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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


what is... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | about 3 years ago | (#35880822)

what is filling in the gap between ipv4 and ipv6? ipv5?

Re:what is... (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#35880938)

NAT and other hacks I imagine.

Truth is, I don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for about 10 years. The reasoning being that:

- while we are technically out of IPs ... this is not the world ending problem it's been hyped to be.. as evidenced by the world not ending
- the stuff we should have been doing 10 years ago at the consumer level we are just starting to do now (how many _new_ home routers still don't do IPv6 .. these will all need to be replaced. In a decade, there will probably be a noticable "IPv6 transition period" layer in all landfills.
- carrier grade NAT "solves" everything

ISPs en-masse should have been giving people IPv6 addresses to play with _years_ ago. I have experimented with IPv6 locally and via tunnel, but it's just not worth it when I don't know how my ISP will allocate addresses. It also concerns me to think how they will roll this out to the masses... because they are going to have to make it user friendly and seemless to the large consumer base... which means it's probably going to be primitive, locked down, and very frustrating for anyone with technical savvy. I _hope_ they don't require everyone to use some half baked custom hardware with some propriatary switchover software that you _have_ to use.

Re:what is... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | about 3 years ago | (#35881130)

look at 64 bit processors, became useful for Win machines in about 2005, but never was adopted until it became seamless in Vista / Win7 and now is the dominate requested in 7 due to the fact that companies are making it easier to find over the 32 bit version back in the day. I think that companies have to come together to make it seamless to convert to ipv6 without alot of effort on end user level.

Re:what is... (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#35881314)

This is actually a really good example of what they should be doing.

Make the tech available first.. let people develop a desire for it. ISPs should be handing out IPv6 addresses to anyone who wants them. Let people play with them optionally... eventually more and more people will... and demand for it will increase. It would be a slow, gradual adoption devoide of excessive headaches...

way too rational to actually happen given the current track record though.

Re:what is... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | about 3 years ago | (#35881408)

Logic, though makes sense to us techies, aspies, and Volkins (sp?), will not be adopted by mainstream earthlings society due to the fact that society is too emotional to allow their logical side take over. Live long and prosper, my friend.

Something I've been wondering... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#35881136)

Something I've been wondering...can't ISPs do IPv6 externally (what outside world sees) and IPv4 internally (their subscribers) - a bit like NAT but bigger?

I doubt many ISPs have more than 2^32 subscribers on a single subnet yet so it seems to me this would solve the problem for a very long time to come. All we need is some routers which do IPv4 to IPv6 conversion at the very top level.

Re:Something I've been wondering... (1, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 3 years ago | (#35881186)

Carrier-grade NAT. Yep it exists and yep some places are using it to get around the IPv4 address shortage already, particularly in certain countries.

Re:Something I've been wondering... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#35881192)

No, wait, I just figured it out. It doesn't work (and no prizes for pointing out why...)

Re:Something I've been wondering... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881348)

that's ironic. We've just DISABLED (mid-Nov 2010) ipv4 traffic on our corporate borders because we don't need "normal" web browsing or v4 email. It's isolationist, we know, but we now get way more time in our national NOC and less desktop hassle. We are unusual in that we don't need v4 web or email, but we're not unusual in that we expect workers to work, not spend 50% of the time infecting our few remaining windows machines.
No nat is good nat. v6 saves us loads of time for our techs.
  What the world needs is dual stacking, and for Windows to stop these 20-30 seconds timeouts. grrrr

Re:Something I've been wondering... (1, Informative)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#35881370)

It does work, as evidenced by the fact that people are already doing exactly that.

Re:what is... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 years ago | (#35881256)

Truth is, I don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for about 10 years. The reasoning being that:

But, at this point that would make IPv6 a recurring meme like the "year of the Linux desktop". IPv6 has been something that's going to happen Real Soon Now for a decade.

One of the barriers I see to consumer adoption of IPv6 is that people simply don't care about it ... it's not an issue that consumers care about or understand. Another problem is that if consumers are suddenly forced to spend their own money to replace, for example, routers/firewalls ... they won't. My personal network behind a NAT'd firewall is IPv4 and I'm willing to expend not very much effort in order to facilitate this ... NMFP.

To an end user, they more or less expect the people who operate the plumbing to sort it out and not involve them.

If you don't expect IPv6 to be widespread for a decade, and it's been that long that it was supposed to be coming on line ... well, then I'm afraid I have to conclude that falls into the category of "epic failure".

Re:what is... (4, Interesting)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#35881412)

Totally agreed.

Another component of the problem is that IPv6 is quite different from IPv4. Arguably better... but people don't like different.

I understand why it happened, the internet _is_ the legacy problem. You can't just roll out a patch to the internet every few years... once it's running it has to work for a long time. I think a lot of people saw this as a good opportunity to fix some other problems ... and the result is people are going to have to change the way they think about certain things, which is going to lead to resistance.

Even myself, who enjoys change. I am comfortable with how NAT works. It makes sense to me. I hear things like "every device gets a public IP" and freak out. Now that I understand how it works (read: gateways suddenly became a lot more important) it's not so bad... but I can see why a lot of people, especially who don't work with networks as a career... are just saying "screw that, I'll deal when something actually happens to cause _me_ grief".

And there is no benifit to the ISP either. They can't charge more money to upgrade people to IPv6 because as you said, there is no benifit to the consumer. It just costs them money.. _and_ is going to generate more user issues which is more money and maybe some lost business.

Ultimately, until shit actually starts failing in a big way.. nothing is going to happen.

Re:what is... (1, Informative)

jd (1658) | about 3 years ago | (#35881344)

The world actually ended last night at around 8pm. Skynet, however, has opted to put us in the Matrix as their robot division was bought out by General Motors.

Re:what is... (1)

dwye (1127395) | about 3 years ago | (#35881488)

> while we are technically out of IPs

Actually, "we" are not out of IP addresses, for large definitions of "we". Certain countries have grown (in IP usage terms) far faster than expected, and are running out, and all the available blocks have been allocated to countries and/or upper ISPs.

OTOH, no one has been told that nothing is available to the individual or, worse, to a company, yet. At least not anywhere "important" (sorry, Peoples Republic of China, but you aren't important to Comcast, just as the Chinese IP authority wouldn't care if Comcast ran out).

BTW, consumer-owned routers will not be the problem. The problem will be the ISP-owned cable and/or DSL modems, the vast majority of which are likely to be flaky with IPV6.

Re:what is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880944)

Your mum.

Re:what is... (1)

obergfellja (947995) | about 3 years ago | (#35881058)

unlike your mum, which is so fat, she engulfs all ipv's

Re:what is... (2)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#35881334)

Would have been a heck of a lot funnier if you said her LAN is so big, it has a /48 v6 allocation whereas my woman has a cute little /64 sized allocation.
All the guys in the neighborhood use her 6to4 service every night?
My IPv6 tunnel to her has a long uptime?

If you're gonna post, at least put in some effort.

home routers (5, Interesting)

yincrash (854885) | about 3 years ago | (#35880826)

How many home routers support IPv6?

Re:home routers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880878)

How many ISPs have rolled out IPv6 to the masses?

Re:home routers (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880914)

Colour TV problem. There was no colour programming because there were no colour sets, so there were no colour sets because there was no colour programming yet.

Re:home routers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881036)

Few of the home gateway/routers have full support yet and many still have no support. Don't expect proper support in a good chunk of the home gateways until early 2012 at the earliest. Even then, it'll be buggy and need patches.

As well, many of the standards for the LAN side implementation of IPv6 and the issues around it are still in multiple draft mode and not finalized.

It's not just a case of one party not being ready, but no one is ready... ISPs, CPE makers, and standards bodies.

Re:home routers (2)

MaerD (954222) | about 3 years ago | (#35881082)

Very close, except that IPV4 isn't automatically able to talk on an IPV6 network, where as your black and white set kept getting a picture, even if it was broadcast in color.

Digital TV (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#35881118)

In that case, the transition from NTSC to ATSC might be a better analogy. It needed an act of Congress to make it happen.

but people with cable or satellite tv where ok (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881200)

but people with cable or satellite tv where ok well maybe with cable you need a box but in some areas before that analog cable was cut down and you needed a box to get most channels any ways.

Now IPV6 is says that you cable box needs to be swapped out as well the back end systems at the head end as well.

It's like pulling all the SD boxes or all the MPEG 2 HD boxes and going MPEG 4 only. It's a lot of hardware to swap out.

Re:home routers (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 years ago | (#35881230)

As someone posted earlier, ISP to subscriber traffic can be IPv4 while backbone traffic between ISPs can be IPv6. I'd switch over right now if my ISP provides IPv6 to the home, even if it meant buying new routers.

Re:home routers (2)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#35881396)

Very close, except that IPV4 isn't automatically able to talk on an IPV6 network, where as your black and white set kept getting a picture, even if it was broadcast in color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-stack#Dual_IP_stack_implementation [wikipedia.org]

I welcome you to the world of dual stacking. Just jump in, the water is nice. I've been there since the late 90s, maybe early 00s. Around a decade, anyway. The rest of the world will catch up, eventually.

Re:home routers (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 years ago | (#35881484)

Except that pure IPv6 networks aren't even what we're talking about here. Dual Stacking has been available for ages (and most OSes turn it on by default), but since your average home ISP (and their "router") won't touch IPv6, it's been sitting there doing nothing.

Really, the first step in getting IPv6 deployed is for ISPs to start handing out addresses. It's going to break a lot of stuff and people will have to go around fixing it all, but that has to be done anyway. Best to just get it out of the way before we're in a full-on address crunch.

Re:home routers (1)

obergfellja (947995) | about 3 years ago | (#35881258)

what about 3d-HDTVs? they exists, yet there is virtually no channels worth watching in 3D. Granted, there are some movies, but you have to buy more technology to watch that, and than the software (3d-blu-ray dvds) It is about finances. How many are willing to put up the initial funding to get the product out?

Re:home routers (2)

matt_lethargic (1420947) | about 3 years ago | (#35880928)

Both my points as well. Until ISPs get on the case and until they start giving out routers that support IPv6 it'll not take off. And here in the UK none of the ISPs seem to care!

Re:home routers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881434)

Why are you relying on your ISP for a router?

Do you wait patiently for your water supplier to provide tumblers so that you can drink?

Think of an ISP as the BBC. They provide a service. You provide the equipment to access that service. Why would the BBC lease you a radio to access their service? What would be in it for them to hold all that hardware in inventory?

Re:home routers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881028)

It won't even matter if the customers home routers don't support it. My ISP is running a 4to6 even though my dd-wrt router is setup for ipv6. Kinda sad. On the other hand it is somewhat understandable as the ISPs would probably have to buy new hardware.

Re:home routers (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 3 years ago | (#35881216)

Mine has. It allocates you both a single public IPv4 address and a /56 IPv6 block upon connecting (if your modem is IPv6 compatible).

But it's in the vast minority, as most here will know.

Re:home routers (2)

Eggplant62 (120514) | about 3 years ago | (#35880946)

I'd run IPv6 but for this reason. I've looked around to see if there's a firmware upgrade for my routers that will support the new addressing scheme, but no dice, and I don't relish spending another $75 to
$100 to replace 2 routers. I suppose I'm not the only guy in the world with this problem. So I guess there's your reason.

Re:home routers (2)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 3 years ago | (#35881308)

My ISP gave me the option to switch to IPv6. I did that. On my home network I am still using IPv4 and go through a NAT because I am a lazy person, but I can access IPv6 websites easily.

It happened once that someone sent a link to an IPv6 website on a mailing list I use, some people complained they could not access it but he said he had no way of having a fixed IPv4 address. I expect that as more people do that the pressure on ISPs will increase.

Re:home routers (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#35881464)

I'd run IPv6 but for this reason. I've looked around to see if there's a firmware upgrade for my routers that will support the new addressing scheme, but no dice, and I don't relish spending another $75 to
$100 to replace 2 routers. I suppose I'm not the only guy in the world with this problem. So I guess there's your reason.

Pick up two $10 class PCs, two $5 LAN cards if necessary, less than an hour installing linux, all done and have fun. Educational, at least as educational as inserting a cdrom and googling for 15 seconds "how to get up iptables NAT" can be...

If you insist on new, you can buy appliance FWs over and over every other year, or you can buy an appliance PC like a Soekris once a decade or so... Sorta like buying cheap shoes at walmart every month or twice that cost shoes at Kohls every year...

Re:home routers (3, Interesting)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 3 years ago | (#35880970)

More than you'd realize. But even so, their's no reason why IPv4 cannot be used by ISPs. NATs are used by many already. NATs for that matter are undoubtedly why IPv6 isn't taking off. They perpetuate ISPs' ability to sell static IP addresses at a premium while making it difficult for the rest to use devices as servers on home networks. Its just another example of big business trying to find ways to squeeze every last dime out of old paradigms to the detriment of progress.

Re:home routers (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 years ago | (#35881152)

In other words, converting to IPV6 is more expensive than keeping IPV4. Are YOU willing to pay an extra $5/mo for IPV6, along with everyone else using your particular ISP? No? Then you're just one of those customers that is trying to squeeze every last "free" thing they can get from big business.

If you want it, demand it, pay for it. But chances are, your puny wireless router can't do IPV6 and like most people are too cheap to buy one that does that properly.

Either that, you bought a router that had IPV6 and did a firmware upgrade so that my smartphone would work properly with WPA/TKIP and found out later that they removed key IPV6 features from the firmware. AGGGGHHHHH

Re:home routers (1)

enec (1922548) | about 3 years ago | (#35881346)

Are YOU willing to pay an extra $5/mo for IPV6, along with everyone else using your particular ISP?

I would be. And I imagine a fair share of other like-minded people. I just can't find any decent ISPs over here supporting ipv6, paid extra feature or not.

Re:home routers (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | about 3 years ago | (#35881474)

This is based on the idea that everyone wants to run services from home, and that's just not the case for the world outside Slashdot. The vast majority of people would have zero use for that functionality.

The reason people haven't leapt on IPv6 is because it's a pain in the ass. Organizationally, it's probably the worst transition you can imagine. We did a IPv4->IPv4 (public range to private range) transition company wide a few years back, and it was godawful, and that's just for a piddly ass /16 block that already *had* some LANs in the private range, where all sites were WAN'd with high-end routers that were all interconnected in tight BGP circuits that *theoretically* should have just picked up the routing changes.

And it went well. Reasonably. No catastrophic failures. Manageable scheduled downtime. But shifting 10,000+ plus unique addresses is a nightmare, and every time a site moved, we had to spend hours checking servers, and babying the goddamn DCs. I can't think anyone would want to do it if they didn't absolutely have to.

Re:home routers (1)

elPetak (2016752) | about 3 years ago | (#35881182)

If you switch to alternative open firmwares like dd-wrt for example, there are a lot of home routers that can get ipv6 support even if the factory firmware doesn't support it.
I have an old wrt54gl from linksys running dd-wrt and my ipv6 tunnel with Hurrican Electric works perfectly fine.

Re:home routers (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 3 years ago | (#35881222)

I believe that any DOCSIS3 modem HAS to be IPv6 ready in some form, as part of the DOCSIS3 spec (please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but as far as I am aware, this is the case). Now I don't profess to know how NAT really works at the low level, but from my understanding, a router takes a single external IP and "shares" it via NAT as a (usually) 192.168.x.x IP.
My question is this - is it possible to NAT an IPv6 IP to an IPv4 address? So while normally your external IP is (for example) yet internally your IP is (for example), is there any technical limitation as to why your external IP can't be an IPv6 address but still use an IPv4 address internally?
Basically, I'm asking if the "routers don't support IPv6" issue can be solved with some jiggery pokery on the Modem side, whereby the modem gives the router an IPv4 address to play with (that's not actually external), which gets NAT'd as normal, but on the modem side, this IPv4 address gets translated to the "real" IPv6 address? Is there some reason why this is simply not possible? And if the router requests an IPv6 address (or addresses - one can hope), it's just BAU?
I wouldn't expect it to necessarily work for everything, but surely it's a reasonable stopgap. If it's possible, I mean.

Re:home routers (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | about 3 years ago | (#35881292)

Even then? What do I gain? I have a Soekris net5501-70 doing my routing for me and it's connected by using a ADSL modem in bridge mode. It runs OpenBSD. I can switch now, as my ISP supports IPv6 by just changing the login credentials from myusername@myisp.com to myusername@ipv6.myisp.com.

I tried, it works... I get an IPv4 and an IPv6 address, just as it's supposed to. Alas, it also broke some of my scripts that assume IPv4, which is obviously my fault, but I haven't come around fixing them. However, when I have done that, what then?

I think I will have to change my firewall rules (currently NAT + strong IPv4 filtering, IPv6 is all blocked) and migrate my network. Changing the firewall rules, I don't expect to be hard, but how the heck do I migrate my internal network? I know about "rtadvd", but that's how far my knowledge stretches.

I really like having DHCP distribute fixed IP addresses and my DNS server to know which IP is what. It's really easier to remember gimli instead of or so. The whole IPv6 autoconfig may work, but it unnerves me that it takes away my control.

So, you see, even geeks who can go IPv6 are reluctant... At least I am... (Okay, being married and not be able to spend my whole evenings toying with computers is a big factor.... Time, where has thou gone?)

Re:home routers (2)

mmontour (2208) | about 3 years ago | (#35881440)

How many home routers support IPv6?

Any of the recent Apple ones, like the Time Capsule I'm currently using with a tunnelbroker.net tunnel.

The real question is how many major websites support IPv6? Google (ipv6.google.com), Facebook (www.v6.facebook.com), and not too many others that I can think of. Normal people won't set up a tunnel or ask their ISP about v6 availability unless they have a reason to use it.

Slashdot itself is one site that should have been there years ago, given its techie nature. The last time I checked I could not find any AAAA records for it. Get with the program you slackers.

Re:home routers (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#35881446)

equally a question of how many ISP's support their users using IPv6? Comcast doesn't exactly allow everyone to use it yet, sadly.

I IRC over IPv6 (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 3 years ago | (#35880844)

I've tried to set up my home network to prefer my IPv6 tunnel from Sixxs over IPv4 but there are oh so many hosts on the net that only support IPv4. Slashdot.org is a great example of such a host...

Maybe if more websites and other services actually supported IPv6 we'd see it "take off". Currently it's a bit like complaining about no one taking the train when there are only two stations in the whole country.

Re:I IRC over IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881026)

Support has to start at the ISP level. ISP must start making native, high speed ipv6 (tunnels) available. Large websites should then follow (google, ms, facebook, etc.). Then, ISP start cutting back on ipv4 addresses as they ACTUALLY run out. Little site X notices they don't have any more website views, and that they actually do need to provide ipv6. Then they are financially forced to roll out ipv6 support. This isn't a big deal, the whole stupid "net neutrality" debacle needs to be replaced with ipv6 rollout.

What do you expect (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 3 years ago | (#35880862)

IPv6 adoption wasn't just going to happen overnight.

Re:What do you expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880936)

Perhaps not, But the time it has taken is insane. We've known about this problem since 1994 roughly . And we are JUST now addressing it.

Re:What do you expect (1)

elPetak (2016752) | about 3 years ago | (#35881094)

This is what usually happens when "the man" can't see a financial benefit from doing something.
Why bother investing in ipv6 migration if the return of that investment would take ages if it ever happens?

Re:What do you expect (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35881380)

No, but IPv6 adoption should have been happening by now. It's a bit like being hit by a train whilst standing in the tracks, you know eventually you're going to have to do something about it, but the engineer hasn't yet blown the horn, so clearly you can wait longer.

Running out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880870)

I thought we already ran out a few months back? Oh, I guess that was some media scare tactic to make people think the internet is dying or something.

Can we please just admit that there are more resources left in v4 than is widely believed? I mean, if the sky were really falling, why aren't we pushing hard for v6?

This leads me to believe that the whole IPv6 thing is useless and unnecessary, and there are people who want to move because they feel like there has to be something new with everything and cannot accept something that just works.

Re:Running out? (2)

amn108 (1231606) | about 3 years ago | (#35881296)

The thing is that there is a difference between not having any spare IPv4 networks to hand out from the top and Internet not working. Internet is kept together by way of network address translation. Correct me if I am wrong bearded network gurus, but to my understanding it is the 65536 ports that fill in for lacking addresses, correct? I mean, that's how and why NAT works, right?

Put another way, a home network usually is given a single address by its connecting entity - the ISP usually, but that doesn't restrict it to a single user. Same thing, different scale is happening on Internet. We are essentially NAT-ting everything we can. Maybe it is because of that that IPv6 won't kick in for another X years or so - I mean, why, what's the problem? NAT keeps Intertubez connected and blinking.

Re:Running out? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35881416)

Wow, the sheer incompetence is mind blowing. Yes, we could go almost indefinitely without IPv6, but it would be a situation of NAT upon NAT upon turtles, and well, lets be honest from there it's turtles all the way down.

The problem is that there are a lot of services which don't work with NAT, and if we limit ourselves to just the ones that do, there's all sorts of cool things which nobody will bother to invent because they're impossible.

As has often been suggested around here, just because something is good enough, does not mean that it's acceptable. If the telecoms weren't so damned greedy, we could have IPv6, they're already gouging us on service as it is, requiring them to actually provide proper IPv6 shouldn't require rate changes.

IPv4 not dead yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880874)

When it becomes difficult for the average user or corporation to get an IPv4 address, then we will probably see IPv6 getting used more. Who wants IPv6 now? It will only reduce your audience.

duh (1)

homie (88256) | about 3 years ago | (#35880884)

Until major bandwidth sites like youtube post AAAA records, even if clients do have IPv6 connectivity they wont be using it for a large percentage of thier traffic.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881366)

dig www.youtube.com aaaa

; > DiG 9.4.3-P3 > www.youtube.com aaaa
; global options: printcmd
; Got answer:
; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 44575
; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 7, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: 0

; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.youtube.com. IN AAAA

www.youtube.com. 84895 IN CNAME youtube-ui.l.google.com.
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::8a
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::64
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::71
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::65
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::66
youtube-ui.l.google.com. 163 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b006::8b

That's over a year old.

Why should I bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35880886)

I can tunnel over to IPv6 (waste of time and bandwidth) or I can continue not to care about IPv6 and use the Internet like 95% of internet users who do not care for anything under the hood except for being able to access their email, banks, and facebook account.

IPv6 needs a structured top-down approach and not the other way around, where users willingly switch over. This will never work.

Re:Why should I bother? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#35881368)

I can tunnel over to IPv6 (waste of time and bandwidth) or I can continue not to care about IPv6 and use the Internet like 95% of internet users who do not care for anything under the hood except for being able to access their email, banks, and facebook account.

All the cool kids use IPV6.

The rest of the world? (1)

shalomsky (952094) | about 3 years ago | (#35880916)

What about the rest of the world? Brazil, Russia, India, China, France? Other countries? Aren't they using it more than the U.S.? I think the U.S. will be the slowest to migrate. We have the least need. Or so people perceive it.

Derp (1)

stonecypher (118140) | about 3 years ago | (#35880940)

That's because most people's home internet - eg the fantastically expensive Verizon FiOS network - don't even do IPv6 routing yet.

Re:Derp (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#35881090)

Fantastically expensive?
I get 25/25 for $43 after taxes and fees. That is less than I was paying TWC for 15/5, and I actually get 25/25. With the cable company I got about 10/1.

Re:Derp (3, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 3 years ago | (#35881168)

Yeah, but you're not factoring in the cost to move to an area where Verizon offers FiOS.

Re:Derp (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#35881382)

Good show. I was lucky enough to happen to have them pick my neighborhood. I wish they would roll it out everywhere, or someone would actually compete with them. Seems that neither of those will happen.

Re:Derp (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35881444)

It sounds like your living in an area of the country with actual competition. Around here I've got the fastest connection offered, at a whopping 5mbps up from 4mbps a decade a go, and I have yet to get a speed test that tells me I'm getting anything over 3mbps.

And, the cost is $50 a month, before taxes, IIRC, if I want to switch to an ISP with decent latency, good luck, all of the options are pretty pathetic in that regards.

Priorities (1)

tpotus (1856224) | about 3 years ago | (#35880948)

For the players of the internet infrastructure market ipv6 is uninteresting. They've divided the v4 address space between them and have crafted strategies to dominate the market. This is nothing exceptional or strange, but rather applied business strategy. I'd bet that they're willing and even motivated to fight v6 adoption for the purpose of maintaining their position at current terms of technological environment. As they see it, v4 is delimited to something ownable, controllable. V6 is for them something that would reset the playing field and make a significant portion of their investments obsolete.

hard to even get a provider (1)

brezel (890656) | about 3 years ago | (#35880960)

i don't know how it looks in other parts of the world but here in austria it is close to impossible to even find a provider that will offer you a routable ipv6 address. i checked the biggest providers available in my area and the only thing i could get would have been a tunnel.

ISPs (1)

Spad (470073) | about 3 years ago | (#35880968)

My ISP (Virgin Media) have said that they've "got enough" IPv4 addresses and that they'll start to look at IPv6 "sometime in 2012", so it's not like people are falling over each other to get IPv6 support up and running.

Hmmm (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 3 years ago | (#35880980)

Let's say I'm an ISP and I have a bunch of IPv4 addresses. I can invest and convert my customers to IPv6 or only add new IPv6 customers. Or I can make like the IPv4 addresses are a rare commodity and charge more for them.
Hmmmm... Gouge or invest, what will it be, what would Ma Bell do, where's my federal subsidy ?

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881324)

Invest AND gouge.

Invest in IPv6 and silently transition everyone to them.

Gouge the people who want IPv4 addresses and sell your block for "3. Profit!"

Just a thought (1, Interesting)

TrentTheThief (118302) | about 3 years ago | (#35881012)

IMHO, if the IPv6 spec drops the Interface ID requirement, then IPv6 use may change. I don't think that anyone is particularly jumping for joy to have their machine uniquely identified on the net.

Re:Just a thought (3, Informative)

maswan (106561) | about 3 years ago | (#35881178)

There is no such requirement!

One of the many possibilities for choosing the local part of the network is using the MAC address of the network interface. There are several other choices available, like choosing one manually or generating a random one (you can in fact generate random ones rather frequently, see "privacy extensions").

Depending on your OS vendor, one of these will be the default behavior, but you don't have to do it that way if you don't like it.

Privacy addressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881194)

This was fixed years ago; it's called privacy addressing.

Re:Just a thought (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | about 3 years ago | (#35881218)

Please look up "Privacy Extensions". This is enabled by default on Windows 7, and can be enabled easily on Linux (if not enabled by distro) and OS X. This way you won't be identified anymore.

Re:Just a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881376)

This was figured out and RFC'd (4941) in 2007.


It's been implemented everywhere. But people will keep repeating it for crapping out "opinions".

Re:Just a thought (1)

BandoMcHando (85123) | about 3 years ago | (#35881436)

I believe the requirement of generating an EUI-64 address from the MAC address of the network interface isn't an absolute 'must', but a 'should', i.e. you can generate the last 64 bits of the IPv6 address in a different way if you wish (I think the RFC mentions doing this for privacy reasons?), the major requirement being that it is unique within the /64 subnet.

I think Windows Vista used EUI-64 to generate the last 64 bits of an IPv6 address, but Windows 7 generates it randomly?

Blind men and an elephant (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#35881096)

Nothing but the blind men and an elephant in the internet age.

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

From what little I have access to, I see it increasing. From what little they have access to, they see it increasing in absolute but decreasing in relative. I'm sure someone else out there can get an equally meaningless datapoint. Who cares.

I've switched at least some of my infrastructure over to v6. It just works. How boring. In other news, the sun rose in the east today.

Question for those who know more about networking (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | about 3 years ago | (#35881108)

Guys, I am sure there's 100 reasons why this is a dumb idea, but let me just ask.

Why couldn't every ISP that offers consumer-grade connectivity (that doesn't allow serving) do NAT at the ISP level, and give you a few IPs out of their internal Class A? Why couldn't portable devices on a wireless network (looking at smartphones and other 3G stuff) have a NATted IP from Verizon/Sprint/AT&T? Yes, I know it's not as cool to have a NAT address, but you could pay a couple bucks extra for a static, public IP as many broadband customers do now. As far as I understand, for any day-to-day web surfing, chat, media, etc., that would work just fine, unless you wanted to create a public server (at which point you'd buy a static/public IP).

Seems to me this would allow everybody's IPv4 routers and stuff to continue to work just fine, and reclaim tens of millions of IPs from ISPs that would no longer need them (as they could drop to a small number of public IPs to share across the NAT users).

I'm sure I'm missing something, as this scenario seems entirely too convenient to have been ignored. But it should make for good discussion.

Re:Question for those who know more about networki (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881320)

As far as I understand, for any day-to-day web surfing, chat, media, etc., that would work just fine, unless you wanted to create a public server (at which point you'd buy a static/public IP).

Other popular things can break though - like Skype (as a supernode), and bittorrent that rely on peering traffic. NAT'ing consumer connections effectively walls off any peering services from the Internet.

Re:Question for those who know more about networki (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881338)

First, massive "carrier grade" NATs carrying hundreds of gigabits of traffic to millions of customers are expensive. Second, if the ISP NATs and your home router NATs again you're double-NATted, which breaks the Internet even more than it's broken now.

Re:Question for those who know more about networki (1)

doshell (757915) | about 3 years ago | (#35881394)

It could work as you describe, but not without some massive investment by the ISPs. That investment would be better made on IPv6 which is a definitive solution as opposed to the band-aid that NAT is.

Re:Question for those who know more about networki (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | about 3 years ago | (#35881448)

It's not that you are missing anything, and it's not even the area you are talking about that is the main problem... it is corporations. (isn't it always :) Through greed, inefficient use, and myriad other issues *that* is where the bulk of the waste is. ISPs could definitely run like any global or even national company does with a private address space and NATing. I'd say 75% of users would never care or know the difference, the other 25% would gladly pay a few dollars to have an actual address. I'd much rather pay for something like that than artificial bandwidth restrictions and bullshit like that.

Smartphones/wifi devices are a pain in the ass network-wise in general, but there is almost *zero* reason NAT would not be perfect here. People aren't hosting content on them and they are basically Internet viewers as it is. Give yourself a bit more credit!

Hm, could it be nobody likes IPv6? (1)

ThinkDifferently (853608) | about 3 years ago | (#35881240)

I know I don't. Could they have come up with a more hard to remember addressing scheme?

Re:Hm, could it be nobody likes IPv6? (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 3 years ago | (#35881294)

I know I don't. Could they have come up with a more hard to remember addressing scheme?

If only they could invent a system that could translate from easy remember names to addresses

Mobile only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881262)

Why not force the mobile phone segment over to IPv6? It's the fastest growing tech segment on the planet in need of address space! The home, corporate, isp IP need, though growing, pales in comparison to what the mobile market is demanding now and in the near future.

Has anyone at IANA even suggested this? Too much burden on the telco's to get their shit together? For all the 'claimed' tech. infrastructure being deployed around the world, doesn't seem like IPv6 is getting as much lip service as an implemented priority, compared to the constant bitching of impending IPv4 doom.

I'll happily admit... (1)

rAiNsT0rm (877553) | about 3 years ago | (#35881264)

I'm a network admin and I honestly don't know enough about it to be proficient or even comfortable. I, along with many in my position, are so swamped and overwhelmed in day-to-day operations that there is no chance of learning enough about it to be able to undertake the kinds of overhauls and ripple effects it would bring. I'd love to get some training and utilize it if there were some gains to be had without needing to replace massive amounts of gear or reorganizing/restructuring things... I just don't see it happening.

Re:I'll happily admit... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 3 years ago | (#35881418)

Once there are IPv6-only websites ... and it eventually will happen ... then it will be time for you to RTFM.

Re:I'll happily admit... (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35881494)

Once the boss needs to go to IPv6-only websites ... and it eventually will happen ... then it will be time for you to RTFM.

IPv6 is the Internet protocol of the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881278)

...and it always will be.

IPv6 demand would soar if ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 3 years ago | (#35881288)

... all the pr0n, warez, tunez, and moveez sites were to allow free access for non-tunnel IPv6 users.

Re:IPv6 demand would soar if ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881462)

God, no! I'm sure that every fundamentalist group in the USA would then lobby Congress to ban IPv6, ultimate tool of the devil!

The real reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881404)

The real reason for low adoption of IPv6 is that it would decrease demand in hosting and clould services at least for personal use as everyone will be able to access their home computers from everywhere. Service providers does not want IPv6.

The boy who cried wolf... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35881470)

Honestly, the subject of the post if flame bait. I am aware of the need for IPv6 and fully support its deployment. But we've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are running out, RUNNING OUT!!!!!!!!!!! for years. No one is going to do anything until there's really a problem, so let's stop speculating.

makes perfect sense to me (2, Insightful)

argoff (142580) | about 3 years ago | (#35881472)

In truth, IPv6 for an internal network doesn't make any sense at all, it's not worth the switch for most people. For the internet, it may make some sense if the cost of a fixed IP address is too much, and you provide or use a service that can't use NAT, and the people who are trying to reach you are from a new audience who are not IPv4 bound, and other means like dynamic DNS are not practical. The key question, isn't the number of IPv4 addresses available, but the number that absolutely must be fixed for people to go about their business ... and that number is probably closer to a few million, than to 4 billion.

IMHO, the key problem here is that the powers that be are not letting IP addresses be allocated by the market, but rather by assignment. The market would automatically adjust supply, and demand, and once the cost reached a certain threshold (if ever) ... that would determine when people think it's worth it to switch.

I remember a few years ago, I talked about how IPv6 was overrated on slashdot and in the tech community, and promptly got blown off and down voted. They may have had a fundamental understanding about the technology, but didn't jack fuck about the marketplace.

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