×

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!

If You Think You Can Ignore IPv6, Think Again

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-presupposes-thinking dept.

Networking 551

wiredmikey writes "Now that the last IPv4 address blocks have been allocated, it's expected to take several months for regional registries to consume all of their remaining regional IPv4 address pool. The IPv6 Forum, a group with the mission to educate and promote the new protocol, says that enabling IPv6 in all ICT environments is not the endgame, but is now a critical requirement for continuity in all Internet business and services. Experts believe that the move to IPv6 should be a board-level risk management concern, equivalent to the Y2K problem or Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. During the late 1990s, technology companies worldwide scoured their source code for places where critical algorithms assumed a two-digit date. This seemingly trivial software development issue was of global concern, so many companies made Y2K compliance a strategic initiative. The transition to IPv6 is of similar importance. If you think you can ignore IPv6, think again."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

551 comments

ISP (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107252)

Until my home ISP or the ISP for the company I work for offers IPv6, I think it's going to be very easy to ignore IPv6.

Re:ISP (3, Insightful)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107324)

Or you could get ready now, so when they flip the switch you're good to go.

Re:ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107362)

How do you get ready when you don't know yet how you're going to be assigned IPv6 addresses?

Re:ISP (2)

spinkham (56603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107464)

You make IPv6 support a requirement for new equipment and software.

It's not quite yet the time to retrofit IPv6 everywhere, but it is definitely time to build support into your new development requirements.

Just like y2k, if you coded software that used 2 digit date fields in 1995, you had only yourself to blame for needing to rush around in 1999.

Re:ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107590)

how do I test software for IPv6 compatibility without any IPv6 connections?
That would be like coding for Y2K compliance and never setting the clock on your test machine to anything after 1975

Re:ISP (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107656)

Get an home router or switch that supports IPv6. Other that that, make sure you are running an OS, that supports IPv6 (all Windowses since XP, pretty much all of modern linux distros, Mac Os X as well). So that you'll be ready. So far you cat try with teredo or any other IPv6 tunnel broker.

Re:ISP (5, Funny)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107606)

It's not quite yet the time to retrofit IPv6 everywhere, but it is definitely time to build support into your new development requirements.

Just like y2k, if you coded software that used 2 digit date fields in 1995, you had only yourself to blame for needing to rush around in 1999.

And just like in y2k, after we get IPv6 everywhere and nothing blows up, we'll be blamed for running a con job just like in y2k. "Sheesh, nothing happened, and we spent all that money on getting you to fix a non-problem!"

I say, let's let it blow up this time.

Re:ISP (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107698)

You make IPv6 support a requirement for new equipment and software.

What, with a couple of months to go? My router runs netbsd. I will be okay, but what about the people up the road with a cheap COTS router? Who is going to tell the to flash it, assuming that new firmware is available?

Re:ISP (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107440)

Too much could change between now and then (then probably being in about a decade or so).

I'm with OP, when my ISP gives me one.. i'll deal with it.

Re:ISP (2)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107588)

As I type this in a Starbucks on an AT&T wifi node, DHCP issues both a v4 AND a v6 address.. I've tried to connect to some of the test places via v6, but as of this moment, no joy.. Now if I could just get my home isp to make the jump (Cox)....

Re:ISP (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107692)

"Now if I could just get my home isp to make the jump (Cox)...."

Even if the cable companies switchover...will it make any difference to the general home user..their cable modem gets the Ipv6 connection, likely goes to a wireless rounter ipv6...but with everything already NAT'ed...people's stuff on internal networks won't really need to change anything....will they?

Re:ISP (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107694)

You probably got a Unique Local Address [wikipedia.org]. This usually doesn't work. My home router (Fritz!Box) is IPv6 capable but unfortunately recommends to turn on ULA in the settings. This can screw things up

Re:ISP (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107634)

I'm with OP, when my ISP gives me one.. i'll deal with it.

Or, you could just run FLOSS. I'm pretty sure I've seen IPv6 support in it for at least the last couple of years.

I'd rather be ahead of the game, but YMMV.

Re:ISP (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107356)

ISPs won't support it until customers demand it. This requires government action: use stimulus money to make free porno available to all over IPv6 only. And not just any porno: the kinkiest, highest-resolution, full-length nastiness the Feds can commission.

Your U-Verse box will have a v6 address within a week.

Re:ISP (3, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107466)

And not just any porno: the kinkiest, highest-resolution, full-length nastiness the Feds can commission.

Have you ever plumbed the depths of usenet? Or /b/?

I don't think having people gouging out their eyes with grapefruit spoons is the best way to handle this.

Re:ISP (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107530)

It's been done: http://www.ipv6experiment.com/ (NSFW). Didn't work, unfortunately.
My captcha: "banged"

Re:ISP (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107384)

Yea, I'm waiting for my ISP to offer it too, so I can start experimenting with it. I won't use any of the tunneling services because I have a fast connection, so routing the packets trough a longer path than necessary (and this is what would hapen if my Pc decided to use IPv6 instead of v4 to connect to a server that supports both) will reduce my bandwidth, also, I doubt that any of those tunneling services would offer me 80mbps up/down for free.

Also, my ISP said that they will not be taking the public v4 addresses away, so that's good news too.

in addition, the fact that my computers will have at least 3 IP addresses (one v4, one v6 internal, one v6 external) is not a very appealing thought, I'd rather have NAT for v6 too, but AFAIK nobody offers it, yet.

Re:ISP (3, Insightful)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107488)

That's just it, nobody offers NATv6 because it *shouldn't* be needed. instead you use a real firewall and you get the same protect you got with NAT but with an ip for every computer. if you don't like the idea of having a globally route-able address for every computer turn on the privacy extensions and then your ip will change so that the addresses are useless to anyone else. As it is, people are used to having a "router" to connect multiple computers and have wireless already. this device would change into just a firewall + AP. if you want to get rid of that device and just have an AP, every modern OS comes with a firewall built in that should suffice. NAT doesn't give you security, it just makes it harder to route packets ("security" through obscurity), a proper firewall can also prevent things outgoing for security also.

Re:ISP (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107636)

Another good reason for NAT is that you don't have to pay your ISP for multiple IP addresses. Do you think ISPs will off unlimited IP addresses for free when they start using IPv6? I don't. Without NAT, does this mean we'll have to pay a few extra dollars per month for each device in our house? Let''s see, in my household of 3 people, I've got 3 desktops, 2 laptops, a Wii, an Apple TV, 2 iPhones, and Blu-Ray player. That's 10. Let's say I get one for free, and my ISP charges an extra $5 per IP address, that's an extra $45 a month. I may have a few more devices in my house than a lot of people, but still, people would only put up with not having NAT if they don't have to pay extra for additional IP addresses. Or is it a bad assumption that ISPs will still want to charge for extra IPs?

Re:ISP (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107658)

However, NAT would allow me to have to configure one set of addresses less than without NAT (3 sets without NAT, 2 with NAT). Also, NAT allows my network to appear as a single computer to any server outside of my network, how do I achieve that with IPv6?

NAT on IPv6 should not be that hard to do, that is, all it needs is to rewrite the source and destination IPs (and remember what the originals were), right? It's not like NAT is something very difficult and resource consuming to do.

As for security, yes, I can just block all incoming connections in a firewall and get the same effect as NAT, at least as far as the incoming connections are concerned.

every modern OS comes with a firewall built in ...

... that makes the computer not use the offload (primarily Segmentation Offload) capabilities of the network card, reducing the LAN bandwidth and increasing the CPU usage. Some other firewalls process every single packet, making the network even slower and CPU usage even higher.

Re:ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107502)

Why would anyone offer NAT for v6? There is no need. Get an actual firewall if you're worried about security.

Re:ISP (5, Informative)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107522)

I'd rather have NAT for v6 too

Why?

There are always so many people saying they want NAT, but if addresses are plentiful then it serves absolutely no purpose. I think that most people who see it as necessary are confusing its function with a firewall. You do not need NAT to do the same things your home router does today. You can still block all incoming connections to a computer and allow all outgoing connections. You can still allow specific ports to be opened to specific machines.

Using a public address on your internal network doesn't automatically mean that you need to just allow any traffic in. Use a firewall to "stealth" every port and there will continue to be no evidence that you have a computer there.

Re:ISP (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107660)

I work in a small office. You know what the reply I get when I ask for someone's IP address sounds like?
"16"

That's because we have internal addresses, and use NAT for anything external.
If we change offices, only one place needs to know the new IP, and nothing else needs to change: we all use internal addresses, with NAT for anything external, so the rest of our network is not dependent on the whims of which ISP we feel like paying next month.

It sounds like a common enough set-up that I assume IPv6 accounts for this somehow. But pretending that "security" or "hiding my internal network" is the only reason anyone would want to translate one address into another is beyond absurd.

NAT will never go away (-1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107730)

The idea that NAT will go away just because a network is IPv6 is a pipe dream. No sane security admin would ever allow that. The idea that the firewall is the only thing between you and the outside world is, and should be, a non starter.

  IT security is all about multiple layers, and one of them is the fact that you have a DMZ between you and the internet, and that the internet can't route outside of it. That is not going anywhere.

Re:ISP (1)

eggled (1135799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107620)

  1. Why do you want NAT? What does it achieve that a simple firewall does not?
  2. Once IPv6 is live, there's only one address to worry about. The local one is not only automatically selected, it's automatically used in place of the public one when routing packets locally. You literally never have to use it yourself. Windows even randomizes this to an extent, so remembering it is fruitless.
  3. That said, I agree that there's no valid reason to tunnel all traffic to IPv6, slowing your bandwidth. Those tunnels are great for testing and not much else to the general consumer.

Re:ISP (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107726)

Why do you want NAT? What does it achieve that a simple firewall does not?

Ability to mask multiple computers as one while they are all connected to the network at the same time.

Once IPv6 is live, there's only one address to worry about. The local one is not only automatically selected, it's automatically used in place of the public one when routing packets locally. You literally never have to use it yourself. Windows even randomizes this to an extent, so remembering it is fruitless.

Yes, and it will always work, I won't have to enter it ever, since my DNS server has 100% uptime. Oh, and I have no old computers and other devices (a printer for example) that do not support IPv6, so I won't have to use both protocols. /sarcasm

Re:ISP (2)

anboni (1000474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107630)

I doubt that any of those tunneling services would offer me 80mbps up/down for free.

Actually, from what I've read, the Hurricane tunnel (http://tunnelbroker.net) gave someone their full 100mbps through the tunnel.

Re:ISP (5, Interesting)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107386)

There are *many* 6 year old Cisco routers and switches out there that are still covered under support contracts that won't be getting IPv6 support as they have been End-of-Life'd. Consider for a moment that many of these same ISPs are the ones who elect to throttle their users to 256Kbps if they go above their 5GB monthly usage limit. Smaller ISPs are already going in and double-natting their customers as well to further over-subscribe their network and get by with less. Home ISPs will likely continue ignoring this problem for years to come, until the eventual hardware swaps enables them to support IPv6 and then have a reason to start billing their customers more for "now with public IPs to improve your gaming performance".

Re:ISP (4, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107430)

The amount of *new* networking kit and software that still doesn't support IPv6 is frankly depressing. Microsoft's Forefront TMG (Their ISA replacement), for example, requires Server 2008/2008 R2 (which have full IPv6 support out of the box) but doesn't actually support IPv6 routing itself and it's only ~1 year old.

Re:ISP (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107484)

There are *many* 6 year old Cisco routers and switches out there that are still covered under support contracts that won't be getting IPv6 support as they have been End-of-Life'd

Wait... if they are EOLed, how are they under support contracts?

Isn't that kind of like an anti-tautology?

Maybe I'm way off base here*, in which case please do enlighten me... but does EOLing mean that no support is offered?

*3rd-party support being the only exception I can think of.

Re:ISP (4, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107512)

With Cisco, End-of-Life and End-of-Support are two wildly different things... To Cisco, End-of-Life means "no more updates", while End-of-Support means "you can call us up for help, and we will provide you with a replacement unit if yours fails". End-of-Support is typically 5 years after the End-of-Life announcement, however there are the random exceptions like their VPN Concentrators.

Re:ISP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107390)

Actually, you can get a free tunnel -NOW- from Hurricane Electric (or other Ipv6 tunnel providers).. it doesn't actually get you much that you can't get now however.. just some e-penis points..

Re:ISP (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107572)

You're right. Unless you are a business that is offering internet based services, you can probably ignore IPv6.

Re:ISP (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107718)

I'm on Comcast. I don't think I'll have too many problems. I ran a simple online test [test-ipv6.com] with results reproduced below. I didn't have to lift a finger to do this. Any modern OS that's up to date on patches should not have too many problems. Still though, the article makes a good point. Organization that really depend on things working properly, and that don't want a nasty surprise? They should do a dry run of IPv6-only conditions, and fix any problems. I noticed that Comcast isn't giving me IPv6 DNS yet. Hopefully they'll fix that before June, otherwise all the tests passed.

"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

bareman (60518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107268)

So really no big deal then?

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107312)

No big deal if an equivalent amount of timely effort is put into it. In other words, It'll be what Y2K would have been had we done nothing.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107548)

No big deal if an equivalent amount of timely effort is put into it.

Nonsense. Plenty of companies did absolutely nothing to prepare for Y2K. Entire swaths of the third world budgeted $0 for Y2K. They had little or no problems when the time came.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107662)

Not many critical systems in the third world are highly computerized. Even those that are obtained their systems from companies that did spend money on Y2K.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107498)

yeah. this will be just the make work *cough* i mean gallant enterprise that will spur our tech driven economic recovery. just think of all the programmers, sysadmins, etc. that companies will have to hire to implement and test this. full employment here we come. /homer_simpson_voice

or something like that.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107554)

The nice part is, unlike Y2K, is that there's no hard drop-dead date by which all work has to be done and all of a sudden there's a bunch of folks laid off. IPv4 can be a looming threat for years to come! Huzzah!

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (2)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107550)

A massive undertaking by programmers worldwide in order to prevent a catastrophic meltdown. Completed just in time in a way that's transparent to the rest of the world, making it seem like no big deal.

Yeah, actually it'll probably be quite a lot like Y2K in that sense.

Exactly, don't say the Y2K word (3, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107600)

I really wouldn't go into board rooms and mention Y2K. The general public seems to think that there was nothing there and it was just a big hoax. I'm sure all of you have encountered this recently too. A few times recently I had to correct people who said something like "That Y2K thing was no big deal". My answer to them was "It was no big deal because people worked for 5-10 years to fix it, otherwise it would have been a big deal". But you all know that.

But if you want to be dismissed as a panic monger, bring up Y2K, otherwise, don't.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107640)

it`s been years that the issue of insufficient ip space is debated. Governments so keen on regulating our internet experience and the digital tv didn`t even require that new network gear be ready to support it, or did they?

so my prediction is: there will be the expected crisis, no matter if severe or prolonged, and the solutions will involve more centralization or some more control over the net, as the existing trend goes.

Re:"equivalent to the Y2K problem" (1)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107654)

Yeah... I don't know if equating it to Y2K is the best way to instill a sense of urgency.

Ignoring VP6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107270)

If you completely ignore it, isn't it likely you'll continue on with no adverse effects? I thought VP4 would continue to work with no tweaking necessary, as long as you're not using broken equipment.

Re:Ignoring VP6 (2)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107298)

Yup. And realistically, although its not something to be proud of, there's too much money for everyone in continuing to work with IPv4 addresses for years now to force anyone over the wall to IPv6 only.

Its probably going to come down from on high - want any new routable IPs? Your ISP will force you to be fully v6 compatible. Why? Because their upstream is doing the same to them...

In the next 6-24 months though, expect a remarkable amount of horse-trading of large IPv4 blocks.

You will NOT take away or cause artificial demand (4, Funny)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107352)

for my damn IP numbers! I am not falling victim to this left-wing liberal conspiracy to artifially inflate the price of my IP numbers, the fuel of my business! There is no such thing as a global shorting of IP numbers, the scientific evidence is completely subjective and there is no hard evidence whatsoever, no measurements, of a global shorting of IP numbers . Everyone that needs one has an IP number, and there are plenty more. I myself have 192,168,000,023 IP numbers for use just here in my company. This in nothing but a left wing media conspiracy against the working people to take away our god-given constitutional right to IP numbers in black helicopters.

Re:Ignoring VP6 (2)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107398)

If you completely ignore it, isn't it likely you'll continue on with no adverse effects? I thought VP4 would continue to work with no tweaking necessary, as long as you're not using broken equipment.

But we all buy and acquire equipment. Getting a wireless router for your home, maybe you should check the specs a bit more closely now. Buying a set top DVR? You might want to do the same. Trying to decide if your old computer needs an OS update? Some will never have IPv6 support.

For end users these are concerns that could bite them down the road. For corporations, these are the kind of acquisition failures that will cost millions down the road.

IPv6 Mess (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107302)

Not so fast:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=128822984018595&w=2

Re:IPv6 Mess (0)

dmelomed (148666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107328)

Not so fast:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=128822984018595&w=2

Agreed. Mod parent up.

Re:IPv6 Mess (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107336)

Yep, it's a mess. But migration is still critical. The fact its a mess just means that it's that much harder to do right. Maybe if people hadn't been putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "NAT NAT NAT!" for the past 5 years, it wouldn't be such a mess now.

Re:IPv6 Mess (1, Interesting)

dmelomed (148666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107358)

You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.

Re:IPv6 Mess (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107468)

You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.

Well, that's a position I've never heard. The messiness of the transition is, well, yes a mess, but that does mean that more techies will make more money to fix it all up. It will get all fixed up one way or another, but it will cost a hell of a lot more.

Re:IPv6 Mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107508)

No, you don't get it, at all, you just try to parrot crap you've heard to make yourself sound smarter (apparently without even reading the shit you're parroting). There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the engineering of IPv6, it's the implementation of the transition that's a clusterfuck.

Re:IPv6 Mess (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107702)

You don't get it - IPv6 itself is a misengineered piece of crap.

Never heard that before. On what do you base such a determination?

From what I've seen of IPv6, if fixes much of the insanity which was IPv4. So if IPv6 is a "piece of crap", it seems like a foregone conclusion IPv4 is completely unusable. So it seems your argument, if anything, impresses a sense of urgency for the migration to IPv6.

Re:IPv6 Mess (5, Insightful)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107542)

Not so fast:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

I don't agree at all with this article. The author claims that IPv6 should have been designed as an extension to IPv4 so that IPv4 and IPv6 hosts can communicate with each other directly. This is fundamentally impossible. The IPv4 host can only send packets to IP addresses with 32 bit. Any longer number is not understood by the IPv4 host. In order to make this work, the IP stack of every IPv4 host would need to be updated. Guess what has to be done to have IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack? The IP stack of every IPv4 host needs to be updated!

Re:IPv6 Mess (3, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107586)

Agreed in principle, however NAT64 enables *precisely* what djb complains about. An IPv6 only host can now meaningfully participate in an internet filled with v4-only servers.

Re:IPv6 Mess (0)

dmelomed (148666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107716)

Not so fast:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

I don't agree at all with this article. The author claims that IPv6 should have been designed as an extension to IPv4 so that IPv4 and IPv6 hosts can communicate with each other directly. This is fundamentally impossible. The IPv4 host can only send packets to IP addresses with 32 bit. Any longer number is not understood by the IPv4 host. In order to make this work, the IP stack of every IPv4 host would need to be updated. Guess what has to be done to have IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack? The IP stack of every IPv4 host needs to be updated!

That's right. IPv4 should have been able to talk to IPv6 and vice/versa. Nobody wants to upgrade as long as IPv6 remains useless (because it can't talk to IPv4, and IPv4 can't talk to IPv6). The IPv6 design requires every server administrator to upgrade to IPv6 (but where is the incentive for this massive undertaking?) while it remains "useless" (since few clients have IPv6). Few clients have any incentives to upgrade to IPv6 because very few servers have IPv6. It's a really shitty situation, thanks to a shitty design.

Re:IPv6 Mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107592)

You already said that here [slashdot.org]

Re:IPv6 Mess (2)

anboni (1000474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107714)

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

I'm amazed at how much misinformation and outright bullshit someone can put into one single webpage...

Video of yesterday's ceremony and press conference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107332)

ICANN's Youtube channel [youtube.com] has the videos of yesterday's IPv4 ceremony and press conference.

Chairman of the bored (2)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107334)

if IPv6 is "a board-level risk management concern", then I certainly can safely ignore it, and so can pretty well every Slashdot reader.

Seriously (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107338)

If you want anyone to take this seriously DO NOT compare it to the Y2K bug.

Re:Seriously (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107612)

What's wrong with comparing it to the Y2K bug? Oh, yeah, that's right, the Y2K bug was actually fixed in a timely fashion and the vast, vast majority of computers were ready for new years' day, 2000. Whereas IPv6 isn't comparable because people are listening and starting to implement change.

        Also, there's no real 'hard-and-fast' deadline like there was with the Y2K bug - exhaustion of IPv4 address space won't cause the Internet to suddenly collapse - it will just begin to cause gradually escalating levels of pain, and slow down the rise of innovative new Internet services, websites, and companies, while driving up costs due to artificial scarcity.

Take Back The unused? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107340)

Perhaps they should TAKE BACK all the ip6 blocks that were allocated to the big corporate pig that they don't use...

Re:Take Back The unused? (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107374)

It'd barely make any difference as you need contiguous blocks and the rate at which we're using them means that even reclaiming whole /8 blocks only extends the life of IPv4 by a few months at best.

Re:Take Back The unused? (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107460)

Perhaps they should TAKE BACK all the ip6 blocks that were allocated to the big corporate pig that they don't use...

I'm assuming you meant IPv4 blocks. If so, I'm right there with you. We have two subnets with 508 possible external IPs assigned to our organization but we use a couple dozen of those addresses. I'm guessing there are a lot of companies that are sitting on hundreds of unused IPs thanks to rise of NAT.

Re:Take Back The unused? (1)

Gerald (9696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107566)

Sigh. Once again:

Why should Ford, Apple, HP, Halliburton, etc be forced to give up their legacy blocks when AT&T and Level 3 get to not only keep theirs but resell the address space?

boring ipv6 articles (4, Insightful)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107364)

Do we really need to have 3 ipv6 article a week on slashdot. I believe every single slashdotter knows and understands what the problem is about. So I suggest the editors to skip all the articles about "how my god we need to move to ipv6 FAST",

Re:boring ipv6 articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107448)

I say we need more IPV6 articles. 7 a week, one daily, for those who read /. once a day. We also need to start a forward thinking strategic initiative about the IPv8 solution for the dwindling IPV6 problem. Once a month should do for now.

Re:boring ipv6 articles (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107544)

Yes. These submissions link to articles that we can cite when attempting to convince our PHBs or CxOs that yes, we do indeed need to budget for the ipv6 migration, and no, we can't wait a couple years to get the ball rolling.

Just wait until "ipv6 conversion specialists" are charging you $450 an hour to make sure your business is not floundering because you ignored the problem until it was an emergency.

Re:boring ipv6 articles (0)

jittles (1613415) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107652)

Yes, we all know the problem is the moron who made an IP standard that wasn't backwards compatible with the established standard and therefore making it more difficult to convince the executives to spend money on solutions.

Re:boring ipv6 articles (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107696)

Well, that's only because we collectively managed to very efficiently stick the shit to the catapult and someone turned on the fan this week.

IPv6? Bah! (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107368)

Change is frightening. Let us instead implement existing technology in a clunky and hackish fashion.

Behold the formation of the InterNAT!

but ignoring is working so well... (5, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107380)

I finally found the group responsible for IPv6 at my company, and asked about our readiness. now keep in mind, we don't need to wait for an upstream provider as we are the upstream provider, with many peering agreements in place.

The answer I got back basically amounted to two things:

1) nobody else is ready, so we don't need to be either.

2) it's not legally mandated, so it's not important.

I'm so glad we pride ourselves on our ability to innovate...

Re:but ignoring is working so well... (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107578)

Good that there are providers that I can switch to when I need to use IPv6 that are better prepared than your company. I really think that having a working and well-tested IPv6 offering - ideally IPv4/IPv6 dual stack or dual stack Lite if there are no more IPv4 addresses - will be a competitive advantage.

Qwest (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107388)

When the final set of 8's were handed out I got in contact with my ISP and this is what they said

Qwest has taken care of the IPv4 exhaust issue for our residential customers at the ISP level. We are implementing the capability to communicate with contacts at both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. This transition will be transparent to Qwest residential and business customers.

I'm not sure if the transition can actually be transparent since at a minimum I'll have to do something with my TCP/IP so it knows that IP6 is there, and from the looks of it my Modem doesn't support it ether without maybe a firmware upgrade.

Re:Qwest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107518)

They will most likely use ipv6 tunnels for you.

Re:Qwest (4, Informative)

Wingman 5 (551897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107524)

What they said translates to "We are putting you behind a carrier grade NAT, you will no longer have a public IP unless you pay us extra for it."

Re:Qwest (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107616)

I guess they could intercept your DNS queries that only return an AAAA record and rewrite the resulting IPv6 address into an IPv4 address on their own network. They then remember the IPv6-to-IPv4 mapping they told you and intercept all your requests to the IPv4 address and rewrite it as a request to the IPv6 address. Seems horribly complicated though... I don't think you will have access to IPv6-only websites.

IPv6 sucks (-1, Redundant)

dmelomed (148666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107436)

IPV6 has implementation issues, AND it has some engineering mistakes built in. it's not that simple.

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html [cr.yp.to]

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=128822984018595&w=2 [marc.info]

Re:IPv6 sucks (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107558)

The former is a tad old and mostly fixed by NAT64.

On second:

they created a totally new problem by avoiding arp. the
            benefit of their layer-2 discovery mechanism has been
            absolutely zero; the best unit of measure for the cost of
            that decision is "decades".

ICMPv6 neighbor solicitation at *worst* case 'degrades' to ARP-type behavior. In very well behaved layer 2 networks (almost none, admittedly) it greatly reduces load at large scale of system. I don't see why avoiding ARP costs 'decades'.

they created an entirely new and huge problem (destroying
            SIOCGIFCONF backwards compat hurt IPV6 deployment in operating
            systems on a massive scale) by not making their sockaddr be
            a power of 2 in size.

I still haven't heard anyone explain why that is so catastrophically bad. It may be, but in practice, I haven't seen how this afflicts me.

Now I will complain that they changed some fundamentals around DHCP (DHCP at all being a near afterthought as they magically thought route advertisement, stateless addressing, and mDNS would be the cure for *EVERYTHING*). However, most of it is probably going to fall into place as soon as more practical deployments start (currently, most v6 trials that end in failure cause people to just walk away from now instead of trying to push fixes.

Re:IPv6 sucks (2)

freakingme (1244996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107574)

Your first link dates from 2003, and therefore I cannot do anything but ignore it. Especially since you don't specify what part you're aiming at... As to what your other link is concerned, Theo de Raadt usually knows what he's talking about, but, he also likes to troll anybody he doesn't like. His post basically says that he doesn't like implementing an arp alternative. His other point simply means it may be a bit more difficult if you assumed all socket addresses would only ever be to the power of 2. That's his fault (hate to break it to you, theo also isn't perfect), he was the one who made the assumptions. Lastly, the problems he describes are about how to implement them in Operating Systems. Since all major OS's now have ipv6 support, I cannot see that being relevant. As for merely posting 2 links without any text: troll?

Re:IPv6 sucks (2)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107650)

Everything has mistakes built in. But DJB's article (aside from being 9 years old) simply boils down to "but who will implement it if it's not widely implemented?" The whole point of implementing it is that it'll get more widely used. That OpenBSD mailing list message was marginally more interesting, but boiled down to "it messes up my struct!"

I don't understand all the IPv6 hatred. IPv4 is not tenable (which can't really be argued otherwise), and even somehow extending the current address space would break everything anyway, so why not just do it right?

Simple solution (2, Funny)

TheSync (5291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107516)

I can double the number of IPv4 addressable machines.

UDP and TCP ports 1-512 will now be one machine, and ports 513 and higher will be another machine.

Re:Simple solution (2)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107610)

IP has no concept of "ports". Aside from the fact that you didn't split the port space evenly, you clearly have no concept of how IP and networking works. And even if this is a serious suggestion, and could possibly be implemented, it would be at least as much (if not more) work than implementing IPv6 *anyway*.

Stop already, it's getting old. (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107556)

Yes we know.

Major ISP's are just now getting the ball rolling. Client software is still being perfected. The bridges for early adopters are known to be flakey. Talk to the people working on that stuff (oh, wait, you don't need to, they're already underway).

Most readers here will move along when the infrastructure is ready. We know the address space is effectively out but there's little reason to do much at this point, and anybody trying to push people to adopt IPv6 before the tools are robust is kidding themselves.

Re:Stop already, it's getting old. (1)

ducman (107063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107720)

My wife doesn't know anything about networking. When I tried to tell her about the problem, she asked, "Have you tried calling Al Gore? Since he invented the Internet, he can probably fix it."

Welcome to the real world (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107582)

... the one where by far most of the people, even if you go just to the IT ones, ignores even what is IPv6. How many isps or carriers now are giving ipv6 as an option? Probably the most common policy now is "lets wait till everyone else already took the first step before moving a finger" (later it will be "let all scream and run in circles")

Nortel's class A licence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107648)

Nortel used to own 47.*.*.*, now that they are bankrupt who owns that class A license? That is a big hunk of address space that could give some extra breathing room.

redesign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107688)

On the bright side of deploying IPv6, it gives us all a chance to redesign our networks with security in mind. I'm mostly thinking about government and utility networks, though.

Site / domain testing tool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107710)

I've been working on a small side project building some automated testing -- is your site ready for IPv6?
http://ready.chair6.net

http://ready.chair6.net?url=arin.net
http://ready.chair6.net?url=slashdot.org

and so on...

What about IPxl? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107712)

http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html

It seems like a simple, good proposal to compatibly extend the existing IPv4 header format to give 64-bit addressing. If someone could come up with a Linux patch and DD-WRT builds for home wifi routers implementing the above, maybe we could avoid the huge discontinuity of changing to IPv6.

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...