×

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!

Major Sites To Join ‘World IPv6 Day’

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the skipping-five dept.

Facebook 247

netbuzz writes "Facebook, Google, and Yahoo are among the major sites on board with what the Internet Society is dubbing 'World IPv6 Day,' a collective trial scheduled for June 8. 'It's an exciting opportunity to take IPv6 for a test flight and try it on for a full 24 hours,' says Leslie Daigle, the Internet Society's Chief Internet Technology Officer. 'Hopefully, we will see positive results from this trial so we will see more IPv6 sooner rather than later.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

247 comments

Yay (2)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849378)

An IP address for everybody and for everybody an IP address!

Re:Yay (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849712)

You could damn near have an IP address for every cell in your body.

Re:Yay (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849840)

So you're admitting there are not enough addresses for every cell in every person's body. Didn't anybody think about the future?

Re:not enough (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849868)

Dieting is a matter of national security!

Re:not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849882)

Being overweight does not increase the number of cells in your body: the existing fat cells just swell.

Re:not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850118)

They both multiply and swell.

Re:not enough (1)

Steneub (1070216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850796)

Being overweight does not increase the number of cells in your body: the existing fat cells just swell.

Citation please.

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850388)

That's going to limit some future medical nanobot applications I'd guess. We'll need IP7 for immortality.

Re:Yay (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849866)

And I'll STILL NAT everything in my house. I dont need NX10^23 script kiddies attacking every one of my appliances.

Re:Yay (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849890)

And I'll STILL NAT everything in my house. I dont need NX10^23 script kiddies attacking every one of my appliances.

NAT != Stateful Firewall, why not install a firewall and you can use these Public IPv6 addresses with security?

Re:Yay (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849964)

Because not everything behind a router needs a public address?

Re:Yay (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850138)

Because not everything behind a router needs a public address?

Um, why? Here's a resource that is inherently by design non-scarce, but you prefer to act as if it were? The "hair shirt" brigade might approve but the rest of us kinda laugh.

Re:Yay (1)

nibbles2004 (761552) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850466)

whether is has a public or private address is nothing to do with scarcity of IP but need and suitability and there a lot of IP device's that do not need a public address, my printer for starters, don't need to manage it from the outside, don't need to print to if from outside. Plain old private IP4 seems to work fine and dandy.

Re:Yay (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850786)

whether is has a public or private address is nothing to do with scarcity of IP but need and suitability and there a lot of IP device's that do not need a public address, my printer for starters, don't need to manage it from the outside, don't need to print to if from outside. Plain old private IP4 seems to work fine and dandy.

But using a separate address space makes your work WAY more complicated and less reliable.

All public scenario: Your stateful firewall prevents incoming traffic to your printer, just like it prevents incoming connections to anything else that you haven't specifically allowed. One address range everything reaches everything. Everything on one happy layer 2 LAN. Simple dynamic (re-)addressing.

Public plus private scenario: You still need a configured stateful firewall for all your other devices but now you have the joy of adding a statically configured LAN. How do the two networks reach each other? Route thru your slow firewall? Or multiple static and dynamic addresses on every device in your LAN? The time you spend complicating the heck out of your LAN, is time you're not spending securing it at the network and device layers.

So, sure, if you really want, you can spend a lot more time, money and effort to get a LAN that is much harder to design, configure, troubleshoot and monitor, all while being less secure, but you would be "saving" one of the 3 x 10 ^ 38 addresses, except you actually aren't because they assigned you a /64 for your LAN so its not like anyone else could use that address anyway.

IPv6 doesn't outright prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot, but its still kinda usable.

Plus if your LAN is a corporate LAN you've now gained the nightmare of merging multiple LANs using the same private addresses. Even if FC00::/8 is mostly empty, you know most clowns are going to use network=0 / host=1 for their firewall and watch the chaos when they interconnect.

There seems to be no advantage to private ipv6 space...

Re:Yay (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850660)

Because not everything behind a router needs a public address?

Um, why?

'cause I don't want my NAS box to have one.
There's no legit reason for any machine outside my house to access it. Ever.
It's part of that layered approach to securing thing.
Yes, there is a firewall
Yes, there is a password
And, yes, the device's address is not publicly routable.

Paranoid? maybe, but so what.
It's my stuff, and I don't want you to be able to look at it. End of story.

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34851070)

'cause I don't want my NAS box to have one.
There's no legit reason for any machine outside my house to access it. Ever.
It's part of that layered approach to securing thing.
Yes, there is a firewall
Yes, there is a password
And, yes, the device's address is not publicly routable.

If you want layered security, use a separate internal network that's not routable for your private devices. Layered security and IPv6 routing are completely separate issues.

Here's a clue stick for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_LAN [wikipedia.org]

If you're going to tell me you have all this hardware sitting on some crappy switch that doesn't have VLAN, I'm not going to feel a lot of pity for you when IPv6 leaves you in the dust. VLANs. Learn them and love them.

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850154)

So use private addresses for those, then. fc00::/7 is reserved for this purpose. Having the option of some publicly addressable computers is still better than using and working around NAT in my view and essentially forcing every computer to not be publicly addressable.

Re:Yay (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850522)

Why not?? In the *real world* everything has a public address. I know people don't "get it" when it comes to networking, but this is just FUD and is getting ridiculous.

NAT is like having a chaperone, where all communication happens through a 3rd party. It increases network traffic, it makes peer-to-peer internet impossible. And it is not security. You only need to trick inside device to connect to outside device, and there goes NAT as security! And that is quite easy.

Firewall is like having a security guard monitoring traffic. A firewall is actually designed to handle security, not illusion of security. This can actually catch and prevent unsanctioned communication. And if you want to use Skype, you can actually allow inbound connections.

Skype went down because of NAT. If the internet was IPv6, there would be no need for "supernodes". People could actually communicate, peer-to-peer instead of through their chaperones.

Finally, when I was young and stupid, I believed that NAT was a cool thing. When I asked a network admin at local university why they don't do more NAT and all departments gets /24 or larger, the answer was quite simple. Security. I didn't understand that answer for a few years, but now years later, it is as plain as night and day. NAT creates more problems than it's worth. And if someone brought some shitty SPAM relay (virus), it becomes a challenge just trying to identify where the rogue program is communication from.

Traceability and accountability and transparency and security is what public internet brings. NAT gives you an illusion of anonymity and security.

Re:Yay (1)

Hydian (904114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850680)

Life is generally easier if you have a unified addressing scheme on your network.

Having a public IP address does not mean that you have to allow public access to that IP address. A simple ACL on your router is sufficient to restrict that.

Re:Yay (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849908)

While you're locking down your home network with the rock solid security system that is NAT, I'd like to offer you a chance to put the same level of security on your home. For a limited time only, I'm offering, direct to the consumer, the latest and greatest in home security, a little invention I like to call "curtains". Yes, now people won't be able to see into your home anymore, which obviously makes it impossible for them to rob you. Act fast though, these babies will sell out quickly.

Re:Yay (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849948)

And I'll STILL NAT everything in my house. I dont need NX10^23 script kiddies attacking every one of my appliances.

I won't, since I don't think anyone is going to port scan me.

Here's an IPv6 address: 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334, the bold bit is the local part. How much bandwidth is your script kiddie going to have to have to find 0000:8a2e:0370:7334 in the range 0-ffffffffffffffff?

Also, a firewall is simpler than a NAT, and doesn't have the disadvantages of NAT, so you can just do that instead.

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850222)

Good point! The numbers are astronomically large with IPV6. Does this "security through obscurity" improve your risk profile? I discussed the challenges of testing networks this large: www.redspin.com/blog/

Re:Yay (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850832)

Good point! The numbers are astronomically large with IPV6. Does this "security through obscurity" improve your risk profile? I discussed the challenges of testing networks this large: www.redspin.com/blog/

I'm sorry, I'm confused, you are complaining about security through obscurity, and that is your argument in *favor* of nat? /boggled

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850350)

Here's an IPv6 address: 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334, the bold bit is the local part. How much bandwidth is your script kiddie going to have to have to find 0000:8a2e:0370:7334 in the range 0-ffffffffffffffff?

That's like taking all the money from your bank account and throwing it on the ground across the globe. People looking for money aren't possibly going to be able to search across 200 million square miles to find all your money, so it's perfectly safe, right?

Re:Yay (4, Insightful)

cduffy (652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850416)

Here's a hint: "No NAT" doesn't mean "no firewall".

Re:Yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850954)

Here's a better one: "No connectivity" means "No chance of attack".

Re:Yay (2)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850656)

Here's an IPv6 address: 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334, the bold bit is the local part. How much bandwidth is your script kiddie going to have to have to find 0000:8a2e:0370:7334 in the range 0-ffffffffffffffff?

That's like taking all the money from your bank account and throwing it on the ground across the globe. People looking for money aren't possibly going to be able to search across 200 million square miles to find all your money, so it's perfectly safe, right?

OK. 5000 £1 coins, spread randomly over a suitable area. But what is a suitable area?

£1 coins have area 4*pi*11.25*11.25 mm^2. Multiply by 0xFFFF,FFFF,FFFF,FFFF to get about 10^16 m^2.

Ringworld [wikipedia.org] will do nicely.

Re:Yay (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850952)

Here's an IPv6 address: 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334, the bold bit is the local part. How much bandwidth is your script kiddie going to have to have to find 0000:8a2e:0370:7334 in the range 0-ffffffffffffffff?

That's like taking all the money from your bank account and throwing it on the ground across the globe. People looking for money aren't possibly going to be able to search across 200 million square miles to find all your money, so it's perfectly safe, right?

Hmm, lets run the math here. If you insist on not installing a stateful firewall (why? Its already a part of your old ipv4 nat box) then they have to find a random-ish 32 digit hexadecimal number, in order to find an address to break into, then break in, which is hopefully non-trivial, and then hopefully steal your random-ish 16 digit decimal credit card number. However, if the bad guy has the resources to randomly find a needle in a haystack inside a 32 digit number, why waste the time? Why not randomly farm the 16 digit number directly and skip all that "breaking into" junk and searching about and installing keyloggers?

Re:Yay (1)

spongman (182339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34851004)

misconfigured NAT: NO traffic gets through
misconfigured ACLs: ALL traffic gets through

which is a better solution for grandma?

new outage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849386)

Now Slashdot will have another facebook outage to report.

Dual-stack mode (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849392)

From TFA, it appears that they are supporting IPv6 in dual-stack mode. Most users without IPv6 connectivity should still be able to access their sites on June 8th.

Re:Dual-stack mode (1)

Athrac (931987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849698)

From TFA, it appears that they are supporting IPv6 in dual-stack mode. Most users without IPv6 connectivity should still be able to access their sites on June 8th.

Yeah, that's kind of obvious. Nobody's abandoning ipv4 anytime soon.

Re:Dual-stack mode (1)

foksoft (848194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849838)

Yes, they will continue to run it in dual-stack. But instead of current practice where you need to enter ipv6.google.com you will just simply type www.google.com and will reach them via IPv6. It is similar for other sites. You, who are like me stuck in IPv4 space mark June 8 in your calendars. As it might be day when you might not reach some resources on internet. It is due to fact how DNS will be resolved. Your computer will ask for IP addres and will get AAAA record but you don't have IPv6 connectivity so you will not connect. In better case it will fall back to IPv4.

Re:Dual-stack mode (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850168)

Yes, they will continue to run it in dual-stack. But instead of current practice where you need to enter ipv6.google.com you will just simply type www.google.com and will reach them via IPv6. It is similar for other sites. You, who are like me stuck in IPv4 space mark June 8 in your calendars. As it might be day when you might not reach some resources on internet. It is due to fact how DNS will be resolved. Your computer will ask for IP addres and will get AAAA record but you don't have IPv6 connectivity so you will not connect. In better case it will fall back to IPv4.

Actually, you will still be able to reach those resources just fine, with patience. What happens is (and always has when OSes started blindly enabling IPv6) the connection waits for the IPv6 connection first. If that doesn't get established, it falls back to IPv4 and you get your content. What everyone found is well, pages took forever to load as you had to wait for the IPv6 TCP session to return an error first before the IPv4 fallback.

Frankly, the problem with IPv6 is the lack of a simple drop-in router replacement that works as well as current NAT routers. I don't care to have 3 IPv6 IPs on every IPv6 capable device on my network (nevermind all the IPv4-only gear I have). Yes, 3 IPv6 addresses, because you'll have a link-local (always present), your internet IPv6 address (you get a prefix that's usually /64, so all the PCs will use that prefix and add a suffix, and that will get you to the router), and since entering random numbers and letters is annoying, and a private set of IPv6 addresses (FC00:: prefix (/64) is for private networks, akin to 10/8 and other IPv4 private space). Why can't I have a NATv6 box that can have 192.168.0.1 and FC00::1, and keep everything going the way it is? Bonus to handle IPv4-to-IPv6 translation as well (there are tricks that you can do to have IPv4-only devices support IPv6 addresses, like ipv6-literal.net virtual domain Windows has to support IPv6 CIFS and IPv6 address entry).

That's what people want - a simple box they can drop into their network without having to reconfigure their intranet immediately that works just like their existing NAT router.

Re:Dual-stack mode (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850826)

How about a software solution instead of a hardware solution?

Why doesn't glibc patch their DNS resolver to cache the "working/not working" state of IPv6? Or even better, run the IPv6 and IPv4 DNS queries in parallel and use whichever answer is returned first -- not to discard the slower of the two but to wait for it to succeed and cache the state ("working/not working").

Re:Dual-stack mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850860)

Actually, you won't need patience. As similar tests have revealed before, very few users experience slow downs or connection failures when web sites enable dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 access. Much fewer users than previously expected. Almost all users connect through IPv4 without seeing any difference at all, because the priorities of applications and operating systems are such that IPv6 is only used if native IPv6 connectivity is available or no IPv4 connection is possible (either due to the remote end not supplying A records or the local side not having IPv4 connectivity). The few notable deviations from this principle have long been identified and corrected. The remaining problems are basically all due to freakishly wrong network configurations.

The test in June will most likely show that a vanishingly small number of users experience problems at all (like 1 in 10000) and most of these problems will be configuration issues on their network, not hardcoded problems in software.

Retarded (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849418)

Why have one day? Then when something goes wrong or an unexpected circumstance appears it'll be the fault of IPV6? Seriously people this doesn't need to be a big deal. It can be rolled out over time and quietly fade out V4. I hope all goes well but I'm not a big fan of this idea.

Re:Retarded (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849490)

It's precisely BECAUSE something could go wrong. A full day on a site like Facebook is more than enough time to see any major issues crop up, yet isn't long enough to deeply impact their service*.

*I know, I know..."Facebook" and "service" in the same sentence. Hurpadurp.

Re:Retarded (2)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849672)

It's precisely BECAUSE something could go wrong. A full day on a site like Facebook is more than enough time to see any major issues crop up, yet isn't long enough to deeply impact their service*.

*I know, I know..."Facebook" and "service" in the same sentence. Hurpadurp.

The juvenile side of me wants to make a joke off of "long enough" and "deeply impact", but I'd rather just say this: A full day on facebook is also a lot more likely to cause thousands of grandma's and others to claim the internet is broken if something goes wrong. I hope ISPs are going to be ready for support calls.

Re:Retarded (1)

Brewmeister_Z (1246424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850290)

This could work well to inform users that their ISP is antiquated and even their computers are due for an upgrade. If Google, Facebook, etc. are still allowing IPV4 then information should be provided stating why IPV6 may not work for them before proceeding to the normal pages (they may be doing this but I can't be bothered to RTFA). Downside will be fear created by an unexpected pop-up or page stating this which will make many thing they have some type of malware since these sites did not come up as expected.

Either way, ISPs and computer services will be getting calls. Hopefully these calls will get appropriate answers and not lead to service offers to solve imaginary problems (Geek Squad anyone?) or upgrades to hardware that are premature.

Technology advances are great but if it requires scrapping working hardware for little or no benefit to the user then it is a waste of money and adds to the electronic junkyards. Many perfectly good mobile phones are scrapped due to plan upgrade discounts, locking phones to a carrier and carriers refusing to support old phones since they can't lock you into a service plan anymore.

Re:Retarded (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850148)

It can be rolled out over time and quietly fade out V4.

Why would we ever want to "fade out" IPv4? Why should we? The IPv4 network has worked, robustly and reliably for 30 years. Running out of address space is not a good enough reason to totally drop interoperability with this working standard.

"there is one network that has aol.com and cnn.com and cs.utk.edu and an incredible number of other sites. Normal people call this network ``the Internet.'' They insist on being connected to the Internet, so that they can exchange email and web pages and so on with other Internet sites. [cr.yp.to]

IPv4 is going nowhere fast. IPv6 either supports connections to the internet, i.e. to IPv4 sites, or else it will remain an essentially academic exercise.

Re:Retarded (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850446)

You're right, IPv4 is going nowhere because it's a dead end. The transition to IPv6 will not be instantaneous or painless but it is necessary, inevitable, and will render the old working standard obsolete, and irritating to keep alive. Your argument that version six of the internet protocol is a dead end because it won't support internet protocol connections to internet protocol sites is humorous at best.

Re:Retarded (1)

T_Tauri (883646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850470)

I sure hope IPv4 does fade out. Setting up firewall rules for example requires concentration and checking (AKA time). If I need to set up one set of IPv6 rules and another set of IPv4 rules (with this old thing called NAT which can get confused when the other end is also using NAT) then it has just doubled the time required and probably increased the chances of me making a mistake and being vulnerable on one or the other versions. Once IPv6 is widely used there will be no benefit to hosting content on IPv4 and people will stop bothering.

Unfortunatly the problem is getting IPv6 "widely used" when every site currently supports IPv4. Until there are sites only on IPv6 there is no big benefit for anyone to upgrade their systems/service/settings to IPv6 however until almost everyone is on IPv6 content providers will still provide an IPv4 address. Until this is sorted both IPv4 and IPv6 can work well side by side just like most other new technologies - people did not throw out all their floppies the day that CD's became available.

A site seems to be missing from the participants (5, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849480)

A site seems to be missing from the participants, but I just can't put my finger on it /.

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (5, Funny)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849538)

That's because the average slashdot user isn't savvy enough for this, whereas your average facebook user is... i mean, these people run their own FARMS, for chrissakes!

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850922)

Ahahaha, well done sir.

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849792)

... it's because IPv6 uses UTF-8 encoded addresses.

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (5, Informative)

SlothDead (1251206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849818)

You mean the one that has no Unicode support?

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849860)

Yes, and the one that is broken in some different way on every browser.

Re:A site seems to be missing from the participant (1)

somejeff (825047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850674)

A site seems to be missing from the participants, but I just can't put my finger on it /.

What? /. is not owned by facebook?

Only one day? (4, Insightful)

slaxative (1867220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849536)

I dont understand why they wouldnt just make this change permanent. If this is the protocol we're going to, make it stick. One day is just toying with us.

Re:Only one day? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849772)

With current implementations turning on IPv6 can cause long resolutions and even failures.

Re:Only one day? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850182)

With current implementations turning on IPv6 can cause long resolutions and even failures.

Only if you connect to a faulty v6 network, that no one bothers to fix because "its only ipv6". Current *network* implementation not end user boxes. Its hardly an inherent part of the protocol or OS implementation.

Re:Only one day? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849774)

You sound ridiculous.

You know that saying "Rome wasn't built in a day?" That has some factual evidence to it; it took many days to build Rome. And you want to know something a lot of people don't know? They took it down the next day, right after finishing it, because they weren't sure if it was going to work. Then they erected it all again later when they saw there were no problems.

Re:Only one day? (1)

slaxative (1867220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849900)

Thanks for a useful quote and I'm ridiculous... Though it has no relevance to the subject. We've known about the ipv6 push for years now, and major Operating Systems have supported it. We know ipv6 works ... because people are actively using it now, I'm one of them. google over ipv6 already works, and has been working for some time. Its time for the rest of the major websites to catch up. One day is not going to prove a lot.

Re:Only one day? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850216)

We've known about the ipv6 push for years now, and major Operating Systems have supported it.

If you want a good laugh look up major OBSOLETE OS that support ipv6. W2K, NT, even to a limited extend supposedly W98 had an addon.

Re:Only one day? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850384)

Psssssst

(I'm agreeing with you... I thought I might help show how silly it is to do a 1 day stunt by throwing it into the context of something physical, like a city. I thought calling someone else ridiculous might help push the 'over the top' tone to the post)

Re:Only one day? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850848)

If Google over IPv6 worked, Google would have done a full rollout of IPv6 by now. Google still only gives you AAAA records for its IPv6 hosts if you've proved to Google that your IPv6 network is good (redundant links, etc.). Other tests have shown that a full rollout of IPV6 (so everyone gets AAAA records) means a small minority of users (less than 1% if I remember right) will be unable to access the services or get minute-long waits until they can get an A record resolution. Everything's not completely working yet, which is what this day is about.

Re:Only one day? (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850110)

Except that ... it's been 20 YEARS that the ipv6 protocol was drafted. Now that it's already too late and there's not enough IPv4, it's legitimate to ask for speed-up!

Re:Only one day? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849800)

It sounds like they're trying to test it first, and see this as a way to avoid the "After you, sucker" problem. If the test works, it's likely they'll make the move permanently relatively quickly. If it fails miserably, they'll do their best to fix what went wrong and try again.

June 8th? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849578)

"Hopefully, we will see positive results from this trial so we will see more IPv6 sooner rather than later."

So, why not schedule it sooner rather than later? June 8th is still nearly five months away!

Re:June 8th? (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849762)

So, why not schedule it sooner rather than later? June 8th is still nearly five months away!

Because it takes a while to set this up, get approvals and commitments, etc. It's not easy just getting ready for something like a trade show and this is likely a much more difficult proposition.

Re:June 8th? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849938)

I remember, some time ago, someone was making a similar comment on /. : "2010 is ten years away!" With that in mind, I don't see this schedule as too conservative.

So how about it, Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

Epsillon (608775) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849676)

Isn't it about time News for Nerds got a 128bit address? You know it makes sense!

Re:So how about it, Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850586)

"yro.slashdot.org" already appears to require 128 bits. :P

How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

ravnous (301936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849720)

I imagine most home users don't have IPv6 addresses. Ideally, everyone would slowly start to switch over to IPv6, with sites having both v4 and v6 addresses serving the same content, and users that are connected with a v6 address getting addresses from a DNS that supports v6 would connect using v6. But where I live, I don't get an IPv6 address with Fios. I imagine the big ISPs don't give residential users v6 addresses nationally and globally.

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849844)

Tunnel brokers. I like SixXS [sixxs.net] since they gave me a free tunnel and a free subnet for all my home PCs (an entire /48, I think I should be set for a while). Works like a charm. Also check out Hurricane Electric [he.com] .

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849862)

I imagine most home users don't have IPv6 addresses.

In Canada we do. Most ISPs (Meaning the 3 big ones) are already set up to do it, and will dish you an IPv6 address if you configure things on your end (and they'll walk you through how to do it, if you wish) but they basically warn you that not every site is using it yet so they advise against using it.

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850260)

Wait what? A cursory search through the dslreports forums says no one on Bell Sympatico or Rogers is getting native IPv6 yet. I know TekSavvy offers it, but who else?

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850348)

What about within the home? Do most routers support IPv6 now or do you have to do something special?

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850432)

When I do an Ipconfig /all I get a Link-Local IPv6 Address so I would assume that yes, most routers now support IPv6.

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849912)

They won't turn IPv4 off for probably many years. But if you actually want to try IPv6 without ISP support, you can try a free tunnel broker [gogo6.com] .

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850116)

What?? Seriously, what??

Who said anything about turning off IPv4? IPv6 co-exists with IPv4. They are different IP spaces. An ISP can assign IPv4 and IPv6 at same time.

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849958)

If you don't have IPv6 connectivity, you will still participate in the test, because it is as much about ensuring that you can still connect as it is about testing whether IPv6 enabled systems can connect reliably. Big web sites have long hesitated to enable IPv6 dual stack access, because there are some potential problems, like web browsers seeing IPv6 IP addresses and trying to use them without having IPv6 connectivity, which results in long delays or even failure. This test is meant to show that the implementation issues are under control and that very, very few users are affected by these problems, so that more web sites can enable IPv6 access. Right now, even if you had IPv6 connectivity, most of your web traffic would still be IPv4, simply because there aren't many IPv6 enabled web sites out there (and quite a few use different domains for their IPv6 enabled servers, or whitelist IPv6 enabled networks in DNS).

Re:How do I get to their sites using IPv6? (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850162)

Move to France, use "Free" (from the Illiad company) and you'll get a full dual-stack connectivity (it's been YEARS they have it...). If your ISP isn't doing it, ask if others are. In fact, that's the best thing you could do to speed-up adoption: move to ISPs that have it, and leave the non-brainier behind. As soon as these realize they are loosing businesses, they will move their bottom to do it quick.

Better to make up a deadline than to wait (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849724)

Having an "IPV6" day is not such a big deal for these sites as they have already more or less prepared themselves for IPV6 already. The challenge is getting ISPs and OEMs ready to supply IPV6 links and IPV6 equipment. I think that making a big deal of "IPV6 day" will push these companies into getting their asses into gear to offer IPV6, if consumers and businesses can keep pushing them "We need IPV6, are your links going to be ready for IPV6 day?" and "We need IPV6, are your firmware updates going to be ready for IPV6 day?" even if this is only a marketing campaign.

What is important here is that we give ISPs and OEMs a deadline because at the moment the precise date for NEEDING IPV6 is up in the air and they are reluctant to do anything until a deadline is put in place (or even to START until the customers are complaining- when it is too late)

Re:Better to make up a deadline than to wait (1)

sstern (56589) | more than 3 years ago | (#34849872)

My dlink router does IPV6, but my cable modem doesn't. Until my provider goes IPv6, it's just a curiosity.

Re:Better to make up a deadline than to wait (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850346)

My dlink router does IPV6, but my cable modem doesn't. Until my provider goes IPv6, it's just a curiosity.

You can't buy a cablemodem that doesn't support V6. Don't get all technical with me about buying some stolen properly out of a car trunk from 1997 meaning you can buy a non-ipv6 cablemodem. I mean anything sold to the cablecos for years has supported v6. Its now gotten to the point that you can't legally call yourself DOCSIS 3.0 compatible without shipping a working ipv6 implementation. Mandatory ability as part of the standard.

Now your local provider can limit any and all technical abilities. Just like a cellphone manufacturer is free to include hardware and firmware which the local cellphone company can prevent you from using (tethering etc). Or your cableco is free to enable/disable any output jack on the back of your settop box.

Your cablemodem almost certainly merely requires some behind the scenes work at the cableco and one remotely initiated reboot of your modem and you've got working ipv6.

If you don't believe me, find your modems model number and google for the promotional fliers or even technical manuals from the manufacturer.

Heise.de did it first... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34849736)

The operator of one of the biggest German web sites [alexa.com] , the Heise publishing house, held its own IPv6 day on the 16th of September 2010. Their domains got AAAA records in addition to the IPv4 A records and the web servers responded to IPv4 and IPv6. Long story short: The test produced much fewer problems than expected and two weeks after the test, Heise.de enabled IPv6 permanently. The story is here (in German). [heise.de]

Force hardware supplier by law (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850206)

Can any of you give me a brand of WiFi N router that can do ipv6? I guess there aren't that many. Why manufacturers aren't FORCED by law to do it? That would be simple: pass the law, declare all new ipv4 only equipment illegal, end of the story. Then, next step, do the same with all ISPs. Within 1 year, this could be done. The only issues is that law makers don't understand technology...

Re:Force hardware supplier by law (2)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850370)

Apple Airport Extremes can do ipv6. I know this cause Charter in my area gives out ipv6 addresses as well as v4.

Re:Force hardware supplier by law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850478)

3rd party firmware such as dd-wrt offer ipv6. I run ipv6 on my home network with a linksys wrt610n router running dd-wrt.

Re:Force hardware supplier by law (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850560)

Can any of you give me a brand of WiFi N router that can do ipv6? I guess there aren't that many. Why manufacturers aren't FORCED by law to do it?

In bridging mode, you can't (easily) make a wifi access point that won't support ipv6. Its just another type of packet on the (virtual) wire. For a good fraction of a decade that is how I've had my home set up.

The market has spoken and you cannot buy a non-docsis 3.0 cablemodem anymore. docsis 3.0 requires ipv6 support. Many people have a "wireless cablemodem" basically a modem and router and access point in one little box. Thus all wireless cablemodems going forward will support ipv6, and presumably at least some will support N.

The main problem with N wifi is I do not have the connection speed to saturate my decade old plain ole 802.11B network. If I upgrade to N, rather than being capped by my provider to max out at about 33% of my network speed, I'll merely run at about 1% of my network speed. Who cares?

Re:Force hardware supplier by law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850574)

I can't find the section of the constitution that allows lawmakers to do that, nor would such a heavy handed policy be justified.

Wow, almost half a year ... (1)

garry_g (106621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850324)

... down the road ... they better hurry up, not long until the first RIRs might run out of v4 addresses ...

I guess it's time that porn and p2p sites switched over to v6 only, that should put some pressure on hardware manufacturers and ISPs to finally deliver v6 ...

Re:Wow, almost half a year ... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850622)

I guess it's time that porn ... sites switched over to v6 only, that should put some pressure on hardware manufacturers and ISPs to finally deliver v6

More like, a bunch of clowns in the government trying to make v6 illegal because they think everyone should have to do what their imaginary man in the sky told them.

Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34850418)

are they going to turn off their ipv4 servers world wide on that day? No, I thought not. Also, since they have been dragging their feet, and come last to the party, they have ensured that it won't possibly work as well on that day, as it would have worked on that day, had they been using ipv6 for the past 10 years already. Essentially, once they actually flip, and not just have a single day, they will then be that many years behind where they would have been, if they had brought up the entire ipv6 network with them on it. So, for example, if they flip the switch in 2020, they will be about 20 years behind where we could have been, had they flipped it on in 2000.

I can remember the _day_ that uunet required reverse lookups to work. On that day, or the next, the entire world put in reverse dns data. They just did it, and never looked back.

Better Day (5, Interesting)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34850492)

Two days earlier and it would have been June 6, or 6/6. Rolling out IPv6 on 6/6 would have been biblically ordained to take over the heavens and the earth. Now it's just... another day, another test.

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...