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!

Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the trial-by-fire dept.

Networking 290

alphadogg writes "Yahoo is forging ahead with a move to IPv6 on its main Web site by year-end despite worries that up to 1 million Internet users may be unable to access it initially. Yahoo's massive engineering effort to support IPv6 — the long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main communications protocol — could at first shut out potential www.yahoo.com users due to what the company and others call 'IPv6 brokenness.'"

cancel ×

290 comments

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

1 Million Internet viewers... (1, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929158)

So 1000000 users can't view Yahoo's Web server...

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:1 Million Internet viewers... (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929252)

Off-Topic?

You couldn't even correctly mod me Troll?

Re:1 Million Internet viewers... (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929506)

+ True

Yahoo.com is huge (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930234)

So 1000000 users can't view Yahoo's Web server...

And nothing of value was lost.

If you had a clue how lame it looks when you write a comment like that about Yahoo.

It may be valueless for you and me but for people making it one of top 10 sites on global market and number 1 in markets like Japan, it does have a value.

One has to be really disconnected from general public to post a comment about a top 10 www site like that.

Re:Yahoo.com is huge (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930444)

He's talking about users of IPv4-only ISPs, not Yahoo

Re:Yahoo.com is huge (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930472)

but for people making it one of top 10 sites on global market and number 1 in markets like Japan, it does have a value.

Well, yeah, if you value it based soley on visitors, and not content.

Re:Yahoo.com is huge (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930490)

Or it could mean that since Yahoo Mail alone has 300M registered users (never mind their other services) then 1M having a problem is statistically insignificant.

Real question is... (4, Funny)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929172)

Will Yahoo still have 1M users by year-end to shut out?

Re:Real question is... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929202)

Will Yahoo still have 1M users by year-end to shut out?

Notice it does say 'potential'. :-P

And, yes, I have to ask the same thing ... I've not used Yahoo's search in over a decade (do they have one anymore?), and except for Flickr, I'm not aware of a single thing from Yahoo I might use.

Re:Real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929440)

Their email service isn't bad... a perfectly acceptable alternative to gmail, and from what I understand it's more popular.

I also know people that still use yahoo instant messenger.

Re:Real question is... (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930220)

*looks away uncomfortably*
Uhm, the people in my country are using almost exclusively yahoo IM (and more recently facebook alongside)

Re:Real question is... (1, Informative)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930094)

Good for you, you're special aren't you.

Yahoo Sports is the highest trafficked sports site on the web, more than ESPN, CNN-SI, AOL Fanhouse, FoxSports, CBS Sportsline, etc.

Re:Real question is... (4, Insightful)

longacre (1090157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929238)

Not sure how or why, but they still get a shit-ton of traffic and Yahoo Mail has 3x as many users as Gmail.

Yahoo mail (5, Interesting)

Issildur03 (1173487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929350)

Yahoo mail has a nice tab-based interface so you can open multiple emails while writing a few more, which Gmail is missing. It's also hard to migrate 10 years' of emails to a new service (they make it hard, at least) - not to mention getting everyone to use your new email address.

Re:Yahoo mail (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929412)

My browser already has a nice tab-based interface and shift-click works just fine in Gmail (iirc Tab Mix Plus allows you to customize whether you want new windows vs. new tabs). Or maybe it was the middle-mouse button. I don't do it often enough to care, but if I was sold on that feature it really wouldn't be hard to replicate.

Re:Yahoo mail (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930168)

I find that Gmail's javascript interface is less than accommodating of multiple concurrent tabs. Not totally broken, just not 100% functional; although I don't use Yahoo mail personally, I can see how tabs within the 'web app' interface (rather than within the browser) could be useful.

Re:Yahoo mail (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929962)

No problem for me. I weeded out my 10 years of emails down to 200 of actually real emails that need to be kept. then I set my yahoo email address to auto foreward to my Gmail.

Also by not giving out the old email address PLUS having my sig on my emails showing that my email address has changed to his new one... I have not had 20 legitimate emails hit my yahoo account in a year.

It's not hard, you just cant be lazy about moving to a new email address.

Re:Yahoo mail (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930574)

Yahoo mail has a nice tab-based interface so you can open multiple emails while writing a few more, which Gmail is missing.

Uhhh, aren't tabs something your browser supplies? At least in mine, I can open multiple GMail tabs with separate emails just fine.

Re:Real question is... (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929498)

And when you exclude botnets how many users do they have?

Re:Real question is... (1)

krautcanman (609042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929532)

One reason could be that Yahoo still provides co-branded DSL services through SBC.

Re:Real question is... (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929696)

This. I know several people that have yahoo accounts because of this.

Re:Real question is... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929752)

One reason could be that Yahoo still provides co-branded DSL services through SBC.

That's AT&T, for the last several years, but yeah.

Yahoo hosts AT&T mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929678)

They are the email host for AT&T. If you use an AT&T company as your ISP, your SMTP and POP servers are hosted by yahoo.

Re:Real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929894)

Email is not their only product. Yahoo has Flickr and Yahoo Fantasy Sports which generate a lot of traffic. Both of which require an Yahoo account to use. Just those two alone could support a fairly large corporation.

Re:Real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930088)

I a shit-ton bigger or smaller than a crap-load?

I can't make a gmail account. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930114)

I've been trying to make a Gmail account for the past year. Each time it asks for my phone number, and I say I don't have one (which I seriously don't). It says they'll get back to me, and they never do.
Yahoo never required a phone number, so guess which service I use?

Re:Real question is... (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929274)

The more relevant question is "Does Yahoo have one million users?"

Re:Real question is... (2)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930182)

Yes [unica.com] . And then some:

Our goals remain the same: the first and foremost of which is to keep improving the core features — speed, security, accessibility and stability — that our 275+ million users have come to depend on.

- May 12, 2010

Re:Real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929416)

Apparently so. From TFA: "Yahoo's embrace of IPv6 is good news for IPv6 proponents because the site reaches more than 25% of all Internet users, Alexa says. Yahoo is the fourth most popular Web site on the Internet. [alexa.com] "

Alexa helpfully lists it as "anshikapackersmovers" though... Not sure what that is about.

Re:Real question is... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930508)

From TFA:

Yahoo's embrace of IPv6 is good news for IPv6 proponents because the site reaches more than 25% of all Internet users, Alexa says. Yahoo is the fourth most popular Web site on the Internet.

Where's your <snark> tag?

killer app (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929212)

Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will have no choice but to upgrade!

Re:killer app (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929276)

Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will have no choice but to upgrade!

More like "Once Yahoo! is only available over IPv6, the internet will carry on regardless"

IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (5, Informative)

clone5342! (1805950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929342)

That isn't what they're doing (yet). Although the headline/summary made it sound like they were shutting out IPv4 users, this is not the case. They will be supporting both simultaneously.

What that means is that if a website advertises itself as simultaneously IPv4/IPv6 compliant, and someone's computer/browser thinks they are IPv6 compliant but their attempts to connect via IPv6 don't make it through (ISP? router? modem? who knows), their connection times out and the site is unreachable.

The solution in this case would be to identify the node that doesn't support IPv6 (might be difficult) or force the system on the user-end to use IPv4 (shouldn't be that hard). It certainly shouldn't be the end of the world, and it shouldn't really even affect too many people. And it will be a push to at least support IPv6 (not necessarily require it) at every step of the path so that users whose computers are capable of IPv6 connections can actually connect successfully over it.

Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929664)

I wonder if anyone thought of forcing AAAA requests (dns IPv6 requests) for those sites only on ipv6 packets, and denying them if they are in ipv4 packets

Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (2)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929896)

Even systems with working IPv6 still make DNS requests over IPv4. The system would have to be pure IPv6 and not dual-stack to make that work. Besides that, DNS servers work by forwarding and caching requests and results. Even if a client made a IPv6 DNS request, its DNS server may forward that request on IPv4.

Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929980)

Even systems with working IPv6 still make DNS requests over IPv4.

More specifically, an IPv6 system may make a DNS request over IPv6, which goes to the ISP's DNS cache. This cache may then issue a DNS request over IPv4. Similarly, the converse may happen - a DNS cache may handle a v4 request by doing a v6 recursive query.

Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (1)

raxx7 (205260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930002)

That's exacly what Yahoo's been proposing.

Re:IPv6 "brokenness" =/= lack of IPv4 support (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930332)

their connection times out and the site is unreachable.
What actually happens is the connection times out and then the browser requests the page over IPV4.

Unfortunately the browsers (at least firefox last time I tried it) seem to rely on the OS timeouts (which are very long) and don't seem to remember that V6 failed before. The result is the site works but is EXCRUCIATINGLY slow (IIRC well over a minute per page).

Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users ... (-1, Redundant)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929224)

... and nothing of value was lost.

Re:Yahoo IPv6 Upgrade Could Shut Out 1M Users ... (3, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929388)

It's not even a shutout from what I understand. The IPv6 request will timeout after a while and revert to IPv4, so while people will certainly experience slowdowns, I doubt anyone will be actually unable to access the site. Detect this and point people to resources to resolve the problem and things will take care of themselves. And by things taking care of themselves I mean that you will be asked to go fix the internet by your parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends, friends-who-are-only-friends-when-there's-a-computer-problem, and your grandma's bridge partner who you once installed a printer for.

Honestly, if it weren't for the army of computer geeks fixing most of the IT problems for friends and family I think the whole thing would collapse overnight.

As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (0)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929236)

I really cant recall the last time myself or anyone I know accessed Yahoo. Are they really still relevant?

Re:As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (1, Offtopic)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929358)

They've got a special article up right now on the latest Racy dress worn by Venus Williams.

Now I've bolstered their network activity by sending half of /. their way.

Re:As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929616)

Many people still use their instant messaging, but what I see use a LOT is the Yahoo Groups. It is a simple way for average joes to create private mailing lists. I know that at least 4 of the moms groups for creating kids playdates my wife has joined had their mail list/forum hosted on Yahoo Groups. There email seems fine too.

Re:As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929802)

They need groups for that? Seriously? I know my kids are getting older (14 and 16), but I still remember the "can I go to Danny's house" or "can Sarah come over" stuff. Boy, we didn't need any groups of Mom's with forums and shit to do that. How could anyone need that? Honestly it seems ridiculous.

Re:As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930086)

Yahoo Finance is much better than the competition. Yahoo Mail is still the market leader, just slightly ahead of Hotmail, possibly because they were one of the first. Flickr is quite popular as well.

Re:As goes Yahoo, so goes.... someone? (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930116)

Yahoo Sports highest trafficked sports site on the net
Yahoo Finance worlds better than Google or MSN
Yahoo Stores is a popular interface for web stores
Flickr, Delicious, etc

Great logic there Lou (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929242)

From

IPv6 experts say some Internet users will experience slowdowns or have trouble connecting to IPv6-enabled Web sites because they have misconfigured or misbehaving network equipment

to

"IPv6 brokenness."

So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?

Re:Great logic there Lou (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929370)

So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?

No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?

One of the problems with IPv6 is everybody already has networking equipment that they've paid for and that works ... I can't see much motivation for most people/organizations to switch to IPv6, especially if it means it breaks what they've already got. I can also see making everyday things like ping and telnet much more cumbersome.

All of the people with home routers and the like (and older operating systems) don't want to pay to upgrade for something which they don't understand what benefit it is supposed to give them. I must confess, except for a bigger address space, I'm not sure what benefit IPv6 has for *me* -- which is why IPv6 has been languishing in the "don't care pile" for seemingly forever.

If my ISP needs to change all of their cable-modems to support this, you can bet I'm gonna have to pay out of pocket.

Re:Great logic there Lou (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929556)

No, but if they changed their infrastructure to no longer be compatible with your existing (and working) plumbing and expected you to pay to upgrade, you'd be mad, right?

This is actually a pretty good analogy. Suppose the city was upgrading to higher pressure water in order to be able to reach further (yeah I know doesn't really work that way). So about 20 years ago the city started telling everyone they were going to switch over and if you have antique, clay pipes in your home, you'll need to make sure your main intake valve handles things correctly or it could jam and cause problems. So, having bought a new intake valve within the last decade (and really who hasn't bought a new router or leased one within that time frame) you might want to make sure it supports the new standard, or just wait to see if you have problems. And if you do have problems, yeah you might be mad. If you're rational, you'll be mad at the people who sold you the intake valve, but you might be mad at the city too.

That's progress I suppose.

I must confess, except for a bigger address space, I'm not sure what benefit IPv6 has for *me*

It has a bigger address space. Yup you nailed it. That's the big difference. That means networks stop being so tiered and problematic and each device you own can have a number of unique addresses, enabling a whole range of new technology cheaply and affordably. You don't want new networking technologies and such? Well that's just fine, but you'll have to excuse the rest of us when we ignore your complaints.

Re:Great logic there Lou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930100)

No, it is a piss poor analogy.

In this case, the water meter is broken (IPv4 address exhaustion). Sometimes it lets water through, sometimes not. It depends on how your neighbor woke up his cat yesterday (or other such random event, e.g. neighborhood teens downloading Justin Bieber wallpapers).
The water company can let that happen and give shitty service to everyone (NAT will scale up to ~32k times what we have today. Then you're done, no more connections available), or it can ask people to upgrade their water meter.

Re:Great logic there Lou (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929574)

You mean other than not wanting to end up sitting all alone in IPv4 space pinging themselves so they can feel like someone cares?

I've been doing 6to4 tunneling on a years old WRT54GL. If you have to buy a new router, blame the vendor of the old one for not providing a firmware update, because the hardware is certainly capable of it.

Comcast is pressuring cable-modem vendors to provide the needed firmware updates.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929660)

I've been doing 6to4 tunneling on a years old WRT54GL. If you have to buy a new router, blame the vendor of the old one for not providing a firmware update, because the hardware is certainly capable of it.

Oh, I'm in favor of it if you can do it in such a way that every home user doesn't find themselves with a broken network connection and no idea of what went wrong.

It just seems like it's been one of those things that has sat there for a very long time.

Not being a networking guy ... I can't figure out if it's just because people are lazy, don't care, or if they would be negatively impacted/incur costs as a result of this.

It seems like IPv6 has been coming 'real soon now' for about as long as we've been expecting the Year of the Linux Desktop. :-P

Re:Great logic there Lou (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930092)

A lot of it has been lazy vendors sticking their heads in the sand and pinching pennies. It took the DOD mandating v6 support on all new equipment to motivate the vendors to even offer v6 in theory (though often without even the most rudimentary testing).

Of course a lot of that was because so many management teams ascribe to the piss on fires theory of change management and lack of v6 wasn't even smoldering yet. It doesn't matter if you give them 100 years heads up time, they will wait until it's an emergency to do anything about it.

It's worth noting that the specs and standards have been complete and final for over a decade. Even XP has had support for v6 available for years now, as have Mac and Linux.

On the business IT side, it's mostly a matter of people tripping themselves up and making it harder than it is. The dirty truth is that there are a few networking professionals out there and a LOT of people who do networking by rote and hope for the best. The latter are totally flummoxed by v6 because the addresses look different.

Re:Great logic there Lou (4, Insightful)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929910)

I think you're missing the point.

We're not speaking about switching to pure IPv6. We're speaking of making Yahoo accessible over both IPv4 and IPv6.

Pure IPv4 ("legacy") sites will have no problem, they'll just contact Yahoo over IPv4. Properly configured dual-stack sites will have no problem, they'll have a choice between IPv4 and IPv6. It's only mis-configured clients that might have problems.

The article claims that 0.05% of Yahoo's customers are mis-configured. These 0.05% will need to either disable IPv6, or fix their systems. --jch

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930104)

I already have a static IP address, and if I want to talk to individual devices within my house, I use a VPN connection, so what benefit does IPv6 have for me? Nobody else is using it, so there is no network effect.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

entrigant (233266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930308)

First benefit that comes to mind is no need to dick around with nat and that vpn.

Re:Great logic there Lou (2, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929424)

No, but if the water company switches to IPv6 water and your plumbing is incompatible, you might blame them. After all, water is water, and the plumbing worked just fine until they changed something.

Or, to put it in light of a bit of recent history, a lot of Americans are still grumbling at local broadcasters and the FCC because over-the-air TV was working JUST FINE until June 2009, when ALL OF A SUDDEN the rabbit ears weren't enough. And that was with a sustained, repetitive, annoyingly pervasive advertising campaign to raise awareness of the upcoming DTV transition, plus subsidies for converter gear. And a distinct minority still missed the transition. And that's just broadcast TV, which is stupid simple in terms of end-user infrastructure.

IPv6, implemented piecemeal, will simply black out parts of the net to many (most?) users until something like the DTV transition makes it (A) obvious to Joe Intarwebuser that the transition IS UNAVOIDABLY COMING, and (B) subsidizes replacements of incompatible key components of the users' and providers' network path. (I'm looking at you, manufacturers of residential gateway router devices and network ISPs.)

Re:Great logic there Lou (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929558)

>>>a lot of Americans are still grumbling at local broadcasters and the FCC because over-the-air TV was working JUST FINE until June 2009, when ALL OF A SUDDEN the rabbit ears weren't enough.
>>>

And the broadcasters/FCC deserves it. Not one single time did they tell customers they need to upgrade from settop to rooftop antennas, if they want to continue receiving the same number of channels. That was a major mistake.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929792)

I know you're being sarcastic, but over-the-air was working just fine. The signal quality was good enough for those of us who don't want to pay for cable or satellite. The fact that the image quality wasn't spectacular probably encourages people to do something with their life aside from watch TV.

I received my 2 digital box coupons and purchased & installed them.

The problem for me is the new digital signals are much much weaker in terms of terrain. You need a much better line-of-sight to receive the digital signals. There are a number of old analog channels I used to get without problems, but since I'm on one side of a hill I can't receive them at all. I would need a big antenna (probably 100 feet).

That being said, the image quality of the digital signal is much better.

Re:Great logic there Lou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930050)

The main point of the upgrade was not the better picture, it was to free up wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. TV was using quiet alot of it.

I believe the cell phone companies bought a lot of that signal.. I think google was involved somehow also.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

foksoft (848194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929736)

No the problem is different. They are not going to switch to IPv6. They will support both IPv4 and IPv6. But there are some clients that prefer IPv6 for DNS queries while they don't have any connectivity over IPv6 to outer world. The quick and simple solution will be to disable IPv6 on those clients.

Getting it in your plumbing analogy. Water company says we can double pressure if you want. And you ask them to double pressure while your current plumbing is not able to handle it. But you still could ask them not to and they will be OK with it.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929470)

You might want to complain if your plumbing was fine until they doubled the water pressure on the main, yeah.

Re:Great logic there Lou (2)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929672)

That happened on my street. I live in the historic district (basically 1 street full of 100-130 year old houses) and when they replaced the old leaky water main suddenly the whole street was plagued with exploding plumbing.

Re:Great logic there Lou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930118)

"historic district (basically 1 street full of 100-130 year old houses)"

Thank you, you make my day.
Honnestly, 100 years... historic...
ROTFL

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930356)

As I said when I went to Boston, "you know you're in an old city [by New World standards] if Fenway Park at 98 years is relatively young amongst the local landmarks.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929534)

If your house is 60 years old, the plumbing works fine and the water company makes some huge change that breaks it... yes, you're likely to blame the water company. Especially if here are hundreds of thousands of other water companies competing for your business that still work just fine.

Re:Great logic there Lou (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930000)

There are two major technical issues obstructing IPv6 adoption for home users:

  1. Your ISP doesn't provide you with an IPv6 address.
  2. Your network equipment's firmware can't handle IPv6, even though IPv6 has been standardized for over a decade. It's not particularly easy even to buy a new wireless/wired router and/or cable/dsl modem that supports IPv6.

Now you're router is probably physically cable of handling IPv6 routing, a linksys wrt54g from 5 years ago can do it if you flash OpenWRT firmware onto it... so you just need a firmware update to add software support for IPv6 ... but good luck getting revised firmware from your manufacturer.

So, in my opinion, basically no blame rests with network node users, because even if they wanted to enable IPv6 connectivity for their home network, they can't. Some amount of blame rests with your ISP (but I do think Comcast, at least, is exploring the possibility of offering IPv6 connectivity), and alot of blame rests with SOHO networking device manufacturers. Now, if equipment manufacturers and ISPs get their act together and offer IPv6 capable devices and service, then you can start blaming network node users for not getting onboard (and I'm sure, at that point, plenty of people will drag their feet about it).

No blame to IPV6 design? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930334)

From

IPv6 experts say some Internet users will experience slowdowns or have trouble connecting to IPv6-enabled Web sites because they have misconfigured or misbehaving network equipment

to

"IPv6 brokenness."

So I should blame the water company if I install my plumbing wrong?

As you give plumbing as example, I feel free to give an example from TV World.

Color TV was a success because TV stations didn't have to bother with BW TV sets. Some analogue genius trick allowed BW sets to keep receiving color and display in black and white. So, people weren't forced to replace their sets.

Same goes for FM radio/Stereo. A mono FM receiver can receive and play stereo FM station even if it includes data such as RDS.

One of the reasons why 3D TV will stay some kind of fantasy? Basically, you can't air 3D TV station or data without displaying like a mess on ordinary 2D TV making it useless for 99%.

Perhaps, IPV6 could have better backward compatibility with IPV4 and such stories wouldn't appear at all.

But (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929246)

But how will people access that completely useless and tremendously jumbled index page-o-5,000,000 links?

frosty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929260)

first

etc.

Blown out of proportion (1)

angloquebecer (1821728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929348)

From TFA:

Yahoo has been one of the most vocal Internet companies to express concern about industry estimates that 0.05% of Internet users will be unable to access Web sites that support both IPv6 and the current standard, IPv4.

So 0.05% of the internet won't be able to access Yahoo. What % of that actually WANT access to it? In this case, it really is "very little" of value was lost.

Why? (3, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929430)

Is there some operating systems out there which still aren't compatible with IPv6, or is it a problem at the ISPs level?

Re:Why? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929540)

ISP mainly

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929674)

Yeah, my ISP doesn't support IPv6.
I don't think any Ontario ISPs currently offer it.

Re:Why? (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929566)

You'd be incredibly surprised at the number of people who still use Windows 2000, or even Windows 9x, which don't have support for IPv6 (although to be fair, if you're running Win2k at this point you probably have enough smarts to sort it out).

At the same time, many ISPs are unequipped to deal with it too. For instance, my ISP (Virgin Media in the UK) have no plans as of yet to roll it out. There's going to be lots of incompatibilities all around.

The person above who said about the DTV transitioning (which the UK is currently going through) is on the money. Some people just won't take notice, and if they do won't care.

Re:Why? (2)

raxx7 (205260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929622)

It depends on the case.

Like most others, Yahoo's website is only available through IPv4. Thus, even computers that have IPv6 still use IPv4 to get to access Yahoo.

When they enable IPv6, computers which have IPv6 will try to use IPv6 to access Yahoo.

Computers which aren't compatible with IPv6 are actually fine: they'll just use IPv4 like always.
The problem here is that there's a large number of computers which (thinks) it has IPv6 connectivity but actually, the IPv6 connectivity is broken. Thus, when Yahoo enabled IPv6 on their site, these computers will have trouble getting to Yahoo.

The reasons vary.
One reason are computers that sit on a network that has IPv6 for internal use but doesn't have IPv6 internet connection.
Another reason (or set of reasons) is that the computer has an IPv6 internet connection but, somewhere between the computer and Yahoo (ISP, etc, etc) , it's broken.

Re:Why? (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929762)

It's no problem when your OS doesn't support IPv6. It's a problem when your OS supports IPv6 and believes it can reach the internet via IPv6, but can't. That's a _really_ rare condition.

Re:Why? (1)

kallisti5 (1321143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929840)

This is because of routers (mostly soho) offering IPV6 link addresses, but not actually routing IPv6 traffic. This needs to happen to ensure ISP's are fixing broken router configurations to allow major internet servers to start offering AAAA records.

Re:Why? (2)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929942)

Note that Yahoo is not abandoning IPv4 support.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930278)

Neither. All devices made in the last 10 years or so do support IP v6. The problem is that you can't do a simultaneous world wide rollout to all 4+ billion devices on the Internet and no one can figure out where to start the rollout so that you have the fewest interruptions.

Re:Why? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930372)

Is IPv6 fully defined yet? It's been a while, but last I looked there were still a number of things in a state of flux.

There goes my dialup connection. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929480)

I suspect Netscape ISP is still using the old V4 addresses. No more downloading of TV shows I missed (like Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch, Conan O'brien, Rachel Maddow, et cetera). Oh well. I'll cancel the netscape and get VirginMobile's wireless deal..... although it is 5 times more expensive.

Re:There goes my dialup connection. (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929542)

Maybe this can help? [sixxs.net]

Aside: Woah, I pasted something and it worked!

So what? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929494)

I feel bad for that 1M, kind of, but any change you make will shut out at least that many with setups that are broken in other ways. I bet there are more than 1M people still on Netscape 4, but I'll be darned if I'll take them into account when planning service or network upgrades.

Re:User Target is what matters. (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930560)

I think it probably comes down to this (or similar):

What's your consumer target? Can you reach it? Is the change economically worth it in terms of your target?

as opposed to IPv4 brokenness (2)

chuckychesthair (576920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929524)

yet another article that's skeptical of how ready IPv6 is. The amount of brokenness that is there is not very big. Of all the people that have the full Internet (that is IPv4 *and* IPv6) most will simply connect to any IPv6 website without issues.

And apart from the fact that yahoo seems to be a US only thing, and even there is not so relevant anymore, I applaud them doing IPv6, when they get to it. (and after Google, Comcast, Akamai and many others)

I wish we'd get over this "brokenness" story and simply deploy and then fix it for the 1% that has issues. Would be nice if it gets rolled out to the point of 20% traffic in 2011, the year we'll run out of available IPv4 addresses.

Re:as opposed to IPv4 brokenness (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930062)

Really? Every piece of commecial networking equipment i've ever used has been IPv4 only. Now, they could likely be upgraded to IPv6 by firmware update, but most vendors probably wouldn't do that for existing equipment and want you to buy new equipment. In addition, 99% of applications i've seen that are IP aware are only IPv4 aware. Again, that's a big problem.

I don't see how only 1% of people will be affected.

Re:as opposed to IPv4 brokenness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930326)

> Every piece of commecial networking equipment i've ever used has been IPv4 only.

So how many pieces of networking equipment have you used? Two, both costing 10 USD ten years ago? Cisco is the only one charging extra for ipv6 support, and that's their problem.

And it's not as if it matters for your old managed switch, for example - if it doesn't do routing, it doesn't need to care.

Re:as opposed to IPv4 brokenness (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930468)

Because people with no IPv6 support are entirely unaffected. This only affects people with broken, not absent, IPv6 support.

Despite the haterade (2)

mixmasta (36673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929578)

Yahoo still has a lot of good stuff. Mail and calendar work well, there is useful news and finance pages as well. I was playing around with their YUI stuff yesterday, and it is pretty cool and open source.

Sites should probably serve ipv6 from a separate colo to a separate domain name to work the kinks out first, e.g. yahoov6.com. After a testing period they could start moving the support over, assuming the results were good.

Impact due to misconfiguration? (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929710)

IIRC the problem isn't with computers that don't support IPv6. It's with networks where the computers and DNS software does support IPv6 but there's no IPv6 connectivity. In those cases a name query gets back AAAA records, the computer tries to connect via IPv6, and the connection doesn't go through because IPv6 traffic doesn't have a route off the local network. If your computers don't support IPv6 at all, the problem doesn't happen (the AAAA records never get used). If the DNS software (probably in your router) doesn't support IPv6, it won't do queries for AAAA records in the first place. Note also that at the other end (the DNS servers for the web site's domain) there should also be filtering in place: AAAA records shouldn't be being returned in queries that came in via IPv4. But not all sites do that filtering, so clients have to be prepared to get IPv6-only data back in IPv4 responses and filter it out.

Do staggered short periods with some frequency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929728)

Probably the best way to solve this: If the largest sites on the internet were able to do brief periods (at different times) where they were only accessible on IPv6.

Sure, it may suck for some people if they are unable to access Yahoo.com or Youtube.com for 30 minutes once every two weeks. It may be the most important 30 minutes of their life. But at least it would tell people with very loud letters 'SOMETHING ON YOUR END IS BROKEN'. Then word of mouth will quickly get around whether it is the ISP or their networking gear.

I think (and hope) the first site to do this would be hailed as doing something brave and constructive.

A German website tried this (4, Interesting)

Casandro (751346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929740)

They had their servers respond to both IPv4 and IPv6 on the same domain name for a day. Among one million visitors they only had 5 with a problem. 2 could be solved by rebooting the router and or the computer, 2 had unreleated problems with their internet, and one actually had triggered a bug in the OS.

http://www.heise.de/netze/meldung/IPv6-Tag-bei-heise-de-Erste-Ergebnisse-1081201.html [heise.de]

Re:A German website tried this (-1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929844)

Followed the link, apparently it has something to do with jackbooted thugs robbing you of your civil liberties and invading Poland?

Re:A German website tried this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34929872)

The FUD against IPv6 is propagated to you by people that want to charge you $10/mo for a single IPv4 address.

Re:A German website tried this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34930440)

They considered it such a small problem that it's permanent now.

$ dig -t aaaa heise.de +short
2a02:2e0:3fe:100::8

Good for them (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929868)

People (and ISPs) are never going to switch to IPv6 if it does not affect them directly. If a major website, such as Yahoo, makes the move, then the ISPs will be forced to update, or loose customers. If only Youtube and Facebook would follow suit....

A bit of a misnomer... (2)

owendelong (614177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34929994)

First, it's not really IPv6 brokenness so much as it is an issue with hosts that think they have IPv6 connectivity, but, really don't.

Second, in most cases, affected users will see long page load times, not complete inability to access the site.

The 0.05% number is probably pretty accurate. Several sites have used embedded tests to measure this and come to the same number. However, the good news is that a year ago, this was 0.1% and it is continuing to trend downward.

With IANA running out of IPv4 this month, it's not surprising that Yahoo is moving forward. It's disturbing that so many others appear not to be.

Couldn't they test this in the background? (1)

AdrianZ (29135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930358)

Specifically, couldn't they have some javascript load a one line javascript file from a subdomain with their desired configuration, and just report the time from the script element being added to the script being executed?

Yahoo! is relying on old, incomplete data. (4, Insightful)

Above (100351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34930486)

Yahoo! has been talking about this at conferences for a while, but I'm not sure they are using good data. Here's a lighting talk from NANOG about it:

http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/presentations/Tuesday/Igor_ipv6_recursive_light_N46.pdf

Page 2 has the crux of the issue, Yahoo! claims if you add AAAA records that 0.078% of the user base "breaks", that is they understand a AAAA enough to try IPv6, but they lack IPv6 connectivity to the destination.

There was a time this made sense. A lot of early IPv6 deployments were islands without complete connectivity. Additionally, up until about 18 months ago there was a serious lack of IPv6 interconnectivity between ISPs, they were still figuring out how to turn up peering, filter, and so on.

However, times change. ISP's are now fairly well interconnected, and getting a lot better every day. Almost no one turns up IPv6 as an island anymore. Interestingly, some of the original islands still exist, on purpose, as they are test labs or other non-production deployments. The people use them expect them to be broken in some ways, in some cases to test what the user experience is when various things break. Indeed, I suspect the number of islands is small, and constant, and thus an ever decreasing percentage of the IPv6 user base.

Another large issue with the numbers is that they are only measuring the difference between the status quo and one of the four outcomes. A user could have:

A) Broken IPv4, Broken IPv6.
B) Broken IPv4, Working IPv6.
C) Working IPv4, Broken IPv6.
D) Working IPv4, Working IPv6.

What Yahoo has done is measure the status quo (IPv4 only) to bullet point C.

However, there will be some folks in bullet B. These are folks who can't get to Yahoo! today at all, but would be able to if Yahoo! had AAAA's. Granted, it's probably smaller, but still is an offset. Basically they are trying to scare folks that 470k folks might not be able to access Yahoo with IPv6. However, 470k folks may already be unable to access it via IPv4, they just can't measure that right now because they never see the requests!

There is also the looming issue. As a we run out of IPv4 addresses (likely in late 2011) ISP's will basically be forced to turn up IPv6 only users. Even if you take Yahoo!'s numbers as correct, that 0.078% are broken, then all you would need is a larger percentage than that of the user base to be IPv6 ONLY and it makes more sense to have AAAA's and exclude them. Basically 1% deployment of IPv6 completely flips their argument if the goal is serving the largest number of folks.

My take, some folks inside Yahoo! collected some rather raw data early on in IPv6's life cycle. Folks from Marketing and such read too much into it, and went into a panic that some large number of users wouldn't be abel to get to Yahoo! This created a huge issue for the engineers trying to deploy IPv6, which they have been fighting ever since.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?