as a once avid MS hater, they don't seem to get in my face much these days, so I just ignore them.

Apple on the other hand.. all the time with the fu**ing ipad and stuff that I will never find even remotely useful, where ever you go. I'd like to be able to get some tech news without repeatedly encountering pundits speculating on Steve Jobs' latest rectal temperature reading.

Perhaps Apple deserved their market share? (-1, Troll)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092740)

Very interestingly, Apple started to show MS like "good guys" which is a crazy idea itself. Of course it makes no sense but you know, human perception.

I think Apple have really well deserved its "minority" status in IT World and each day, they keep proving this. MS was/is evil but even they have some limits with such a market share. Look what happened when iPhone became the king _only in USA market_, having only 0.5 share of global cell phone.

While on it, Apple's 3rd party downloads site, which is linked from Apple menu itself (get software) is under some major maintenance for a month or so. The rumor is, "app store" comes to OS X and some people goes as far as claiming 10.7 (next version) will be iphone like, app store only. Now I don't believe such thing may happen or they would dare such thing but, just look how people perceives Apple of 2010.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (5, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092770)

Apple is now hated slightly less than MS, which is pretty significant given how maybe a decade ago they were not hated at all.

They weren't hated, they were held in contempt for making closed boxes that no one wanted to buy. What truly enrages the ilk of slashdot is that over the past ten years is that Apple has made a killing selling closed boxes, when all of the "common sense" of open source evangelism told them this was unpossible.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (2, Insightful)

OnlyJedi (709288) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091834)

Because OSX is an entire operating system used by 7.95% of users [w3counter.com] , while Linux is used by only 2.34% of users. Opera is just a web browser used by only 1.42% of users.

For those 1.42% using Opera, it's rather easy to upgrade to a new version. As already stated there are versions available that fix the problem, and only requires a simple application install. Even if Opera never released a patched version, moving to Safari/Firefox/Chrome/(gasp!)IE isn't too hard, at least when compared to moving to a new OS.

Updating an OS is more of a chore, especially in a large company with many computers. There is no update yet for OSX which addresses the issue, and even when it comes out there's no guarantee it will work with anything besides 10.6. Users of 10.5 may be, and users of 10.4 will almost certainly be, stuck no matter what web browser they choose. They would be forced to upgrade to 10.6; for users with older hardware, that might require them to buy new systems just to keep internet access. That's why the issue is bigger for OSX users than Opera users.

(disclaimer: I am a happy user of OS X 10.6 on my iMac and MBP)

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (0, Troll)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091910)

Well you will notice that he didn't thank Apple for fixing this in their system did he? According to TFA the amount of Linux users affected is so small he didn't bother to graph them and, as others have mentioned, switching to a new version of Opera is a heck of a lot easier then switching to a new version of OS X, especially given Apple charges users for upgrades, even security/bug fixes. IMHO Apple users will end up with the bigger issues to face.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092256)

Apple charges for security/bug fixes? Since when?

Oh, right, no they don't.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (0, Troll)

burris (122191) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092736)

Since Bertrand Serlet got up at WWDC and announced that Snow Leopard would have no new features [arstechnica.com] and it was pretty much just a bug fix release.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (1)

orudge (458780) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092314)

especially given Apple charges users for upgrades, even security/bug fixes. IMHO Apple users will end up with the bigger issues to face.

I'm sorry, but what? While Apple (just like Microsoft) charges for major releases (e.g., 10.5 to 10.6), minor releases (e.g., 10.6.2 to 10.6.3) are free of charge, as are all the security updates between releases.

End of mainstream support (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092526)

While Apple (just like Microsoft) charges for major releases (e.g., 10.5 to 10.6), minor releases (e.g., 10.6.2 to 10.6.3) are free of charge

Apple could refuse to fix the defect in 10.5 once it enters whatever Apple calls its counterpart to what Microsoft calls "extended support". Consider this: "Apple has confirmed this behavior as a defect in Mac OS X version 10._. A fix will not be released through Software Update because it is not a security issue." So to get the bug fix, users would have to buy the upgrade to a supported operating system, which in some cases involves buying new hardware.

Re:Why would /. focus on OSX problems?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092350)

Well, root cause analysis *is* the best approach. BTW, Steve jobs and his ungoverned gang of lawyers are still a destructive fucking force in free society, whether or not His OS works in an IPv6 environment.

Help me understand this. (5, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091676)

So, I'm not 100% sure I understand what's going on here. Let's check.

It sounds like the problem is: if you've got a server that according to DNS is available both via IPv6 and IPv4, and the IPv6 address is not working, and the IPv4 address is working, the systems in question will fail to connect to it, even though they could if they'd just fall back to IPv4.

If a given server is IPv6-only, it works fine. If a given server's IPv6 connectivity is more reliable than its IPv4 connectivity, that's also fine. If a given server is IPv4, that's also fine. The problem only manifests when the server is available both via IPv4 and IPv6, and the IPv4 connection is more reliable than the IPv6 connection.

Yes?

And then on top of that, the author observes that on a system reachable both ways, it is typically the case today that the IPv4 version is considerably more reliable than the IPv6 version, and so in practical terms this issue actually does come up in the real world.

Yes? Do I grok, or have I made an error in reading?

Re:Help me understand this. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091784)

Fuck you asshole

Re:Help me understand this. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091868)

Fuck you asshole

Fuck you too.
Seems like some people need to go to AAA(Anonymous Assholes Anonymous) meetings.
normal person + anonymity = asshole way too often.

Re:Help me understand this. (0, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091970)

Jeebus, Arnie. If banning offshore drilling is going to make you this cranky, just go ahead and drill.

Re:Help me understand this. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091792)

Nope. That's more or less exactly it. And the solution he proposes is basically a more aggressive timeout on IPv6 connectivity. It's not a bad plan, but it's hardly a big deal.

"Multi-protocol service advertises some unreachable nodes, failover works as designed after no more than 75 seconds".

Re:Help me understand this. (5, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091848)

Mostly correct. One additional note: Many ISPs and routers don't do IPv6 well. So even in the "good IPv6 server, good IPv4 backup" case, many people will be hitting these delays because their ISP or router isn't IPv6 friendly. Since the web server can't force your ISP/router to upgrade, they have a choice. Do they serve only over IPv4 and get guaranteed performance, or do they move to IPv6 with an IPv4 fallback, thereby guaranteeing that their site will be dog slow for a fixed percentage of their users? We want them to move to IPv6 so the transition can occur smoothly over time. But a reasonable website operator might put off the move until the absolute last second, hoping that more ISPs and routers will be ready when they do switch. But of course, if no one is serving content over IPv6, ISPs have less motivation to upgrade. Yay Catch-22 situations!

Basically, if these browsers used the IPv4 fallback path smoothly, the IPv6 transition would be more painless; site operators would have one less reason to delay the switch, which would lead ISPs to have one more reason to speed the switch. But it all relies on the damn browsers behaving properly in the first place.

Re:Help me understand this. (4, Informative)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091974)

not just browsers, two of the reported problems are core library related, not browser related.

Re:Help me understand this. (3, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092496)

The problem is, no website is going to ONLY serve over IPv6, so there's no incentive for ISPs to support it. The incentive HAS to come from something new. That can either be new websites (or ISP subscribers) that can't get an IPv4 address, in which case we have a crisis, or some new client-side application that people would like to use.

A nice regulation requiring that ISPs serve unique IP addresses to any subscriber device that asks for one would get them to switch to IPv6 in a hurry, and we'd all have easy remote access to all our machines.

Re:Help me understand this. (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091862)

It seems like it depends on the connectivity of the host as well. If the server has good IPv6 and good IPv4 connectivity, this problem can still manifest itself if the client has good IPv4 connectivity, but crappy IPv6 connectivity only via a 6to4 tunnel. In that case, OSX will prefer the 6to4 tunnel rather than the native IPv4 connection. If it were all native connections (native IPv6 and native IPv4), it'd be much less of a problem; it really seems to be preferring the tunnel that's causing all the reliability issues. The fix (applied to glibc, among others) seems to be to distinguish between native IPv6 connectivity and tunnel-based connectivity, and deprioritize tunnel-based connectivity.

Re:Help me understand this. (1)

ajb44 (638669) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091878)

Yes, EXCEPT it's not just the servers' IPv6 connectivity that has to be reliable - the clients has to as well.

Re:Help me understand this. (1)

plcurechax (247883) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091896)

It's an issue as we (the entire Internet, not Slashdot readers) slowly crawl towards IPv6 adoption over the next century.

Or did you think there was going to be another big switch [livinginternet.com] ?

Re:Help me understand this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091920)

I don't know whether the auto-translation made an error, or some detail was only available in the "in-depth" version, but no.
Making a server available on *both* IPv4 *and IPv6 *should* be the safe, backwards-compatible way into the future.

Except that *clients* who do not have IPv6 connectivity may still prefer the IPv6 version...

So even when the server has reliable IPv6 connectivity, clients who do not support IPv6 may suddenly fail to use IPv4...
Which means that supporting IPv6 at the server side will have to wait...

Re:Help me understand this. (5, Informative)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092276)

Do I grok?

Not quite.

If a server is advertised in the DNS as being accessible using both v4 and v6, Unix-like systems (including Mac OS X) will first try v6, and then fall back to v4. This is the case on all Unices, although in the case of Linux it can be worked around by editing /etc/gai.conf.

When v6 is broken, this only works well if v6 sends you an error message in a timely manner. If v6 fails silently, just eats your packets, then you will only find out about it after a timeout -- meaning that it will take ages to fall back to v4.

Most of the time, this is not an issue, since v6 is pretty good at sending good error reports in a timely manner. The one exception is 6to4, which has an unpleasant tendency to fail silently (thus causing a timeout) when there is a v4 connectivity issue (such as a firewall).

The fix is simple -- only prefer v6 to v4 when you have native v6; if you're using 6to4, prefer v4 to v6. Windows does that right.

Re:Help me understand this. (3, Insightful)

ekhben (628371) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092738)

Yes.

IPv6 tunnels, firewalls set to drop ICMP, removal of router fragmentation in IPv6, and application name resolution behaviours combine to cause a noticeable number of IPv6 connections to open successfully, but not send data.

If you have the choice, avoid tunnels, both by using a native v6 connection yourself, and by only peering with known-good native v6 entities, which is what Google do.

If you have the choice, avoid dual stack. Test it, by all means, so you're ready to provide service should v6 actually work, but avoid presenting AAAA and A records for the same name.

If you have no choice, set your interface MTU to 1280 bytes, which resolves a large number of the problems.

wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091764)

I use OS X with ipv6, multiple protocols, intranet and internet. It works for me and I have no idea what they're talking about.

One of those summaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091870)

I've read it a few times, now and it just seems to 'bounce off' my brain.

Still not even sure what it's about.

Weird.

Ok, I'll bite... how is this a "block" to IPv6 (1, Insightful)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091886)

The two points seem to be 'OS X is slow in falling back to an IPv4 address' and 'OS X seems to prefer IPv6 to IPv4'. It's perfectly obvious that OS X needs to improve its handling of certain connectivity problems, but how is *either* of these a "block" to IPv6?

A.
(who turns off IPv6 tunneling in his router because the gateways seem to go away a lot)

Re:Ok, I'll bite... how is this a "block" to IPv6 (2, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092098)

The problem is that the fallback mechanism apparently takes upwards of a minute to kick in. Clearly the solution is to attempt to connect via both ipv4 and ipv6 simultaneously and then go with which ever connection succeeds first and drop the other one.

Re:Ok, I'll bite... how is this a "block" to IPv6 (1)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092702)

I'm sorry, but having a delayed fallback to IPv4 still doesn't explain how this problem is a "block to IPv6".

A.

6to4 is unreliable (3, Informative)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32091980)

All Unices prefer 6to4 to v4, not just Mac OS X. At least Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris do.

The real bug, of course, is not that 6to4 is preferred, it is that 6to4 is unreliable. 6to4 does not monitor its tunnels -- it just assumes that a tunnel will work if there is a global IPv4 address. Which is obviously not necessarily the case in the presence of a v4 firewall.

Do yourself a favour -- disable the 6to4 functionality on your Mac and run Miredo [remlab.net] , a Teredo implementation for Unices.

(Some more anecdotical evidence [transmissionbt.com] .)

fuck Mac OS X (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32091996)

hahahaha

Mac OsX? (-1, Flamebait)

flipper9 (109877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092116)

I thought all of the problems in Mac OsX were due to Flash, and that the operating system was perfect otherwise? Steve told me so.

Re:Mac OsX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32092710)

Wait till Steve Wonderful Jobs comes out with a PROOF that ipv6 problem on OS X is definitely due to flash. And then see the fanbois in media lap it up.

It is, kind of (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092906)

Well, 8 minutes after you posted that flamebait (!!!), someone posted this comment:

"Problems with connecting to flash media server (Score:2, Insightful)"

Now, as you see, it is somehow connected to flash! Steve was right!

Problems with connecting to flash media server (3, Interesting)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092182)

I ran into this problem a few months ago when trying to connect to a flash media server owned by a client - the media player running on the Mac would take over a minute to connect, and would fail at least once. The client insisted it was a bug in my code (I was the third programmer to be assigned the project after 2 others bailed), but my colleague and I uncovered similar horror stories with Mac OS 10.5, after my version of the player indicated a problem with the connection attempt timing out. The first two programmers couldn't prove this because their error trapping was non existent, so their players simply looked like they were crashing. Ah the joys of cross platform development!

Here's a quick solution, say in a Flash? (4, Funny)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092468)

75 seconds by Apple web-browsing standards sounds like a long time. I seem to recall Mr Jobs pointed out that Flash is the only thing responsible for slowing down the Web on a Mac. Now, I have an iMac G5 and Flash doesn't slow down my experience by 75 seconds. So intstead of changing the TCP/IP stack in OSX, or fixing Safari, I think what would please Apple (in getting faster experience on the Web for the customers) would be to ask Adobe to make a Flash IPV6to4 wrapper for their TCP/IP stack.

I don't even know if this would even be possible, in fact I don't think it is. I leave the challenge to Adobe, and the PR to Apple to explain how Adobe fixed their 'problems'!

I have already accepted I used at least 75 seconds of my web browsing experience to write this post!

If OSX doesn't handle it properly... (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092584)

...then CLEARLY no one needs to use IPv6! Everyone knows that OSX and Macs only provide the functionality you need, not what you think you want...

Good joke but true (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#32092826)

In fact you are right, as people (besides nerds and enterprise) just started to have IPV6 capability, it wasn't needed until last minute. Now all those heavily modified, millions of different configurations, badly managed ISPs, needless "tweaking", WoW playing machines gets on the IPV6 network, the bugs become visible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...