Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Vint Cerf Calls For IPv6 Incentives In UK

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-would-be-this-thing-called-a-market dept.

The Internet 164

sweetpea23 writes "Vint Cerf, the 'godfather' of the web and Internet evangelist for Google, has highlighted the need for cash incentives to encourage ISPs and businesses in the UK to move to version six of the IP addressing scheme (IPv6). In response to the UK government's stance that its role in the transition will primarily be advisory, Cerf suggested a system of tax credits for upgrading equipment to v6 capability — similar to the 'cash for clunkers' scheme in the US. 'You'd have to do the math to see what impact it would have, but creating some business incentive might be helpful,' he said. His words echo those of Axel Pawlik, managing director of the RIPE NCC, who warned last month that that the IT industry is adding unnecessary risk and complexity to Internet architectures by ignoring the availability of IPv6 addresses. the Internet authority IANA is expected to assign its last batch of IPv4 addresses in June 2011."

cancel ×

164 comments

carrot and stick (1)

moozaad (1811428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221946)

Less carrot more stick from the government. Companies get too many benefits as it is.

Re:carrot and stick (3, Insightful)

metamatic (202216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222064)

Lots of government procurement already depends on your product being IPv6 capable. The problem is really the ISPs. I'm ready to switch on IPv6 tomorrow, but my ISP doesn't support it, so I'm stuck tunneling.

Re:carrot and stick (-1, Flamebait)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222092)

So switch ISPs, there are several who support it... If people start asking for ipv6 and moving isps to get it then others might follow suit and start offering it.. I know of several isps who do have ipv6 but don't advertise it anywhere because they don't see any demand.

Re:carrot and stick (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222114)

There are no ISPs in the UK that support IPv6, apart from some very specialist and expensive ones.

And even then, they all use the BT backhaul - which doesn't officially support v6. :/

Re:carrot and stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222210)

They don't all use BT backhaul. BE, O2, TF... They all have their own infrastructure. VirginMedia obviously have their own. All have IPv6 ready in their core, just not customer facing because that's a much bigger job.

Re:carrot and stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222324)

Where to you get the information that they are IPv6 ready at their core? That hasn't been my experience.

Farmville and IPV6 (4, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222934)

not customer facing because that's a much bigger job.

Farmville is giving players free virtual cash for anyone connecting over IPV6. That will get users banging on the ears of the ISP companies.

Re:carrot and stick (2, Informative)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222394)

Not true. I get IPv6 straight out of a PPPoE connection (would be PPPoA if my ADSL modem/router supported IPv6). This is via Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] and costs £18 pcm.

Re:carrot and stick (2, Insightful)

lga (172042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222518)

How is 1GB per month enough for anything except a few emails? Here in the real world we use streaming audio and video, download software updates, and buy games on Steam at 10GB a time. Get back to us when that costs less than £100 per month with Andrews & Arnold.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222974)

I think the A&A caps are pretty low, but you're misrepresenting what they're offering. Their cheapest package only has 1GB per month of 'peak' bandwidth, which is 9am-6pm, Monday to Fridage. On top of this is 50GB/month to use at other times. If you have a day job and are at work 9-5, then you won't be at home for most of the time when the on-peak number applies.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

lga (172042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223010)

I work from home a lot of the time. The rest of the time I work evenings and weekends so as not to disrupt my customers business while working on their computers. I frequently need access to the internet between 9am and 6pm. A&A is useless for me, and I can't be the only one.

Re:carrot and stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223230)

Or you could just, you know, order a different package....

Re:carrot and stick (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223688)

Did you even both to try and understand how their usage works?

It's 2GB a month, 0900-1800 Mon-Fri, or 100GB off peak (all other hours) or a combination there of. It's measured in units of which up to 2 carry to the next month (or if you have a higher tariff more are carried) . In the 6 months I've currently been a member I've not gone over my use and yes, I use Steam, stream movies from LoveFilm and iPlayer, download demos and so on. So far this month I've downloaded 35GB data.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222502)

Not all ISPS use the BT backhaul, there are plenty of LLU providers too. As for the BT backhaul supporting v6 - it doesn't need to, all it does is tunnel a PPP session from the DSLAM to the reseller's (isp) server... What you run over that PPP session is irrelevant, you could even run non IP protocols over it. The only lack of v6 support is that BT will only peer with the isp over v4 but that just means the tunnel endpoint needs a v4 address.

As for v6 support, off the top of my head:

goscomb.net
nitrex.net (which i'm using right now)
andrews&arnold (aaisp.net.uk)
public internet
entanet (they support v6 but don't advertise the fact, you have to explicitly ask)

There may well be others too. V6 is not really in demand right now so few isps bother to advertise support for it..
Also, you might have a hard job finding a router that supports it, none of the consumer level stuff does so you're stuck with either something linux based (where you may have to build your own kernel) or cisco.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222272)

No ISP offering last mile at my office or at my home (In another state) offer IPV6.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222232)

I know I am not using IPv6 at the moment. How can I test whether it is my setup that fails, or my ISP that fails (or any other part)? Also, what advantages do I get _now_ (while everybody(?) is still also on IPv4) when I have full IPv6 support?

IPV6-only torrents (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222334)

I heard there are some IPV6-only torrent trackers setting up. Makes sense to reduce the numbers to leechers. Found only one so far though. http://ipv6.torrent.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]

Re:carrot and stick (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223602)

I know I am not using IPv6 at the moment. How can I test whether it is my setup that fails, or my ISP that fails (or any other part)?

If you're using Windows 7 or a recent Linux, your PC supports it. Mac OS X Leopard will also (it's broken in Snow Leopard unfortunately).

If you're using a router, it probably doesn't support it although you may get lucky. There are a handful of IPv6 WiFi routers on the market, luckily they are all mainstream and pretty widely available.

A few ISPs offer it--you may check with them, but if you're plugged in directly (not through a router) and are using one of the above operating systems and still aren't seeing it then you can be fairly sure that they don't. If not, you can still get IPv6 through a static tunnel (eg from from HE [tunnelbroker.net] ) if you're located close to a tunnel server. If you do sign up with HE you'll want to point your PC or router to their DNS servers in order to connect to Google and Youtube over IPv6. (Google only offers that service to ISPs, such as HE, that have specifically requested it.)

ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222280)

Anyone know if all the millions of home cable and DSL modems are going to be compatible with native IPV6?

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222430)

Not without firmware upgrades which are so far not forthcoming. I currently terminate the ADSL link via PPPoE to Linux server because I was unable to find a reasonably priced ADSL modem/router combo for home use that support IPv6.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223042)

Did you check out the D-Link DIR-825?

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (2, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222472)

Then they'll just use IPv4. We're not talking about single-stack IPv6 for now, and not for many years from now as well.

There were several criminally broken models of home routers that blackholed AAAA DNS requests causing long timeouts, but they are basically the only technical obstacle to giving customers native dual stack, at least where the last mile is concerned. And those can get their firmware upgraded.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222514)

I don't get this - the obstacle to native dual stack on end users network that the routers do not support IPv6 at all. They have no ability to get IPv6 addresses or route IPv6 packets. While the end user can use 6to4 and other methods that's not native. Firmware upgrades may be an option, or may not if the routers are already short of free RAM/ROM.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222638)

Uhm, no. You can't force a client to use IPv6, just like you can't force them to upgrade from Win98.

This is about a few bastards with broken routers blocking the upgrade for the rest of us. ISPs don't want to add IPv6 support because those few people with broken routers would cause an outcry that "this ISP sucks, their Internet is broken".

To move forward, there is no need to force IPv6 onto everyone -- those routers don't need to be upgraded to support IPv6, merely to not break down in the presence of IPv6.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222756)

I see your point now and don't agree that issues with AAAA records is one of the reasons things move slowly. If that were the case they'd be seeing problems now - Google, for instance, deal out AAAA records and broken AAAA lookup would hamper requests to them where the client OS thought it should try the IPv6 route.

On the whole migration to IPv6 should be transparent to the end user. The firmware on the (admittedly ISP controlled) router is upgrade to support IPv6, the router than starts to emit and respond to NDP requests. Most end user machines will pick these up, sort itself out with a native IPv6 address get on with it.

In the cases where the ISP doesn't control the router it's more difficult but there are methods of dealing with those cases in ways that are not too onerous for the end user.

I think the reason ISPs haven't migrated yet, on the whole, is they lack the motivation and, perhaps more likely as motivation should follow, expertise - both from a technical and managerial perspective.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (2, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223570)

AFAIK, Google doesn't provide AAAA records for most of their services to just anyone: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ [google.com]

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222634)

put simply, there aren't any.

Well, thats not strictly true. I know the D-link DIR-625 [dlink.co.uk] supports it (and is advertised as such), but that's the only one I ever found that does. No Netgear device does or Belkin that I found, and they don't even recognise the search term on their web site, just to show how clued up they are on the subject.

Oh, I should say that no online computer shop seems to have one of these for sale. Ho hum.

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222870)

Also the DIR-825.

And the DIR-615.

And the Airport Extreme and Time Capsule (no PPPoE with these though).

I don't live in the U.K., but I had no trouble finding any of these for sale in my area.

(There's even a Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] .)

Re:ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222896)

Linksys' newer routers do IPv6. There isn't a UI for it but if you plug it in it'll work.

Misspelled name (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222068)

It's "Vince" not Vint, einstein.

Re:Misspelled name (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222136)

It's Einstein not einstein, Einstein.

Re:Misspelled name (1)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222168)

Where's the 'Like' button when you need it.

Re:Misspelled name (1)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222218)

It's "Vince" not Vint, einstein.

It's Vinton Gray "Vint" [wikipedia.org] (also, Cerf, not Einstein :-) )

Re:carrot and stick (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222140)

They should simply mandate that anyone providing internet connectivity (ie any isp or telco) MUST provide ipv6, either alongside or instead of ipv4.
If every end user and every site they try to visit is dual stack, a lot of traffic will occur over ipv6 without users even realising it and ipv4 will gradually die out.

Carrots for the users (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222268)

I think all you need is to distribute some goodies on IPV6-only sites.

Re:carrot and stick (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222308)

Less carrot more stick from the government. Companies get too many benefits as it is.

There's going to be plenty of stick (and other pain) once IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses, and gives the last blocks to the RIRs. If your organization (especially those of medium and large sizes) doesn't have at least a basic test bed for IPv6 connectivity you're going to be in a world of hurt. At the very least a few of your NetOps folks should be playing with IPv6 in their "spare time" to understand how it works.

Just this week I purchased an Apple AirPort Extreme which has IPv6 functionality built-in, and getting 6to4 working was dead simple (basically one check box). With a decent firmware (e.g., DD-WRT), a tunnel broker (HE, Sixxs), and a little manual tweaking it's possible to get IPv6 going on decent amount of hardware out there.

At a minimum you should be getting basic IPv6 connectivity (native or tunnelled) up and running to at least your edge routers in the next six months. Next get your DNS working with IPv6 (AAAA and reverse resolve), and then having a a DNS server with a AAAA record. Then perhaps set up a basic web presence on IPv6 (ipv6.example.com to start).

Once you get the above working, ideally by the end of 2011, you'll be in decent shape to start dual-stacking your servers by mid-2012, and your desktops by the end of 2012.

Re:carrot and stick (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222872)

The parallel/black market for IPV4 addresses is already growing. In practice the price of these will start going up. Existing companies/services start running out of IPV4 addresses to hand out to clients of services with strong growth. New projects/companies start having trouble getting blocks of addresses large enough to attend all clients. Some resort to black market, some to NAT.

Cash Incentives? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221960)

How about they switch over to IPv6 and then lease their existing v4 blocks to the highest bidder?

Wikipedia is for fucking bastards. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34221968)

Fuck Wikipedia and fuck the losers donating because of his nigerian scammer style "personal; appeal". Vandals for life, suck my cock Nawlinwiki and Bsadowski1.

new act (1)

leaen (987954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221996)

Dear citizens of UK
to speed up IPv6 adoption we created backwarder tax.
You pay 50 pounds per year for every IPv4 address you use that year.
Payment is by wire order to account 2349564322/3432

Re:new act (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222752)

This method would actually have worked if the people who made IPv6 hadn't decided to make the standard backwards incompatible.

As it is, IPv6 must be run in dual-stack mode, which means that even if you've got an IPv6 address, you must also have an IPv4 address. The reason for this is that the people who designed IPv6 are effectively incompetent. They designed a standard yes, but gave no thought to a transition plan.

Re:new act (1)

grahammm (9083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223490)

As it is, IPv6 must be run in dual-stack mode, which means that even if you've got an IPv6 address, you must also have an IPv4 address.

That is not necessarily true. Any IPv4 address can be expressed in IPv6 and there are gateways which given an IPv4in6 destination address will make the connection to the IPv4 only server. While this is of no use to customers who host systems, many if not most domestic ISP contracts prohibit the running of servers so customers only make outgoing connections. The ISP would need IPv4 addresses (for the gateways and business customers) but could provide only IPv6 addresses to its domestic customers. This would cut down on the number of IPv4 blocks that the ISPs would need and therefore alleviate the shortage.

Reverse flock mentality (0, Troll)

Senes (928228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34221998)

A flock of sheep will begin moving as soon as they see the 'leader' move; the leader is often just whichever one decides to move first because it runs out of food underneath itself then sees some someplace else.

What we have with IPv6 is a bunch of fat lazy sheep who decide they will get off their butts once they see the rest of the flock someplace else.

Re:Reverse flock mentality (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222342)

Or, a bunch of overworked networked admins that don't want to start a big project for a problem they are not feeling yet... Switching over my office would take a lot of time I do not have for absolutely no payoff. And my 10-12 hour days are full already.

Re:Reverse flock mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222572)

That's just it; it shouldn't be your job. It's the same as anyone else who is overworked - the company is employing less staff than the task demands. The job will have to be done sooner or later, if the people on top saw the need then we would have less shit hitting the fan every couple of years. Pretty much any global catastrophe can be traced back to people in high places of power saying "don't worry, someone else will solve it before it really becomes a problem."

Re:Reverse flock mentality (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223264)

The leader in this case being Microsoft. Windows XP only partially supports IPv6 with some test drivers installed. Vista was the first actual IPv6 ready OS from Microsoft so before that there was a big question of: what is the point of going through the trouble of being IPv6 ready when 99% of your customers couldn't use it?

I've seen a lot more action now that Win7's numbers are moving up.

God-father of the web (2, Insightful)

RPoet (20693) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222010)

I wonder if Berners-Lee cringes when he sees Cerf described as "the Godfather of the web" :-)

Re:God-father of the web (1)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222234)

Yeah, probably he cringes at the confusion between "Web" and "Internet" when people report that.

Re:God-father of the web (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222994)

Probably not as much as Cerf cringes when he reads TBL described as 'the father of the Internet'.

Call me retro (2, Funny)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222054)

I still think they should have solved this in the early '90s by switching to a byte-extensible addressing scheme.

Something like defining x.x.x.1-127 as four byte and x.x.x.128-250.y, y 128 as five byte, and so forth.

y < 128 (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222056)

Bit by the markup.

Re:Call me retro (3, Informative)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222078)

Er no, IPv4 headers have space for exactly 4 bytes of destination address information. You might be able to kludge the protocol to allow for a larger address space, but as a kludge it would be inefficient, and encountering extended packets would break the majority of existing IPv4 stacks. The solution was arrived at by some very smart people, and that's IPv6. We won't run out of addresses on IPv6 for a very long time indeed.

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222194)

We won't run out of addresses on IPv6 for a very long time indeed.

Where I live we have something called polititians. I am sure they can find a way.

Re:Call me retro (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222314)

Oh yeah, it would be much better if the military run things, like in Burma.

SLORC apologist bastard.

Re:Call me retro (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222228)

It's unlikely that we ever will run out of IPv6 addresses as there's enough addresses to give each person living on Earth roughly 5×10^28 addresses. Which is quite likely going to be enough for anybody that could possibly follow in the future. So, it's technically possible, but for reasons related to the speed of light, physical size of the Earth and solar system it would be very difficult to ever get to the point where you need an IPv7.

At that point it would be more of a problem actually getting the data sent as the latency of most habitable planets would be measured in years. Even Mars which presumably could be made habitable would have a latency on average of a bit more than 14 minutes each way.

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222316)

Once we can manufacture computronium, the number of individuals per cubic metre will be staggering. Conservatively let's say 1e6/m^3. Given the earth's volume of approx. 1e12m^3, this gives us a figure of 1e18 individuals. Our current population is about 5e9, let's call it 1e10, so that means the future computronium population would be about 8 orders of magnitude greater than present, meaning we would have about 1e20 IPv6 addresses per person.

Considering everything, IPv6 appears to be sufficiently capacious for any future I can imagine.

(of course, someone famous once said that 640k ought to be enough for anyone. So my comments should be taken with sufficient quantities of sodium chloride.)

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223014)

What about subspace comm?

Re:Call me retro (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223648)

If by that you mean FTL, then we can just travel back in time to 1980 and tell Vint Cerf to make the address field wider.

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223526)

It's unlikely that we ever will run out of IPv6 addresses as there's enough addresses to give each person living on Earth roughly 5×10^28 addresses. Which is quite likely going to be enough for anybody that could possibly follow in the future. So, it's technically possible, but for reasons related to the speed of light, physical size of the Earth and solar system it would be very difficult to ever get to the point where you need an IPv7.

Effective exhaustion of IPv6 pool depends on the IANA allocation strategy. IANA is assigning single /32 blocks to each ISP. This effectivly limits the number of ISPs with their own allocation in the universe connected to our IPv6 network to ~4 billion.

Re:Call me retro (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223708)

Even Mars which presumably could be made habitable would have a latency on average of a bit more than 14 minutes each way.

For that reason I think for the Solar System we'll need to forget about IP altogether and go back to UUCP.

Re:Call me retro (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222408)

We won't run out of addresses on IPv6 for a very long time indeed.

Nobody will ever need more than 640k.

Re:Call me retro (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223462)

What about those who need 640k + 1? Maybe it's time to look to IPv7.

In all seriousness, I don't know how they're going to deal with people with legacy devices, which may not be upgradable to IPv6 compatible.

Oversimplifiying... (4, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222190)

For one, the protocol defined address specifically as 32-bit. Functions processing IPv4 generally use unsigned integers for the address. Functions to do a variable length address would take longer to process/route. The routing tables would likely be atrocious even if it theoretically could work.

In short, it only does better at backwards compatibility at the extremely superficial aspect of entering addresses textually looking more usual and making a more specific effort for an existing IP to map trivially to a new scheme. Existing IPv4 stacks would have had no easier time trying to talk to 192.168.2.250.2 than fd7e:691a:da42::1. Besides, having the high values magically become reserved on the host portion of existing networks would conflict with existing host addresses in use.

IPv6 can work but has been subject to three major pitfals:
-It looks scarily different. People treating addresses like phone-numbers and not doing DNS in a ubiquitous has exacerbated the problem.
-They completely omitted a strategy for v4-only to v6-only communication until this year. For a long time they didn't want to endorse anything with the letters 'NAT' in them and delayed a sane interop strategy hoping the problem would magically disappear so the 'evil' NAT wouldn't become a pillar of v6. I'm optimistic that the results of this year paves the way for meaningful progress.
-v6 and associated protocol largely chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater on many fronts. v6 for a long time declared DHCP dead, then when DHCP was revived for v4, they threw out the existing behavior and started from scratch, eliminating many option codes and changing client identifier behavior to be hard for existing DHCP admins to deal with. This has in some cases rendered workflows in IPv4 simply impossible and in many more exacerbates the first problem in that a *lot* of relearning and reworking is required to acheive the same results with IPv6 as in IPv4.

Re:Oversimplifiying... (2, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222220)

when DHCP was revived for v4

Err, I meant v6.

Re:Oversimplifiying... (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222542)

My kingdom for a mod point -- parent is the most insightful post I'll see today.

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222812)

I still think they should have solved this in the early '90s by switching to a byte-extensible addressing scheme

The router folks would never have gone for it. For their systems to work fast, they have to use things like content-addressable memories, which have fixed (in hardware) word sizes. Seriously, their opinion is important; part of the reason we're out of addresses now is that they wanted (way back when) to split the address space based on subnet size, creating huge unusable areas from 224.0.0.0 on up. Multicast was able to reuse 224/4, but 240.0.0.0 to 255.255.254.255 (4095 class C subnets!) still isn't usable.

Then there's the boneheaded idea of making 127.0.0.1 the "localhost" network, instead of something otherwise unusable like 255.255.255.254, or at least the high end of the smallest class C net (223.0.0.1). Also, who needs 256 private class C subnets (192.168/16), in addition to 16 class B (172.16/12) and a class A (10/8)? That could have been pared back some. And why does AutoIP need to use 169.254/16 instead of the, say, 240.0/16 region?

The router folks dictating terms is one reason why there are 128 bits in IPv6 addresses instead of just 64. They like their sparse addressing.

Re:Call me retro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223556)

i think the incentive should be... "Use IPv6 or get your traffic dropped by DNS servers"

Re:Call me retro (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223624)

You've obviously never tried to build a router in hardware.

Self-enforcing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222104)

The government should just legislate that "internet" means both IPv4 and IPv6. Any "internet" device which fails to work with both is automatically considered defective, any "internet service" which doesn't work with both is "not being provided" and cannot be billed for.

Legislation which tries to mandate or prohibit via statutory penalties is only as effective as the enforcement regime. It would provide a much stronger incentive if the ISPs' customers could just turn around and demand the refund of previous payments (up to the 6-year limit for most civil suits).

Re:Self-enforcing (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222246)

Your solution involves the government telling businesses how to run. Consequently you'll get the free market nuts complaining about the unwarranted government intrusion and sabotaging the committees that are actually trying to write the legislation. Running on an anti-government platform has got to be the greatest scam of all time. Even if people do eventually see through it, you just go work for a lobbying firm and make huge sums of money screwing up the government even more.

Re:Self-enforcing (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222376)

OK. I don't sell Internet service, I sell Internet ACCESS via my limited, filtered and propitiatory method; IPv4 and NAT. You can't force people to move to something they do not think they need, that easily.

Re:Self-enforcing (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223422)

The legal system is designed to keep such loopholes from rendering statutes toothless. There wouldn't be much point in passing them in the first place if it didn't.

WTF is a VINT CERF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222200)

What the hell is that?

Re:WTF is a VINT CERF? (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222738)

Moron. Google is your friend.

I got a sixxs tunnel account today (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222258)

So I navigate around IPV6 sites. What is there different to see or do? Not much. Some IPV6 brownie points, carrots, or something is needed. Sixxs [sixxs.net] installed rather easily on Ubuntu, just had to issue a command line. The magical-gui installer almost did it though.

Re:I got a sixxs tunnel account today (2, Informative)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222412)

What is there different to see or do? Not much.

Of course not; the goal is not to build a new network, but to make sure that the Internet can continue to grow. So what you get over IPv6 is just the current Internet, but with a good chance that it'll be still around in ten years.

Re:I got a sixxs tunnel account today (2, Funny)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222442)

A dancing turtle [kame.net] is not enough?!?

Re:I got a sixxs tunnel account today (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222696)

A dancing turtle [kame.net] is not enough?!?

I dunno, but I think free beer, porn, games and music downloads would make IPV6 a bit more, well, sexy.

Re:I got a sixxs tunnel account today (1)

gentry (17384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223740)

Well, the turtle does it for me.

There was an attempt to offer free porn via the theipv6experiment.com but that didn't take off.

Just do nothing (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222284)

I'm sick of all the noise about IPv6. ISPs already have monetary incentives to switch to IPv6: If they don't adopt it, eventually they will fall behind their competitors and maybe run out of bussiness. Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway. It's not like these companies are like the financial sector, which can bring down the economy when it fails. The IPv6 bussiness incentive will create itself eventually. The "IPv4 apocalypse" will not exist.

Re:Just do nothing (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222982)

Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway.

All too often what happens is that businesses either adapt or come into the industry to simply take the money and not deliver the goods. Governments tend to be better at handing out money than they are attaching enforceable conditions to its use.

Obligatory DJB link (1)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222306)

The IPv6 Mess [cr.yp.to] .

Re:Obligatory DJB link (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222588)

The IPv6 Mess [cr.yp.to] .

Seems like a solid critique, but I haven't found any proposed solutions of how it could have been managed more smoothly. Were there any?

Re:Obligatory DJB link (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222680)

Worth reading

What the... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222354)

Why all the fuss about getting the government involved and giving them handouts?

If you don't switch to ipv6 soon, then your clients will either be disconnected from the internet, or unable to connect to ipv6 compliant websites. Do we NEED any more reason? You're going to piss off customers = loss of profits. Make the damn switch already.

Corn (1)

ckdake (577698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222390)

Great, just what we need. More corn subsidies.

Incentives? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222418)

Why do they need incentives?

How about the incentive not to lose their connection to the internet?

Why does everyone 'deserve' something for conforming to a technology standard? Shit or get off the pot.

Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222452)

I have a question because I am not a network guru. Doesn't adoption of IPv6 remove one of the more effective layers of security we have today, the obfuscation layer, being hidden behind the router? I know you need all the aspects of security, but isn't this an important one today in the real world of billions of end user machines? If you have a uniquely identifiable address..well..see the problem? Or what am I missing?

Re:Security? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222682)

Yes, i believe you are correct. Obfuscation security is removed. It has to be re-implemented with new IPV6 firewalls if it is desired. The main objective of IPV6 is exatly that however, give everything on the network a public, globally-routable IP address, which is, yes, reachable. That makes it reachable by friend and foe, but there is a possible, rational way for p2p programs, SIP, games, etc to connect, no more wacky port-forwarding and NAT-traversing weird and proprietary code and intermediating servers and lack of connectivity when desired. However the computer is connected directly to the internet, just as any user at home with their router plugged into their computer, and IPV6 implementers have to enable security on each host.

the blunt truth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222508)

Geeks then power users are always the first groups to march with new tech, and that hasn't happened in the case of IPv6 because its adoption seems to have become associated with a bunch of obnoxious antisocial egomaniacs who know neither how to negotiate nor to communicate.

In particular, sixxs.net, half run by a Googler, is well known for treating its users like idiots and denying problems with its systems. Google itself, meanwhile, has refused to cooperate on its IPv6 nameserving experiment with ISPs such as A&A which have made a genuine and successful effort to bring native IPv6 to UK consumers. To put it bluntly, Google gets pissy when they don't get enough control of some new tech.

You want IPv6 to see wider adoption? Ignore the big corporate cheerleaders with ulterior motives and their kowtowing lickspittle technocrats. Start supporting those who are actually trying to bring it to the masses.

Re:the blunt truth (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222598)

Profit motives always ruin things.

Re:the blunt truth (1)

smale8 (1940262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222970)

I've had no trouble with Hurricane Electric. They're a commercial outfit, but their tunnel broker service [tunnelbroker.net] is free. They even have a support forum.

money for rich (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222612)

So what he is saying is that a country that is taking extreme austerity measures should find monies to pay businesses to do what they will have to do anyway. I suspect that google is going to get some of this feee money, n'est pas?

I suspect that the UK has enough of free market so that if the established companies can't provide the service, others will step in. I also suspect that if established companies can't provide the services, it may very well be cheaper to nationalize them, pay for upgrades, and then recoup costs from the profits.

It annoys me that private firms always holds the perceived public goods hostage in order to extort public funds. In the US the nuclear and fossil fuel industry are refusing to move forward without huge sums from the taxpayers, yer cry foul when wind and solar do the same thing. According to what I have read over the years, the Chevy Volt has been in some state of readiness since late 2007, but we are only seeing it now, after GM has swollowed a few billion of taxpayer money.

The way to innovate is to simply allow firms to fail that do not. There are too many people, at least in the US, who just expect to have a job yet never expect to have to do anything new at that job. Things change. Customers expect new things. A firm should not be expcted to survive if they do not produce new things.

Industry problem, not society's (1)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222744)

Cash for clunkers scheme in the UK was part of a near-global initiative to save the auto industry at a time when it's collapse would have been it's most damaging to the economy and society - during a global economic crisis. The scheme did cost quite a lot of money, but did save industry and jobs that were viable in the long term*. It also helped move people towards greener and more fuel-efficient cars. Furthermore the money was basically going straight to consumers/tax payers.

In TFA no such arguments are given; in fact he even states that he hasn't even "done the math" as to how it'd help fast-forward IPv6 adoption. At best he seems to believe that tax payer's money needs to be given to encourage corporations to do exactly what they're in the business of doing. If you want my tax payer money you have to detail what benefit us tax payers are getting from paying them to do now what they're going to have to do anyway?

* American readers may have Chrysler and the like in mind, who have fundamental problems of their own making and throwing cash at them may be more questionable. The situation is not the same in Europe.

Godfather of the web? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222764)

Does he have a daughter getting married soon? I have a wish I'd like granted.

Cost of switching??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34222768)

We'd like to start putting IPv6/dual stack in on our campus network. But on my reading of docs from ,

"To use this feature, the stack master must be running the advanced IP services image, which is orderable from ".

Upgrading our distribution switches with advanced IP services would cost us about $180K according to the last quote that I snorted at.

How can we expect people to migrate to IPv6 because it's a Good Thing if the vendors are still treating it as advanced-pay-through-the-nose functionality?

Cash for Clunkers? (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34222886)

So are we going to be drilling holes in the old routers to make sure they are never used again?

T-mobile has ipv6 today for users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34223004)

T-Mobile USA already has an IPv6 beta with Nokia phones

Here's what's going to happen (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34223412)

first, the government will offer limited money on a limited-time basis for this. the corporations will have the paperwork in months before it occurs. those companies - corporations and telcos, mostly - will use up said funds.

then, the corporations and telcos will 'offer' consumers the opportunity to upgrade 'ahead of the curve' once their own infrastructure is on ipv6. they will, of course, 'pass the cost on to customers'.

the smaller shops - the ones which don't qualify for the government assistance, don't hear about it, or simply don't have the resources (no telling the handout will cover the full cost of a migration) to implement ipv6 will be saddled with the bulk of the cost. there will be shysters who will prey on the uninformed with high prices for something which is, essentially, free.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...