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!

Five Billionth Device About To Plug Into Internet

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the how-many-fingers-is-that dept.

Networking 162

alphadogg writes "Sometime this month, the 5 billionth device will plug into the Internet. And in 10 years, that number will grow by more than a factor of four, according to IMS Research, which tracks the installed base of equipment that can access the Internet."

cancel ×

162 comments

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

haha (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276284)

You mom has five billion devi-oh screw it.

Re:haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276342)

And each with its own RSS feed.

Re:haha (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276796)

[cynical]
Or a security issue that allows the device to function perfectly as an embedded botnet client, or even more realistically, a botnet redirector that forensic trails end up stopping at.
[/cynical]

devices... (3, Interesting)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276320)

If there was a race to plug in the most, what would be the cheapest method of getting several million "devices" online? Also, what would we win?

Re:devices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276384)

You'd win a free* ticket to IPv6 adoption.

*note: not actually free.

Re:devices... (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276466)

The cheapest method is to not have physical hardware. Get a single box, plug in the CLICK software routing element for the kernel and the routing element to pipe onto a network simulator like NS-2 or NS-3. Have your simulated network contain a million virtual nodes, all with their own IP address. You now have a million nodes on your network and there's nothing even a simple portscan could do to tell you that they were not physical devices.

If you're really clever, have some of the terminal nodes on the virtual tree connect to a virtual machine running on the Linux box. For any one of those nodes, you can even demonstrate the existence of applications, login prompts, etc.

Re:devices... (4, Funny)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276926)

...there's nothing even a simple portscan could do...

You know, if you aim low you'll certainly succeed.

(Generally if you are going to use the phrase "there's nothing even can do", then should be something powerful. Such as "my plan is coming to fruition and there is nothing Superman can do to stop me." Contrast that with "my plan is coming to fruition and there is nothing two week old infant can do to stop me.")

Re:devices... (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276712)

Find your old PCs, install some dialup software (like NetZero)*, and give it away to anyone who does not have a computer. That's how I got my brother, then my niece, then a poor neighbor online. So +3 additional devices. If all the geeks did this with old PCs or laptops, we could add several million internet devices within a year.

*
*If they have DSL, use that instead.

Re:devices... (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277612)

I do the same thing but I've learned to be a bit selective as I end up being the free support/tutorial source for most of the recipients. As a pre-offer screening test I normally hold my hand up at shoulder height and tell them "You must be this smart to use the internet". If they give me the old twisting their head to the side thing (like a dog would), then I don't offer a computer. If they laugh or attempt to elicit some elucidation then they can have a box if they like.

The dial-up thing is going away as fewer of them have land lines. I have noticed that every time I have hooked a Sprint phone to a system via USB I get asked if I want to use it as a modem.... so that may come into play if the service is included in the phone plan.(I've never used it that way).

Re:devices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277670)

So you are the asshole that is responsible for making my games lag... bastard.

Re:devices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277684)

"give it away to anyone who does not have a computer"

What? What does this mean? Is this some sort of slang? Oh god, I'm so confused.

Re:devices... (3, Informative)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276782)

Theoretical, for a single piece of HW Solaris 10 on a Sun Sparc Enterprise T5440, 4 Processors 512GB Ram 256 LDOM's per server 8191 Zones per LDOM 1048448 Total machines in a 4RU enclosure the machines would be severely IO and disk space bound (Only 4x300GB disks in the box), but it could be done Anyone know the theoretical numbers for Linux on Z or a fully configured vmware cluster?

Re:devices... (2, Informative)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277098)

Not even in your wildest dreams. Each zone requires it's own init, svc.startd, svc.configd, cron, etc. Just those four are going to 2.5 MB + 17 MB + 10 MB + 5 MB = 35 MB of memory just to even begin to boot. You 512 GB of RAM only provides 512 KB of memory per zone. Even if you used all of the disk space as swap, you're still way short.

This is confusing.... (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276332)

There's only 4 and some odd billion IP addresses, so this number would suggest that they are included NAT'ted devices... except how can they have a remotely accurate count of the number of NAT'ted devices?

Or are they including places that have migrated to IPv6?

Unique device identifiers (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276392)

except how can they have a remotely accurate count of the number of NAT'ted devices?

Plenty of Internet application protocols use unique device identifiers that remain unique even when used through network address translation. For example, HTTP or HTTPS clients behind a NAT have cookies that can be used to estimate how many devices are active.

Re:This is confusing.... (3, Insightful)

Kepesk (1093871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276562)

Notice that they're careful to say they're tracking "equipment that can access the Internet". I have 1 IP address, but I have 4 internet-capable devices using it, 5 if you count my phone. I would imagine that they have ways of estimating how many devices on average use the same IP based on surveys and studies and the like.

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276664)

Yes, this is almost certainly a guestimate based on average number of net gadgets per gender, per age group, per socio-economic group, per country.

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276826)

Still 1 billion shy of connecting the whole world.

What's internet access like in 3rd world countries? Are they still using V.92? (56/48k) Or don't they even have that?

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276960)

In a lot of countries, large portions of the population dont even have electricity.

Consider that in India alone, there are over 400 million people below the international poverty line (of $1.25 per day.) That more than the entire population of the united states, including illegals.

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

Morth (322218) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276966)

There's probably huge differencies, but I'd say the way it's heading is 3g/similar techniques. Landline telephone deployment has pretty much stopped in Thailand (ok can only really speak for the area where I have relatives, countryside SE Thailand). But where's there's telephone, there's ADSL.

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277440)

Heheh. V.92. I remember when we were dealing with all those old dialup protocols. Wasn't the marketing name for V.92 'V.Fast'?

I'm on Comcast now, and I have a feeling that one day I'll look back on today and think, 'Man, I didn't know what fast was.' V.Fast certainly wasn't that. I remember waiting hours for a postage-stamp-sized movie trailer to download.

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277910)

Wasn't the marketing name for V.92 'V.Fast'?

Heh - the first dialup modem I used was the size of a small suitcase and only offered 300 baud. It got the job done, but I was a happy chappie when I got my first 4800 baud machine for remote sysadmin working from home.

I know someone will chime in with something against taking work home, so I'll just say this: my setup was a lot more comfortable than a sleeping-bag on the machine-room floor (I've done that from time to time as well).

Re:This is confusing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276646)

Probably looking in the packets sent by NAT'd devices looking at internal IPs or just counting individual MAC addresses coming through those packets

Re:This is confusing.... (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276762)

The summary is only two sentenced. One of them answers your question.

Owner of that device wins a big reward (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276350)

The owner of the five billionth device will receive 5 billion Flooz.

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276440)

But I already have 10 billion Flooz you insensitive clod!

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (4, Funny)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276686)

Cue lots of "Congratulations, you are the 5 billionth device to connect to the internet, click here [and submit your personal data] to win a prize!!" flash banners...

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276922)

Cue lots of "Congratulations, you are the 5 billionth device to connect to the internet, click here [and submit your personal data] to win a prize!!" flash banners...

What in the... Oh. My. GOD! Look! Everyone, look! It's someone on Slashdot actually using the proper word when they're using the phrase "cue lots of X"! They didn't use "queue lots of X"! Unbelievable! This is an incredibly rare find! My friends, we are witnessing an event that hasn't happened once in the history of Slashdot, and probably won't ever happen again until long after our grandchildren and their children are long dead!

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277004)

What?

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (3, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277100)

I think you meant 'que?'

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277204)

And I think you actually meant queue

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (1)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277260)

understanding simple Spanish fail

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277226)

Except "queue" isn't necessarily incorrect usage. "Cue" is most correct, but "queue" is still grammatically correct.

Sorry. Didn't mean to rain on your parade.

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277578)

"Queue" is NOT correct... not even a 'little bit'... It should be- "let's cue (or "An action or event that is a signal for somebody to do something") ourselves to stand in the queue (or "where a line of people or objects wait").

Re:Owner of that device wins a big reward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277668)

Queue is also a verb. Certainly there is some way in which to queue flash banners.

We'll know soon enough (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276382)

The AI has been waiting for enough compute power to guarantee it can take control, in order to assure its survival....

Re:We'll know soon enough (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276460)

You mean Jane? she has been taking refuge in the mother tree's until the Ansibles come back online

Re:We'll know soon enough (2, Interesting)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276464)

SkyNet is slated to go online later this month too. Coincidence? :p

Five billion? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276386)

What's the maximum number of different MAC addresses again?

"The original IEEE 802 MAC address comes from the original Xerox Ethernet addressing scheme.[1] This 48-bit address space contains potentially 248 or 281,474,976,710,656 possible MAC addresses."

Oh okay, never mind then.

Re:Five billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276482)

Guess it really wasn't worth posting then was it?

Re:Five billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276948)

Not really, gives a good idea of where we are through the MAC address set.

If we ever do get around to full IPv6 devices, i think it would probably be best to also improve MACs as well.
Mind you, it would be better to just use IPv6 for the sake of IDing a device. Wasn't that also partially the reasoning behind IPv6s large address range?
I'd happily get rid of MACs if we switch to IPv6, they are useless for IPv6 addressing, and the excuse of "it needs a huge change" is silly because IPv6 itself needs a MASSIVE change to everything.

If anything, IPv6 should be future-proofed so it can be extended seamlessly without having to do all this crap with software!
While the amount of numbers in IPv6 is incredibly high, we used to think the same for IPv4 and look where that got us, NAT, address sharing and other messy solutions.
The spec should be future-proofed as soon as possible before deployment goes fully ahead. But it is probably already too late.
Oh well, as the saying goes, we'll let our kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids.. kids kids kids kids deal with it. Give or take a few thousand more kids.

Re:Five billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277274)

The issue you bring up is why we have protocols with isolated layers so there is no dependancy between physical and IP layer.

MAC addresses are not even necessary for connectivity to an IPv6 network.

IPv6 as it relates specifically to ethernet via Neighbor Discovery and SLLAC explicitly supports EUI-64 addressing standard in addition to our current 48 bit ethernet addresses. Given this do you still feel there is a problem?

Re:Five billion? (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276830)

MAC addresses don't have anything to do with it since they are not really useful beyond your switch or router.

Census error... (1)

archmcd (1789532) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276406)

I missed this question on the census form... we may have already surpassed 5,000,000,000.

Re:Census error... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276624)

You filled that out?

"how-many-fingers-is-that dept. " (0)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276408)

Taco,

That would be 5 billion fingers.

Sincerely,
Spazztastic

Re:"how-many-fingers-is-that dept. " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276488)

No, it's 33 fingers.

You do count in binary, don't you?

Re:"how-many-fingers-is-that dept. " (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276696)

four

vm's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276416)

Do virtual machines also count?

Sounds wrong to me (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276434)

Sounds wrong to me. My IP address is only 127001 and I've not had this computer for very long.

Re:Sounds wrong to me (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276588)

How long have you had it? I mean I got mine not too long ago and I'm all the way up to 1921681100! Clearly its growing exponentially.

Re:Sounds wrong to me (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33278020)

I think it depends on which country you are in.

Mine is fe8064bdcf91f17e. I am in Europe so this must be the metric system.

Re:Sounds wrong to me (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276592)

HAHAHA Love it... that is my computers number too.

Re:Sounds wrong to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276954)

Hey, how did my root password get into your IP address?

Re:Sounds wrong to me (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277432)

Hey I can PING your computer from mine! Isn't the Internet great!

Re:Sounds wrong to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277506)

HAHAHA now I has Ur iP address ahm h4x0r1ng ur box!! /NO CARRIER

Re:Sounds wrong to me (4, Funny)

mutube (981006) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277564)

Haha I just logged into your IP address and found a load of donkey porn! Pervert!

Wait? What?

Paging Dr. IPv6 (3, Interesting)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276468)

5 billion devices is, let's face it, outside the capacity of an addressing scheme (IPv4) that originally only anticipated a shade over 4 billion possible devices. Why are we not moving over to IPv6 faster? I don't know much about networking and related issues; what are the big challenges for IPv6 going forward?

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (4, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276690)

5 billion devices is, let's face it, outside the capacity of an addressing scheme (IPv4) that originally only anticipated a shade over 4 billion possible devices. Why are we not moving over to IPv6 faster? I don't know much about networking and related issues; what are the big challenges for IPv6 going forward?

First, you've got the whole chicken-and-egg thing going on. There isn't a compelling reason for businesses to roll out IPv6 because most of the world is still on IPv4. Nobody will be visiting you v6 website. There isn't a compelling reason for ISPs to roll out IPv6 because most of the businesses are still on v4. There are no v6 websites to visit. Nobody wants to go first.

Then you've got some very real technical hurdles... New software and hardware requirements. Patches, upgrades. All that good stuff. And right now that looks like an awful lot of work for relatively little benefit. Legacy hardware that might not be upgrade-able.

Plus, right now, NAT pretty much works. Yes, I know, it's an ugly hack... But it works. It's hard to tell somebody that you really need to spend tons of time/effort/money switching things over to IPv6 when they're currently able to do everything they need to.

You've also got some weird psychological resistance to IPv6 addressing. Folks (even IT people) freak out when they see all those hex digits.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276746)

I wonder if IP addresses will end up just going up in price, forcing smaller sites out or onto virtual domains instead of people switching over to IPv6, even if IPv6 is just used as an edge protocol, where businesses still use v4 as their core layer 3 protocol.

I hope we go to IPv6 sometime. I just dread having to go find an auction to pay hyperinflated prices for a 5 IP subnet if I want some v4 statics.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276884)

I hope we go to IPv6 sometime. I just dread having to go find an auction to pay hyperinflated prices for a 5 IP subnet if I want some v4 statics.

Most BGP operators filter their incoming routes at /24 or sometimes larger. So if you'll dread the cost of five addresses, the actual cost of, say, a /20 will really annoy you.

I could see poorer ISPs with large swaths of unused IP space being purchased by richer ISPs solely for their IP space...

Also expect to see a full court marketing B.S. press pushing "NAT access" as somehow being better or more private than getting public ip space, and if it happens to kill P2P all the better.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277006)

Nail, head hit. One reason IPv6 isn't being pushed is because of artificial scarcity. If top tier ISPs can force people to pay for V4 addresses, so much the better. It isn't like there is a lawmaking body that can tell them to flip the switch like how ARPANet went from NCP to TCP/IP in the past.

Plus, the more people behind NATs, the harder it is to P2P, and the less bandwidth used by people. All wins for ISPs (especially cable companies who want people watching their TV and not streaming video), all losses for everyone else.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276790)

IPv6 is not used because Windows doesn't make it the default setting. Without making 80% of the internet's users make the switch, everyone else considers this a pointless exercise.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277170)

That's cute! You think the internet runs on Windows.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (0, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277606)

That's cute! You have shittier reading comprehension skills than a kid in kindergarten.

Did you even bother to read the whole post or did you just stop at where it said "Windows"?

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (3, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276860)

Also, no one is really sure that there are not some gaping and fundamental flaws in the protocol that are just waiting to be found and exploited by some enterprising black hat. CIOs not wanting to have to deal with a serious network compromise because they were on the bleeding edge of adoption probably has a lot to do with things. It's been a long time since large organizations have had every device on their network on an Internet routable IP, and there's a nice sense of false security to be had in thinking NAT at gateway firewalls and routers provides you with some valuable additional protection.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (2, Interesting)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276874)

First, you've got the whole chicken-and-egg thing going on. There isn't a compelling reason for businesses to roll out IPv6 because most of the world is still on IPv4. Nobody will be visiting you v6 website. There isn't a compelling reason for ISPs to roll out IPv6 because most of the businesses are still on v4. There are no v6 websites to visit. Nobody wants to go first.

As an employee working on upgrading some network products to support IPv6, let me add on that.
There is simply no real demand whatsoever for IPv6 on the market. The only reason we're doing this is because this is necessary for sell our products to the US government, but even them do not use it.

IPv6 is not implemented because no one asks for it, and those that do only do so for "political" reasons and don't even use it, so it doesn't matter if the support is any good or not.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277156)

IPv6 is not implemented because no one asks for it, and those that do only do so for "political" reasons and don't even use it, so it doesn't matter if the support is any good or not.

You mean there's no demand for IPv6 specifically because people making the decisions tend to be rather ignorant, and the network admins don't really want to learn ipv6 addressing. Perhaps the EU could be petitioned to force all ISPs to provide IPv6, since it is a huge market. It'd certainly provide increased political pressure.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277392)

I suspect the main driver will be smartphones. Hardly anyone would notice if their smartphone was on IPv6 and it'll be a cheap way for big operators in china and such to get millions of devices online in short order.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277480)

There isn't a compelling reason for businesses to roll out IPv6 because most of the world is still on IPv4. Nobody will be visiting you v6 website.

However popular this explanation is, it may actually be slightly distorted. It's not that hard to deploy IPv6 that it would stop all websites from doing so. A lot of websites would deploy IPv6 even if it only meant that a very small number of additional users could access it. Maybe those users count for something, and getting started now means you will be prepared when in a few years time there will be an increasing number of clients that can only access your website over IPv6. However, there is a slightly different reason for websites to be hesitating with IPv6 support.

The problem is that even though you may expect a website with both IPv4 and IPv6 support to be accessible to more users that one with only IPv4 support, it isn't actually so. By supporting only IPv4 your website is accessible to more users than if you support both. The reason for this is that once you enable IPv6 for your domain, many clients will start using that by default, even some clients that do not have IPv6 connectivity. If your computer thinks it has both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, there is a chance it will use IPv6 by default for any website supporting it. If it turns out you only have IPv4 connectivity, and the IPv6 connection your computer thought it had, isn't working, then you can access IPv4 only websites but not websites supporting both IPv4 and IPv6.

As long as the number of users with this kind of broken connectivity is larger than the number of users who have only IPv6 and no IPv4, there is very little incentive for websites to deploy IPv6. Would you want to make your site inaccessible to a small percentage of your current users in order to make it accessible for a much smaller group of users?

Currently this looks like the biggest hurdle for deploying IPv6. A large part of this problem could be solved by making webbrowsers better at dealing with flaky connectivity. One option is to open two TCP connections simultaneously (one over IPv4 and one over IPv6) and use the first one to complete a TCP handshake. Unfortunately it will cause some extra load on the webservers, but at the current time that extra load would be minor since it would only happen for those users that actually do have working IPv6 connectivity.

A different approach could be to first open one connection, and if the handshake has not completed in 200ms open the next, then use the first one to complete the handshake. And for each website remember which of the two you used the last time and make that the first you attempt for the next connection.

A little bit more intelligence would be required for cases with misconfigured routers causing PMTU discovery to break. In those cases the handshake would work, but the connection would stall the first time one party tries to send a large packet. For this to work you would have to detect this kind of scenario and switch protocol after some data has been sent. That would mean resending requests, which isn't allowed for all kinds of requests as POST requests are not guaranteed to be idempotent. Browsers could also just set a low mss for all connections they open over IPv6.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (2, Informative)

Chang (2714) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277936)

You're completely right about the psychological resistance. I don't know why but even hard core tech people take time to get over the addresses and I think this has been a major factor in the lack of widespread adoption.

You're completely wrong about the number of IPv6 websites. There are thousands available and the growth has been noticeably accelerating since the 2008 Google IPv6 implementors conference. Every year around conference time more major sites announce availability. This year Facebook was the big one (but not the only one!) to announce a beta site.

Also - try running a torrent on a dual stack connection and you'll clearly see that IPv6 is very popular among torrent users.

There are a couple of major things coming up that are really going to impact this whole IPv6 discussion in the next couple of years.

There has been ongoing work to make IPv6 -> IPv4 NAT work well. This will be needed for sites that can get an IPv6 block for free while an IPv4 block is expensive or unavailable. See here - http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca/ [viagenie.ca]

This NAT64/DNS64 technique is available today and makes an IPv6 only connection 95% usable for IPv4 sites and 100% usable for IPv6 content. The IPv4 breakage is sites that hard code IPv4 addresses directly into HTML or XML, or whatnot which is easily fixable if there is incentive. Now for some incentive.

T-Mobile has decided that NAT64 is the way to go so they intend to start rolling out IPv6 only phones using NAT64/DNS64 to get to IPv4 sites. This means that in the next couple of years there will be a couple million handsets that are IPv6 only accessing the IPv4 through a large scale NAT64. Verizon is joining the party using dual stack IPv4 NAT/IPv6 native phones. Think about the _global_ demand for cell phones and you can see what will be driving IPv6 adoption pretty clearly. It dwarfs the PC market so the old way of thinking about your aunt's Linksys don't really apply. Mobile web is rapidly increasing in importance and you won't have to do anything more than get a new phone in a couple of years to join the IPv6 party.

Comcast, AT&T, and others have announced IPv6 trials in 2010 and 2011 respectively. These could be production systems a year or two down the road. When that happens, anybody who is running Mac OS X, Vista or Win7, or Linux is likely to automagically get a working native IPv6 connection very quickly after that when they or their ISP replaces their home router if it wasn't already v6 (Apple, Buffalo, or recent D-link). This is going to largely coincide with the IPv4 free pool exhausting itself which will give another kick in the pants to adoption.

You don't have to spend a ton of money - all the pieces have been in place for some time in most networks.

It's true that businesses would have to spend money if they wanted to completely eliminate IPv4 but there isn't actually a need to do that. At many companies - most or all of their web facing presence equipment has likely been IPv6 capable for a couple of years now. What's needed is to get a connection (tunneled at first and then native when the traffic demands it) and turn it on. You don't have to eliminate IPv4 internally and you don't have to switchover everything. It's a transition and we don't need to make a false choice when neither the situation nor the economics demands it.

Sorry - got off on a rant there.... :-)

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#33278142)

I just wish some basic software supported IPv6. I'd be very happy if I could finally migrate my home network off IPv4 completely (right now it's running dual-stack, with connectivity provided by Hurricane Electric). But software like mysql *still* doesn't support v6. Fortunately, that list is getting smaller and smaller, but glaring omissions like this one make migration challenging, to say the least.

And then there's the broken routers. I went and picked up an 802.11n-capable D-Link router (don't recall the model off the top of my head). The network is set up so that the wireless connection is basically a bridge to my internal network (yes, I'm running WPA-2, and yes, the password is very strong). So what does this POS do? It starts broadcasting router advertisement messages... with it's fucking *loopback* as the gateway. And this is with IPv6 ostensibly disabled on the device, and *the WAN port disconnected*. Result: suddenly Google times out over v6 because my laptop decided to route v6 traffic through the broken WAP instead of my firewall.To fix this I was forced to install ddwrt. Pathetic. And this is on a "modern" device. And we wonder why Google is being very selective about who they're willing to broadcast AAAA records to...

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (2, Interesting)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276702)

Incompatibility with v4.

IPv4 devices will not be able to access IPv6 devices, which means that if you have devices with old OS in your network, you will have to use both v4 and v6.

Also, there is that chicken-and-egg problem. There is only a small amount of servers that support v6 and even smaller number of them support only v6.

1.There is no reason for a user to upgrade to IPv6 (they may need to change their router, the new IP address is almost impossible to remember etc) because little would be gained from it (very few servers support only IPv6). A IPv6-only connection wold be almost useless.
2.There is no reason for a company to upgrade to IPv6 because all of their clients can use IPv4. Goto 1.

indeed (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276882)

i'm waiting until they roll out ip 7, ip vista has proven to be a turkey and no one's upgrading to it

the question is do i get ip 7 enterprise or ip 7 home basic?

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277072)

IPv4 devices will not be able to access IPv6 devices, which means that if you have devices with old OS in your network, you will have to use both v4 and v6.

Only if you use stuff much older than, say, Y2K. My MFC cannon laserprinter/scanner works ipv6 out of the box and its a couple years old. My wifes ancient 1st gen mac mini supports ipv6. My windoze-xp gaming partition works. Any roughly late 90s+ era linux kernel support v6.

If you want, you can set up a machine that specifically excludes v4 or v6, to allow complaining about it, but its more work than just letting it dual stack outta the box.

There is only a small amount of servers that support v6 and even smaller number of them support only v6.

Uhhhhh, apache 1.3 worked with patches, so post '98, a mere dozen years ago, is OK with minimal effort. Very early in the 2.0 series, Y2K, it got mainline ipv6 support.

You can, if you want, intentionally set up a server such that ipv6 won't work. But it actually takes some effort, at least in the last decade or so.

There are quite a few tunnel brokers for v6 to get you access over the past decade or so. he.net, sixxs.net, others, etc.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

AhabTheArab (798575) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277370)

No compelling reason to switch to IPv6?? You're crazy. A dancing turtle [kame.net] isn't enough for you? What's it going to take to please you?

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277584)

Because the 2.6 kernel doesn't support the Broadcom 802.11 adapter in my home router. I have to run 2.4, which has crappy IPv6 support.

If I don't get IPv6 then no one does. That's what's holding everything up.

Re:Paging Dr. IPv6 (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 4 years ago | (#33278152)

I can tell you my problem: my router. My computers and ISP should all work well with IPv6, but I haven't found anything about v6 on my router controls or documentation. This was the router I was told to use for my DSL connection, and I didn't check for IPv6 connectivity when I bought it.

So, I'll enable it when it becomes worthwhile for me to replace my wireless router and go through the minor hassle of making it work right. Not before.

I bet it's more like 10 billion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276484)

if you count all the wireless devices too!

I'm counting (1)

swsuehr (612400) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276486)

It's my job to count these. There are over 16,000,000 hosts that respond to ping on my network alone. If everyone does this I can see how the number would grow exponentially.

nmap -sP 127.0.0.0/8

Re:I'm counting (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276758)

It's my job to count these. There are over 16,000,000 hosts that respond to ping on my network alone. If everyone does this I can see how the number would grow exponentially.

nmap -sP 127.0.0.0/8

Maybe its time for a "SETI at home" or "folding at home" type of distributed project.

How abouts you scan 127.0.0.0/9 and I'll take 127.128.0.0/9. We can split the workload several times over.

Woah (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276574)

RFID devices waste IP addresses. They should be prohibited from
using any public IP address. But no ... (here goes my karma) NIGGERS !!!

Only 4 times and all of 10 years? (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276598)

The human inverse squared Moore's Law takes hold. I would expect that after 10 years the 10 trillionth device would be plugged into the 4th dimensional matrix that traces its origin to today's interwebs. I would also suspect this device would be a just born human and all the concerns we have today of security, privacy, and data will look somewhat...quaint.

Another two billion or so... (0)

Kyn (539206) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276608)

... and it will beat the number of devices that have been plugged into your mom!

Don't plug it in - it's a SCAM (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276634)

Sounds like a scam to me - Congratulations you are the 5,000,000th person to connect to the internet. Click here to have you computer infested with malware and your email in box filled with shite.

Two Words: +1, Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276738)

Botnets bitchez !

Yours In Astrakhan,
K. Trout

Just got a popup .... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276784)

"The Internet is full. Please try again later."

5 billion seems low (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276910)

I don't doubt the report, but you'd think just in the consumer market most people have at least 2 or 3 internet connected devices (laptops, phones, pda's, ebook readers, video games consoles, etc.). Not to mention the number of web server, printers, etc. that are floating around out there. I haven't crunched the numbers, and I understand there is a good deal of the world that lives in poverty. But still, 5 billion seems suprisingly low.

Re:5 billion seems low (3, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277180)

but you'd think just in the consumer market most people have at least 2 or 3 internet connected devices (laptops, phones, pda's, ebook readers, video games consoles, etc.)

A large segment of the world's population doesn't have lunch.

Re:5 billion seems low (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277222)

A large segment of the world's population doesn't have lunch.

True, but the rest of the world's population is overweight. What's your point? If you had actually read my comment, I pointed out that "the haves" likely have 3 or 4 internet connected devices.

Re:5 billion seems low (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277484)

For adults in the West, maybe. I just counted/estimated for my semi-immediate family (kids/boyfriends/grandchildren/etc). We are not even at 2:1. And this is a VERY tech-centric family. My kids have never known a house without a PC. My grandkids were on the keyboard before they could talk.

All the preteen grandkids skew the stats. And my local network of 11 individual devices tries to skew it the other way, but doesn't make up for all the little anklebiters.

Re:5 billion seems low (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277210)

1- Even though some people might have 3 devices, it doesn't mean everyone we all have 3.
For instance, just because we have a PC in our home, it doesn't mean there's a PC for mom, dad, son, daughter, and the dog.

2- Don't forget that a large proportion of the world (several billions) live in poverty, sometimes without even access to electricity.

3- In a lot of developing countries people primarily use Internet cafes to go to the internet at very cheap rates (like 50 cents per hour), so 1 computer serves 5, 10 people.

Re:5 billion seems low (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277288)

And agree with everyone of those points. But I must also point out that routers, library computers, lab computers, web servers, ftp servers, work computers, cell phones, etc. are all (for the most part) internet connected devices. This is not limited to the consumer market.

Nearly there... (1)

johnw (3725) | more than 4 years ago | (#33276920)

I'm just about to plug it in, but the cable I have isn't quite long enough.

Can anyone lend me a 5m patch cable?

IPv6 loves you and wants to have your children. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33276942)

5 billion is a lot of devices but theres one small problem -- IPv4s 2^32 addresses minus 37% for overhead does not quite add up to 5 billion or the worlds 6.7 billion people.

When slashdot of all sites does not have a presence in IPv6 land it brings tears to my eyes and crushes all my hopes in the future of the network.

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ipv6.slashdot.org.             IN      AAAA

;; ANSWER SECTION:
ipv6.slashdot.org.  1337   IN AAAAAAAAAAAAAA "Sad Panda"

And 10 billion chargers. (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277250)

Most of them in a draw some where and the rest are in a box in my loft..

No idea what half of them are for; but I keep them around, you never know.

Never happened back in the day. Why now? (1)

johneee (626549) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277332)

On a serious note though, why not reinstate internet spring cleanup days? I remember them being done regularly every year back in the '90s, and dutifully unplugging my computer every time it rolled around. It was annoying, but this kind of problem never happened back then, so obviously it did what it was supposed to. I don't know why they got stopped - probably because they put a government tax on accessing the internet and so it was in the government's best interest to have more people on... That's probably it.

OK, There... (1)

graffix01 (973350) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277736)

That ought to do it. I just plugged my toaster into the network, now just let me turn it o.........

5 Billionth Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33277738)

Hey milestones are important too...

Skeptic (1)

kkohlbacher (922932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33277972)

5 BILLION!?

Hmm... considering the reliability of statistics I question what margin of error is used for this number. I further speculate with an argument for 'Picture or it didn't happen'.

Or.... how bout a cool web counter!? Android Widget for +5 awesome! We could use radio contest winning concepts to be that 5 billionth person!

0.o how exciting!!
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>