×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vint Cerf Says No To IPv7, Yes To InterPlanetary Web

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the free-watson-from-the-bonds-of-earth dept.

The Internet 108

jbrodkin writes "IPv6 is here, but what's up with IPv7? Nothing, says Vint Cerf. While one day there may be another new Internet Protocol, work is not happening on it now. 'At the moment there doesn't seem to be any incentive for inventing yet another one,' he said in an interview. However, he contends that 2011 will be a Big Year for his pet project, the extraterrestrial 'InterPlanetary Internet.' The 'Bundle' network protocols will be tested in space and standardized to 'make them available to all the space-faring countries.' As they are used with more spacecraft, 'we can literally grow an interplanetary network that can support both man and robotic exploration.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

108 comments

IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (3, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248338)

IPv6 is not mainstream yet, and probably still won't be for a while longer. Considering that IPv6 solves the problem of limited addresses in an increasingly networked world, which was and still is the driving force for the migration from IPv4, immediate R&D into the next standard just seems unnecessary. Plus, with how big of a headache IPv6 has been, who can honestly blame 'em for not wanting to think about it for a while.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Kashell (896893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248384)

How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?

I think IPv64 should be sufficient enough...........

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (4, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248476)

Why go with IPv64 when IPv9 [ietf.org] is already perfectly suitable for the task ?

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248834)

Short-sighted foolishness!

I propose doom for all unless we immediately move to IPv16. Those sub-atomic particles aren't going to go without at least a mole of addresses each on MY watch!

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (5, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248496)

How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?

IPV6 has plenty enough IP addresses for a single galaxy. We might need to rethink it once we have colonised another galaxy, but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (5, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248760)

...but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.

Pfft. You know, as an AOL subscriber, it's not very often I get to call somebody else a weenie.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249492)

Until we develop fibre holes capable of pushing packets across the galaxy in 100ms.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249588)

Until we develop fibre holes capable of pushing packets across the galaxy in 100ms.

That's a lot of R&D just to silence an AOL zealot.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249082)

> but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.

Nah... subspace channels are much faster than the speed of light. I have seen it being used in many situations...

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249268)

That's the problem, they are faster than light, so the situations you've observed are far in the future.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250884)

pfft, everyone knows to merely get from the delta quadrant of our galaxy, it takes a subspace signal years. Go back and watch some more ST.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250996)

You are forgetting that ST Voyager moved a long distance, many quadrants, in just an instant after leaving deep space nine. This is the foundation of the show. In ST, they do not understand everything yet...

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251534)

Yeah, by the caretaker. Standard starfleet subspace could not send a message from the delta to the Alpha/Beta Quadrant in less than 70 years if I recall correctly. You should have added a bit about subspace channels through micro-wormholes, which is how voyager was able to communicate with the alpha quadrant in the latter years of the show.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251718)

Nah, it wasn't in the latter years of the show, it was in season 1, maybe season 2 disk 1. I just started to watch all episodes lately and I am at season 2 disk 2 right now and they already have contacted the alien scientist in the alpha quadrant. I am pretty sure it was in season 1. The scientist was talking to them from the past, he promised to deliver their message home in the future but Voyager records showed that he died before he could.

Not the best ever show I have ever watched I have to admit. I am ROTFL sometimes but it does the job I guess.

Cheers,

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251750)

Hey, since you seem to know a bit, is 7 of 9 going to show up in ST Voyager or was 7 of 9 in another series ?

Damn, I hope she was in Voyager ;-) Belona Tores, or whatever her name his is my preferred female character ex aequo with 7 of 9 if she is indeed going to appear in ST Voyager.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252478)

Season 4 on I think.... though feel free to revoke my geek card if I'm off by a few episodes.... I've been watching other stuff lately, not much time for trek these days when I could be watching Doctor Who....

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254376)

First episode of season 4, scorpion. It's a good watch but it's where the borg start to get castrated.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252672)

many quadrants

They precisely one quadrant over. There's only four: Alpha Quadrant, Beta Quadrant, Delta Quandrant, and Gamma Quadrant. (You know, "quad" means four?). It's pretty much one fourth of the galaxy sliced in four equidistant places for some arbitrary reason for all I know.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249198)

I'm not willing to stop until every single atom in the universe has its own IP address!

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249266)

Well, speaking in order of magnitude, we are almost half way there with IPv6:

"Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10^80."

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

The number of IPv6 addresses is:
2^128 or 3.4×10^38

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (3, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249326)

you should clarify that you mean half way on a logarithmic scale. .5*10^80 would be half-way.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249568)

FYI: That's exactly what "speaking in order of magnitude" means.

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

http://www2.pvc.maricopa.edu/tutor/chem/chem151/metric/magnitude.html [maricopa.edu]

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249748)

It is indeed. I call fail on my part :)

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249842)

Admitting fault on an internet message board?

EPIC C-C-C-Combo breaker!

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249936)

So, assign each cluster of 10^38 atoms an internal IPv6 address with VPN. I think we're there with existing tech.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

snap2grid (630315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252778)

But if we need atoms to encode the addresses, and each of those atoms has an address which needs to be encoded...

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249858)

How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?

IPV6 has plenty enough IP addresses for a single galaxy. We might need to rethink it once we have colonised another galaxy, but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.

Nothing that a couple of well configured NAT routers can't manage.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249452)

How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?

So you're saying that we know how to create an artificial magnetosphere around a planet, we know how to terraform it into a environment capable of sustaining Earth-life, we know how to infuse a self-perpetuating, self-balancing collection of species in that environment, but we're going to have difficulty with digital communications?

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248442)

Some are hoping for a magical IPv7 that would magically 'just work' with IPv4 without any messy backwards compatible issues. None of those understand the problem, but assume there must have been *some* way to do it without losing our quad-dotted addresses or rewriting or recompiling a single thing. Like 'why not just raise the limit on the numbers from 255 to a thousand or something?' or 'just add another dot-number at the end'.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (4, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248878)

You can express IPv6 adresses with quad-dotted notation if you wish, going way over the 255 limit. The truth is that it is the underlying number of bytes in an IP packet header that matters.

IPv6 addresses range is 0.0.0.0 to 4294967295.4294967295.4294967295.4294967295

2^128 or 3.4×10^38 addresses.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249830)

Your right, unless we are giving IP addresses to self replicating cell-sized nanobots... I mean if that happens I think the "IPv6 address issue" will have been long resolved.

Good point!

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249712)

Something with extensible addressing would have been nice, like phone numbers with international area code / national area code / local number, but with an open ended number of divisions. You could refer to stuff on your lan with a single number, possibly within your corporate network with 2 numbers, and so on. When we need to start routing traffic off the planet just prefix another number on there - 1 for Earth, 2 for Mars, etc. A full address might take the form of:

planet / country / ISP / customer / network address / station address

If each was a 24 bit number then there is plenty of room at any level, and you can just get an additional address at any level if you need it.

Running out of numbers in one zone might require a mass renumbering, which would be a pain for the customers involved, but far less so than adding a completely new IP protocol which an unknown number of security holes.

Routing could be a bit of a bitch though...

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249884)

It sounds like a lot of processing to me... not the kind that would swamp your PC while connecting to emule, but one that could be harmful to the backbone routers.

A fixed length means you can design hardware specifically oriented to it, way faster than software.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250442)

It sounds like a lot of processing to me... not the kind that would swamp your PC while connecting to emule, but one that could be harmful to the backbone routers.

Maybe. I was kind of thinking the opposite though... the address tables would be much smaller than IPv4 because you only need to route between levels, and you could do that in hardware by examining the first few bytes of the address. IPv6 has much the same idea but with a fixed length address.

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (2)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249926)

While at it, why not XML based IP packets with XML parsers in the routers to route every packet ?

Re:IPv7? Good lord, why ever.. (1, Insightful)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250502)

Simple: IPV6, while having more then "sufficient" address space, was poorly conceived, tries to do stuff it doesn't need to and lacks standardization of key items, such as the transition from legacy (IPV4) protocols. I for one would LOVE to see a more elegant, more complete solution that would allow us to quickly implement it and bypass the nightmare that is IPV6. It doesn't need to offer more address space, just implement that space in a way that makes it and the translation to it easy to understand and standardized so you can get some buy in from the world at large.

i leave the net when im forced to use ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35253960)

security is damn awful and that they require you to be wide open like that is just govts trying to be assholes

what they should have done is add a 255 to the mix and allow one per country
you'd effectively have enough for all the 186 nations of the earth at the current level of ipv4 and you can pass out firmware to have done it

BUT NO lets screw everyone over and make them moron windows users even more vulnerable

Back to Usenet? (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248434)

In his novel A Fire Upon the Deep [amazon.com] , Vernor Vinge's vision of a galactic internet was basically Usenet newsgroups writ large. Once the web took off, he got a lot of flak for that seemingly outdated vision, but perhaps he's right. As easy as real-time communication is nowadays to people around the globe, once the internet moves into space, the incredible latency of long-distance communications could return us to a series of groups and threads that one logs into periodically, downloads en masse, and reads locally.

Re:Back to Usenet? (4, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248460)

As easy as real-time communication is nowadays to people around the globe, once the internet moves into space, the incredible latency of long-distance communications could return us to a series of groups and threads that one logs into periodically, downloads en masse, and reads locally.

Of course given the time delays between solar systems, you could start a flame war that your great-great-grandchildren would have to finish.

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249888)

you could start a flame war that your great-great-grandchildren would have to finish

Oh that still happens now... metaphorically. Hell if religion was a flame war, that is, then [(great-)^N]great-grandchildren N is an element of {n | n an element of Z+}, our era, is still continuing it!

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248720)

Even Usenet is really pretty wedded to comparatively low latency communications...

Anything adapted for seriously high latency will probably look a lot more like today's broadcast media: If your ping times are measured in years, waiting for an ack from the remote host, or asking for a corrupt packet to be re-sent are going to be somewhere between painful and useless. As with broadcast, the sender will just have to generate a signal that the receiver can reconstruct without further communication, and pack in whatever they expect to be of interest, with only occasional input from the receiver about what they want. Each side will be both sender and receiver; but each will hear from the other years after the fact, so the communication will only be "bidirectional" in the most limited of senses...

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248818)

Usenet and the underlying UUCP protocol were designed around propagation times measured in hours to days. They'll work just fine inside the solar system, while the problems with interstellar use stem from the social expectations layered on top of it rather than from the technology itself.

Re:Back to Usenet? (2)

wazoo666 (1410491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248832)

I am sending out pings such as this. I am expending enormous resources to do this, let me tell you — but it is that important. I've beamed direct at all the hub sites that are in range to the spinward of me. No replies. More ominous: I have tried to transmit "over the top", that is by using known sites in the Transcend that are above the catastrophe. Most such would not normally respond, Powers being what they are. But I received no replies. A silence like the Depths is there. It appears that a portion of the Transcend itself has been engulfed. Again: If you receive this message, please respond!

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Kashell (896893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248902)

Interesting idea. If planets become organized enough, they could beam full copies of the planet's intranet periodically to other planets, creating the whole "internet".

We are, after all, limited by the speed of light.

Re:Back to Usenet? (3, Insightful)

SnowCzar (726517) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248948)

I'm convinced Linus made git so he can code on a spaceship and commit locally.

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35251398)

Because git is the only DVCS?

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249002)

You forgot to mention that the transmit and receive devices in his books were the size of Jupiter, had a transmission speed of a few meg a second for the whole solar system but could transmit information faster than the speed of light. It was instantaneous transmission of information but had very limited bandwidth. As a result, it was a lot like Usenets from the 80s.

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249640)

Within the solar system, you're talking probably an hour at most (round-trip, unless we colonize Jupiter or something). So yea, instant communication is out, but it's still fairly quick. You could post to slashdot and have your comments appear while the story is still on the front page. I'd imagine popular content will be mirrored by service providers, unpopular content will need to be requested - provider pulls it into the mirror, drops it a while later - for the user, they try to load it, get a page saying 'check back in an hour'.

Once you get out of the solar system - there will be no real communication unless we can find a way to move data faster than light. Minimum of 20 years, one-way..it'll be effective isolation.

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249908)

First from MARS!

Now seriously, the big "but" to those number is that sometimes the planet you wan to talk to is behind that big, yellow thing. Did you factor that in?

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250028)

Ah, no I did not. But couldn't you perhaps establish some kind of station to bounce the signal off of that wouldn't add more than a small percentage (i.e., 5 minutes or so) to the transit time?

Re:Back to Usenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35251528)

To keep the excess latency low, the relay station would have to be in a near-sun orbit, somewhere around Mercury I would think, which experiences temperatures ranging from -300F(-180C) to 840F(450C). Something with that kind of temperature range would need to be very advanced or very low tech, as that kind of heat is high enough to melt zinc and tin and I imagine the amount of flexing materials experiencing regular temperature swings of 1140F(630C) would undergo would make it one amazing engineering project. That of course is not taking into account the calculations necessary to place the relay station in the correct place to ensure that either the planet you were interested in or the relay station were always in line of sight.

Re:Back to Usenet? (1)

hackerjoe (159094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252030)

Why would there be temperature swings? The sun doesn't have a dark side and you wouldn't want a communications platform to turn very quickly anyway or be near anything else that could block line of sight to it. Just put a sunshade on one side of the platform that can withstand high temperatures -- 450C is no hotter than my soldering iron -- or am I missing something?

A space-faring what? (0)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248440)

When will it be made available to all space-faring peoples of other planets and to civilizations that live between the stars?

The Internet...IN SPAAAAAAAAACE! (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248500)

I can see the headlines now: "Botched Re-Entry Caused By Distracted Astronaut!" with the byline reading "LOL Cats Pwn NASA".

Re:The Internet...IN SPAAAAAAAAACE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35248530)

I'd like to think that even in a ridiculous future, reporters would have enough dignity to not use the word "pwn" in their article headers.

I just read this story in Analog Science Fact and (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248550)

Interstellar Internet: http://www.analogsf.com/0607/interstellar.aspx [analogsf.com] - "One of the most original, believable, thoroughly thought-out, and utterly fascinating visions ever of what interstellar contact might really be like." â" Stanley Schmidt, Editor of Analog magazine

"One thing led to another ⦠soon I was pondering a comm network that functioned across the light-years. And, we homo saps being a tad competitiveâ"about interstellar cyber attacks..... Herewith, a few of Lernerâ(TM)s Laws for Artificially Intelligent Trade Agents:

1. Agents run only inside mutually agreed upon containment: the sandbox. The sandbox protects: - a. The secrets of the agent from the locals. - b. The local infosphere from the agent.
2. Sandbox code is fully disclosed and fully agreed upon across the interstellar community. (ETsâ"one more argument for open source software!)
3. Access to/from the interior of a sandbox is only by messages.
4. An agent, its software entirely proprietary to its patron species, is transmitted encrypted across interstellar space. - a. It unwraps itself inside a sandbox provided by the host species. - b. It self-destructs, its secrets undisclosed, if the purported sandbox deviates in any way from expectations.
5. Trade waresâ"intellectual propertyâ"travel encrypted between solar systems, and are unwrapped in secrecy by the sequestered AI agent. Goods are sold (or not) and bought (or not) as the agent negotiates within its authorized-from-home parameters.
6. Agents buy and sell information using the host speciesâ(TM) banking system. Credits not spent locally may be transmitted, securely encrypted, between solar systems."

Re:I just read this story in Analog Science Fact a (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248748)

Sandbox code is fully disclosed and fully agreed upon across the interstellar community

Which means anyone can hack up a modified sandbox which will steall all the agent's secrets. The agent, of course, can't 'self-destruct' since I made a copy before I put it in there.

This whole thing is just another form of DRM, and any alien species which relies on it will find its agents on Bittorrent within a few days.

Re:I just read this story in Analog Science Fact a (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249942)

Point 6 is also funny.... doing electronic banking with money from other planetary systems. Wow!

Even monopoly money is worth more, at least you can use it to play monopoly or burn it to get some heat.

No IETF WF, No IETFv7 (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248556)

You don't need Vint Cerf to conclude this.

If there isn't an active IETF Working Group [ietf.org] on the subject, the chances of getting a "IPv6Next" (which I think might actually be IPv9) within the next decade are pretty small.

How long before... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248586)

...the first interplanetary DDOS?

Re:How long before... (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248782)

Theoretically possible, in practice the 1/2 hour roundtrip time to mars may make things a bit difficult and more controllable... maybe to the moon with 1 s roundtrip time

Re:How long before... (1)

SonicBurst (546373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248918)

Even at full light speed, something as relatively close as the moon is over 2.5 seconds for minimum RTT.

DTN (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248754)

Delay / Disruption Tolerant Internet (DTN) is still at the Research Group [irtf.org] stage. It's really more about replacing TCP than the Internet (UDP will work just fine in space), and has received some criticism [google.com] (pdf download), ironically mostly centered around how it breaks the end-to-end principle.

While there is now an SIS-DTN green book [ccsds.org] (a necessary step for general deployment on space missions), and initial tests in space are positive [intersys-lab.org] , these things move so slowly that I think it's going to be a while before this is generally deployed in space.

So much for R&D and innovation -- (1)

Bookwyrm (3535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248796)

Of course there is incentive to work on the next generation of protocols. It's basic R&D and a drive to not sit on your laurels.

This is not about merely having more addresses, but also in dealing with issues like dual or multi-homed routing (last I heard IPv6 dual-homing was still in progress.)

When comparing the pace of innovation in other areas, the glacial pace of IPv4 to IPv6 is actually kind of disturbing. The fact that there is no work going on for developing what might be next is even more so.

Consider a situation where a corporation asks for government funding to develop a deep-packet-inspection system for IPv6 for purposes of monitor and/or censorship. How much more likely is the funding to occur if everyone knows IPv6 is going to be around for decades without replacement? (Of course, many would no doubt fund some level of effort. but if 'IPvX was just around the corner', the investment levels and time frame to develop would be smaller.)

This announcement screams "The network is a sitting duck!" -- things are no longer moving forward. We need to continue to see innovation and change and improvements in this area to keep expanding the frontiers/edges of the network into new technologies and to keep being a moving target.

Re:So much for R&D and innovation -- (1)

ptudor (22537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250496)

IPv6 dual-homing was still in progress.

I had IPv6 BGP with PI space in late 2006, so... uh...

I'll also add two comments concerning stagnation of technology. 1) MAC Addresses haven't changed in a long time. Yet Ethernet continues to advance, from coax to twisted pair, wireless, and fiber and from a bus to hubs then switches and now L3 switches. (although where are my end-to-end Jumbo Frames already?). A capable foundation does not hinder innovation. 2) Globally unique addresses in applications are the key. Returning the Internet to its mid-90s status quo of every host being a unique peer enables technologies that are simply painful to adopt today, like SIP communications or IPsec between islands of NAT. So we have created an inefficient clientA-server-clientB bandage so people can send each other images in IMs or actually use their webcams. Once the software developers (yes, they're part of my presentations) grasp the advantages of IPv6 I can't even imagine the wonderful new ideas they'll deliver.

IPv4 is simply unsustainable: at some point we'll simply run out of ports per IP to use for PAT. IPv6 has enough addresses to last effectively forever, through the lifetimes of people born today. Versus the status quo, where each person on earth has about half of an IP address if you consider the overhead of VLSM, not enough to cover my mobile phone, my SIP phone, my iPod, my iMac, my MacBook, my colocated servers, nevermind all the nerds in India or China... Would people adopt IPv6 faster if they saw it as a matter of social justice and equal access to technology for all the children of the earth?

(P.S. Everyone please hire me and some of my friends to teach IPv6 classes at your organization and organize your deployment. Thanks)

Re:So much for R&D and innovation -- (1)

Bookwyrm (3535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251354)

You seem to miss my point. It is not about everyone having their own IP address. (Which is really kind of silly when you think about it. We have a broken system where IP address == reachability.) It's about continuing R&D and innovation. Saying "Oh, well, this is good enough! Let's stop thinking." is not a great position.

I do not care if there are enough IPv6 addresses to last until the end of the universe. The address space is not the issue.

Would people adopt IPv6 faster if it resulted in everyone having globally unique and trackable IPv6 addresses (especially if the addresses were generated by using the hardware MAC address) that allowed for easier government and corporate tracking?

Re:So much for R&D and innovation -- (1)

ptudor (22537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254386)

I do not miss your point, I make mine that R&D advances best with a common capable foundation. Ethernet addressing is static, yet Ethernet interfaces advance. IPv4 has been static since RFC1918, yet applications on it have evolved. People will find new uses for multicast and peer-to-peer communications in IPv6. The methods behind DNS haven't changed much since the end of the global hosts file, yet new record types like SRV, AAAA, and RRSIG can arise because of the sublime framework that underlies name resolution.

I mention an encouragement for adoption because remaining with IPv4 works against both our interests, yours in the continuing innovation -- we can't have IP-next-next-gen until we have an IPng network that bests the legacy IPv4 -- and mine in restoring the Internet to its peer-to-peer model.

"Privacy Extensions" address your concern about trackable addresses in IPv6. Browser cookies are a much greater threat to personally identifying a unique machine as it moves from location to location but nonetheless Windows by default enables the generation of a random host address and on linux grep sysctl to enable temp_addr.

Okay... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248858)

Personally I think we should worry about rebuilding the TCP/IP stack from the ground up, instead of worrying about anything else at the moment. At least once IPv6 is in.

Re:Okay... (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252994)

The right time to do that was 11 years ago. Now, we need IPv6.

About TCP, you are very much free to try something else. Replacing or upgrading that part is nowhere near as painful.

URGENTT REQEST FOR ASISTANSE (2)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35248946)

Dear Earthling,

Confidential Business Proposal

Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the Intergalactic Spaceball Chambers Of Commerce And Industry, I have the privilege to request your assistance to transfer the sum of $47,500,000.00 (forty seven million, five hundred thousand Spacebucks) into your accounts. The above sum resulted from an over-invoiced contract, executed, commissioned and paid for about five years (5) ago by a foreign contractor. This action was however intentional and since then the fund has been in a suspense account at The Central Bank Of Planet Spaceball Apex Bank.

We are now ready to transfer the fund intergalactically and that is where you come in. It is important to inform you that as civil servants, we are forbidden to operate a foreign account; that is why we require your assistance. The total sum will be shared as follows: 70% for us, 25% for you and 5% for local and international expenses incidental to the transfer.

The transfer is risk free on both sides. I am an accountant with the Spaceball Galactic Energy Corporation (SGEC). If you find this proposal acceptable, we shall require the following documents:

(a) your banker's name, telephone, account and fax numbers.
(b) your private telephone and fax numbers —for confidentiality and easy communication.
(c) your letter-headed paper stamped and signed.

Alternatively we will furnish you with the text of what to type into your letter-headed paper, along with a breakdown explaining, comprehensively what we require of you. The business will take us thirty (30) Spaceball days to accomplish.

Please reply urgently.

Best regards

Sgt. First Class Philip C. Asshole
Spaceball Intergalactic Fleet
Spaceball Galactic Energy Corporation

Re:URGENTT REQEST FOR ASISTANSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252066)

Dreading that day!

Not needed (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249186)

With IPv6 extension headers, it's entirely possible to, without requiring a whole new protocol, create an extended form of IP address... perhaps using the extension header to contain routing information to send the packet outside of the origin solar system, and using the normal 128 bits for all local traffic.

Re:Not needed (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251548)

If I'm understanding you correctly, then the eight and ninth chevrons are just packet header extensions?

Countdown to yarr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249368)

...and the countdown to astronauts being arrested for space piracy begins. Let's face it, sitting up there with nothing to do AND having internet??? OF COURSE they will be some pirating space fairers!!! Just ask the **AA.

Of course by then they will probably have a 5mb bandwidth cap like the rest of us...

Something other than TCP.. (1)

Myrddin Wyllt (1188671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249562)



/*
* [...] Note that 120 sec is defined in the protocol as the maximum
* possible RTT. I guess we'll have to use something other than TCP
* to talk to the University of Mars.
* PAWS allows us longer timeouts and large windows, so once implemented
* ftp to mars will work nicely.
*/

(Comment from an old version of tcp.c)

What IPV6 isn't good enough? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249634)

You mean we need enough IP address so every person on the planet can have a different IP address for every atom in their body?

Re:What IPV6 isn't good enough? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35249836)

You mean we need enough IP address so every person on the planet can have a different IP address for every atom in their body?

IPv6 already provides that many, and much much more.

For each person alive on the planet today, man, woman and child, there are as many IP addresses in the IPv6 Address Space as there are atoms in a metric ton of carbon.

Get it right the first time. (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249654)

Humans have demonstrated time and time and time again, that they are lazy and reactionary for the most part.
The transition to ipv6 is going to be absolutely huge, I'm sure everyone here doesn't need to be told about the complexities of it.

As far as I'm concerned and I feel I'm probably right, once we go to ipv6, we won't see another protocol implemented in our lifetimes (I'm in my early 30's) period, nada - not gonna happen.
The bigger the internet becomes, the older it becomes and the more devices attached, the more difficult changing the protocol is. It's already going to be a nightmare, don't expect this will get easier.
This is like one day telling all Americans "Sorry, no more 110v - we're moving to 240v power" - it's a pretty monumental task.

So to get to my point, if ipv6 doesn't do what we need or would 'like' it to do, sorry to say but tough shit, someone should have thought of that earlier, because it's going to be here to stay... - of course if you want to see a somewhat faster transition to ipvXX? then just wait until we are completely out of ipv6 addresses, we will then likely transition quicker... I'm sure they won't last long!

Re:Get it right the first time. (1)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250008)

This is like one day telling all Americans "Sorry, no more 110v - we're moving to 240v power"

Most North American households can already do 240 volt, 60 hertz electricity. If you look in the back of a residential electrical panel you'll generally see two bus bars. If you take a voltage reading between those bus bars (make sure the multimeter is set on volts and not amps or you'll smoke your leads) you'll get somewhere between 220-240 volts, depending on your distance from the utility transformer and various other factors. We've got, for the most part, three wires going to every outlet (lighting or receptacle). A quick fix entails taking the neutral (white, according to the National Electrical Code) wire and applying that second phase of 120V to it, and using the ground as a neutral. It's shoddy, and a bit unsafe, but if for some strange reason we absolutely needed to go 240V it could be done with moderate effort, it wouldn't be a moon shot type undertaking. In some areas of the country, where metallic conduit is required for all buildings whether industrial, commercial or residential, you could bond the conduit to the building ground and use that for a ground. It's just a matter of having the right fixtures and receptacles at that point. I can't foresee any situation which would require North America having to go 240V however. The current ~110V does the trick.

More on topic, what I think we'll see as IPv6 becomes more widely adopted is that ISP's will start providing (read: selling) IPv6 capable modems and routers. The onus is really on them, after all. They can't expect Joe Six-Pack to realize, "oh gee, I better upgrade this router my nerdy brother installed so the wife can get her wireless laptop on the intertubes". It's actually a substantially easier fix than the hypothetical 110V-240V conversion.

Re:Get it right the first time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250462)

No, this is more like saying "Sorry Americans, but you have to use metric." Except nobody uses metric except for certain experimental fields and people who were hip to the impending metrication ten years ago.

Re:Get it right the first time. (1)

biggerboy (512438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35254276)

"Humans have demonstrated time and time and time again, that they are lazy and reactionary for the most part."

Humans have demonstrated time and time and time again that they spend way too much time disparaging their own kind in a fit of self-hate.

Favorite line (2)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35249876)

Speaking about Sir Tim Berners-Lee's project for 'semantic web', now called 'deep linking':

My impression is that it's a tough slog, and it's been going for about a decade now. But Tim's been successful in the past, so I would not rule this out as a potential positive outcome, but it's a long haul.

Yes, I suppose inventing HTTP might qualify as a 'past success.'

Obviously it's a joke - Cerf himself has had some successes, or at least un-failures, himself, I hear.

Space Porn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250006)

You mean we can finally see naked pictures of triple-breasted whores from Eroticon 6?

To quote a famous quote.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250248)

we use IPv7 now
  it's pretty much IPv6, but the headers contain porn
  saves bandwidth

Welcome (2)

SavoWood (650474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35250790)

I for one welcome our new InterPlanetary Internet overlords.

Am I really going to click the Post button on this one? Ugh!

Naturally... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35250896)

Eiri Masami hasn't invented it yet.

v7 (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35251436)

Proof positive that Darth Cerf really belongs in space.

Work is going on on v7, but we're not letting those v6 assholes that fucked everything up near it. One day you'll buy a device and it'll just work and it won't be v4 or v6.

First to market wins. Oh and by "to market" I mean "works WITH the current network".

Everyone knows the best porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35252068)

comes from Uranus. We need to get some deep space repeaters near Uranus.

The use case for Bundle is mobile phones (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#35252798)

Forget about interplanetary networking, the primary use case for the Bundle protocol is peer to peer networking of mobile phones over WIFI or Bluetooth. Bypassing the telcos, ISPs, governments etc.

If Bundle was already installed on most phones, the Egyptian (and US) governments would be unable to turn off the network.

 

what is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35254408)

i don't even

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...