Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

IPv6 Traffic Volumes Are Low, But Nobody Knows How Low

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the I'm-waiting-for-IPv8 dept.

The Internet 231

netbuzz writes "As the June 8 World IPv6 Day experiment draws near, there is universal agreement that little IPv6 traffic is traversing the Internet at the moment. The event is designed in part to increase that volume. However, it will be difficult for Internet policymakers, engineers and the user community at large to tell how the upgrade to IPv6 is progressing because no one has accurate or comprehensive statistics about how much Internet traffic is IPv6 versus IPv4." And in case you don't know much about IPv6 and why it matters, dave.io has kindly provided "a primer on the IPv6 transition: why it's cool, how to get started with it and what's changed."

cancel ×

231 comments

I'd use ipv6 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228240)

but comcast would just throttle that too.

why bother spending money to change anything... when the isps will just find a way to fuck it up.

I'd use ipv6... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228324)

... but my university network, which was touted as 'modern' doesn't even offer it. Of course, it does offer some rather obnoxious censoring since last September: what the FUCK did Google Labs ever do to Corvinus?

Re:I'd use ipv6... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228478)

University of Sheffield (UK) doesn't support ipv6 either.

Re:I'd use ipv6 (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229174)

Comcast is actually doing something right with IPv6. They've already started to roll out dual stack.

ISP:s at fault (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228244)

Since the ISP:s don't want to offer IPv6 to their customers the traffic is a lot lower than it could have been.

Right now it's necessary to do tunneling to an access point for IPv6 and that's not convenient for the majority of the internet users.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228376)

Router makers are just as at fault. Our ISP gave everyone a "mandatory" free upgrade to 16mbps last year with ADSL2+ routers (even though the one I already had can do 2+, it wouldn't get above 8mbps). They barely support IPv4 without crashing, forget v6.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228692)

>>>Our ISP gave everyone a "mandatory" free upgrade to 16mbps last year with ADSL2+

You get 16 mbit/s over DSL? Really??? I'd always heard (mainly from /.) that dsl == slower and inferior compared than cable.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228784)

That would be correct. I'm getting 40/4 mbit from cable, and if I go for a subscription that's €15 more expensive I could get 120/10 mbit. There isn't any version or provider of dsl that gets me over 4/.5 mbit here.

Re:ISP:s at fault (3, Informative)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228872)

ADSL 2+ can get to 24 Mbps theoretical, IIRC. VDSL can get to 100 Mbps+, but you have to be very close to the ISP. I believe cable can get those speeds over a longer distance.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228880)

I never understood this US silliness of distinguishing cable from DSL. In my country, everything gets touted as ADSL, except for fiber and some rare super-expensive SDSL-lines.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228944)

The reason is that the phone company owns the phone cables coming into a person's house, and the cable company owns the cable cable coming into a person's house. And the cable company isn't required to lease capacity to anybody else. Now with some areas having fiber those would have possibly a third set of wires connected potentially owned by a 3rd company.

Re:ISP:s at fault (2, Informative)

elPetak (2016752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228966)

I'm not in the US and I don't consider Cable an ADSL as the same thing.
Do you even understand how the technology behind each option works?
Or on a lower level. Do you know the difference between a stardard phone cable and a coaxial cable and how that affects signal quality and available bandwidth?
Go read some books and come back later.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228920)

ADSL2+, which is the main version of the DSL technology used in most countries supports up to 24 Mbit downstream and up to 1 Mbit upstream (Annex A) or 2.5 Mbit upstream (Annex M). However, the speed you get is highly dependent on the length of your phone line - you have to be within a few hundred meters of the exchange to get the max speed. So it's luck of the draw depending on where you live in relationship to your telephone exchange.

Personally I am on a fairly long phone line of around 3.5 km which limits my modem to getting around 7 or 8 Mbit. If I lived closer to the exchange I'd get faster.

I am guessing from your comment that you live in North America. For some reason there's been very little deployment of ADSL2/2+ in North America. Most areas still only have ADSL1, which is limited to 8 Mbit down (less if you are more than a couple of miles from the exchange). I suspect this is at least partly due to the very high penetration rates of comparatively fast cable Internet in American compared to other countries.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

tecmec (870283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228956)

It's not really a big deal. I have a 10Mbps DSL connection with no cap for $40 a month from SaskTel [sasktel.com] . They actually offer connections up to 25Mbps (DSL, I kid you not), but they cost nearly $100 a month. Still though, no caps. VDSL [wikipedia.org]

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229228)

You can get great speeds over DSL (especially VDLS2), you just need to keep the loop length short (< 1km)

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229364)

Ack, didn't mean to post that yet.

Anyway, I can get 25 Mbps over DSL today, anywhere in the city (as opposed to either of the cable ISPs which only offer it in select areas), due to the phone company pouring a fair bit of money into cutting the loop length down to 900m maximum and investing in fibre-to-the-node, with fibre-to-the-premises coming soon. I'm pretty sure they could crank that up to 50Mbps whenever they wanted, but are probably holding that in reserve for business reasons so they can one-up the cable companies when they announce they're majorly rolling out 25/50Mbps.

Though my ISP doesn't appear to have any publicly announced plans for IPv6. =/

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229366)

Depends on where you live. My max DSL rate is 3 down, 768 up because Qwest hasn't updated their switch to support anything faster. I'm hoping they do soon now that Comcast isn't the only choice (we recently got a WiMax network in the area). If they don't by the time my contract is up, I'm switching (if they offer static IPs, which has been my problem with many ISPs in the past, including Comcast, even though they now offers them).

Anyhow, comparing Comcast's speeds to DSL is not really an apples to apples comparison. Comcast runs a token ring network or something similar (a big loop with all the computers on the loop) and DSL is a star network. The big loop has less wires, but everyone needs to take their turn on it, whereas star goes directly back to the hub. In general, a star network will perform consistently at the same speed whereas a loop will tend to be slower at peak hours. One of the reasons I left Comcast years ago (aside from no static IPs and their overpriced cable packages compared to DISH, especially for non-sports fans) was my neighborhood was oversaturated and got horrible peak data rates (as in, 1-2 second lags in games and hours to download relatively small files). It seems Comcast has resolved that for the most part by vastly improving the infrastructure, but it will take a lot more than that to ever get me back as a customer (my customer service experience was terrible and they never did anything for me - in contrast, DISH gave me a year of Starz for free and has offered several free rewards for loyalty over the past few years).

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230430)

It is inferior. I can get 30mbps with cable here.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229066)

I have a Comcast business line at home and have the same problem. The SMC modem/router that you get is a festering pile of shit. Doesn't support v6 at all and needs to be rebooted at least once a week. My "core" Cisco router has a DOCSIS 2 port on it, but Comcast says that I can't use it on their business class line.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

threephaseboy (215589) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229278)

SMC8014? I have the same one. The trick is to not use any NAT on the device itself, disable the firewall and SPI for the static IP, and just use it like a bridge.
I have mine connected to a linux box that does all the routing/NAT (and ipv6 via 6rd), just checked the stats on the modem and it's been running for 144 days without a hiccup.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228378)

Tunneling isn't just inconvenient for the average user. What keeps me from doing IPv6 tunneling is an utter lack of clarity on the migration path from there. When my ISP finally does give me a 16-bit subnet in the v6 address space, I expect that I will have to go through all of that configuration again from the start and also end up spending days debugging the tiny bits of the tunneling configuration and software that didn't come out cleanly. It all sounds like a major hassle, and the only benefit is that I will be able to browse some small portion of the same websites at a slower speed (due to the tunnel) and probably have slower DNS lookups (because, presumably, my system would have to check through the tunnel for an IPv6 address and therefore take longer than using a more local DNS).

The cost-benefit just isn't there for tunneling. I lose time setting it up, lose future time un-setting it up, and get worse performance with absolutely no additional, noticeable service available in between.

Re:ISP:s at fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228438)

You will get a 64-bit subnet, not 16. I guess they could allocate /96's but that would just be silly.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

vuke69 (450194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228922)

As a regular home user, you should be allocated a /48. /64 is the smallest subnet allowable (you can go smaller, but things like multicast break).

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228518)

Also, you can (and most likely already do) AAAA lookups over IPv4. Just because you have an IPv6 tunnel doesn't mean your DNS queries are going to use IPv6 as the transit.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228626)

Well, to allay some of your concerns, AAAA DNS records will be returned over IPv4, so DNS should be exactly the same speed as it has always been (which isn't saying much, I agree...).

Now, tunnels vs native is a bit more of an issue. Hurricane Electric provide init scripts to set up/remove the tunnels, so when you get native IPv6 you just remove those scripts.

As for the level of service gain, that's a catch-22. There's no users because there's no services. There's no services because there's no users. This should have been boostrapped by the 6Bone working group far, far better.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229084)

Now, tunnels vs native is a bit more of an issue.

Tunnel means I've had the same /48 for many years. Darn near a decade now.

Native means every time I reboot my cablemodem I'll probably have a different /60 (or smaller?).

I might stay with a tunnel semi-permanently.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228766)

Most ISPs should be assigning you a /60 or /64 or something. Mine currently dishes out a static /60 prefix if you connect via IPv6.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228802)

Oh and to add to that, yeah don't bother with the tunnels. I just stayed on IPv4 until my ISP switched to full native IPv6 in the last few months. They had been offering 6to4 tunneling for a year or two before that but I didn't bother. Seemed easier just waiting and going directly to native IPv6. And no loss of speed etc. (in fact I swear it seems to do IPv6 DNS lookups slightly faster than over IPv4)

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230238)

I also haven't set up tunneling because it doesn't seem worth it right now. I place the blame for low IPv6 adoption squarely on the ISPs for not providing IPv6 addresses to all their customers. Doing that wouldn't interfere with current IPv4 configuration and in most situations would just work without any special configuration by customers. Perhaps one reason they're moving so slowly is they don't want to spend the money necessary to provide routers with decent IPv6 implementations. If I were really cynical, I'd say it's because the increasing scarcity of IPv4 addresses lets them charge a premium.

Re:ISP:s at fault (5, Funny)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228394)

I agree that ISPs are one of the major barricades. Since around the first of the year, I've been pressing our ISP for information on their IPv6 support, so we can get in on testing some things on IPv6 day. No one seems to know anything. I've called sales, I've called support, and I've had my queries escalated to "senior technical staff"--none of them knew of anything about their preparations for IPv6. What was even more scary (though perhaps expected) was that most of them had never heard of IPv6.

Re:ISP:s at fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228596)

What was even more scary (though perhaps expected) was that most of them had never heard of IPv6.

Internet Service Provider knowing anything about Internet Protocol version 6?

That's just crazy talk, man.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

SuperSlacker64 (1918650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228740)

Crazy it may be, but unfortunately, with the quality of most of the tech reps I've talked with, all too true.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229338)

I would have switched to another ISP if we had a choice...

Their lack of knowledge was depressing.

Re:ISP:s at fault (1)

RubberDuckie (53329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229938)

Yep. My ISP is Speakeasy in San Jose, CA. You would think they'd support IPv6 in the middle on Silicon Valley, but you'd be wrong. I've got a NetScreen capable of IPv6, but no way to use it without a tunnel. Are you listening Speakeasy?

How shallow is the sea? (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228386)

I finally upgraded my home equipment to at least support IPV6 the problem though is that my provider doesn't support it.

So I have the boat now I'm just waiting for the sea to fill up around me.

IPv6 Problems (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228500)

Consumer Routers don't oar barely offer IPv6 support. My router supposedly does IPv6, except it doesn't. There are no upgrades to the firmware to support it. Comcast (my ISP) supposedly offers IPv6 support. I suspect the consumer router companies are selling IPv4 routers now when we run out of IPV4 addresses, in hopes of selling the "upgrade" to IPv6 in a year or two, as that can be the only reason why IPv6 support isn't offered.

Sad

Re:IPv6 Problems (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229468)

And they won't because either the equipment is EOLed, or too much CPU or memory overhead to implement.The reason is because were not talking about an incremental firmware update, but an entirely new stack having to be re-written and tested prior to release. This requires man-hours and must be accounted for. Given how cheap this hardware is compared to the cost of paying employees, they certainly won't be eating the cost to provide IP6 upgrades for free.

So you basically have two options. Throw away the hardware to that bottomless pit we call a landfill, or provide a purchased upgrade path. I remember back in the day that some 33.6k, KFlex and X2 modems had the option for upgrading to the new v.90 standard...for a few if purchase prior to the cut-off date. For the same model purchase after the cut-off date, the upgrade was free.

Re:IPv6 Problems (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230258)

No, I'm talking about gear being sold RIGHT NOW. Most do not handle IPv6, and those that claim to (like mine) don't actually work right. Your average ARM processor can handle IPv6. IPv6 support should be standard right now, even on low end Routers.

I mean, when I can get a cheap laptop for $299, screen, harddrive, Ram, DVD, mic, cam, and keyboard and OS included, why can't someone figure out how to build a consumer router that supports IPv6 for less than $150. It isn't nearly as complicated.

Re:How shallow is the sea? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228534)

I am not proactive in that regard; I'm going to wait until my ISP offers it first under reasonable conditions. Knowing my ISP, there will be a hefty upcharge and no difference other than the address change.

Make it sound like an upgrade instead of a hassle (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228426)

IPV6, Now with 50% more V!

I'm using it (5, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228456)

A timely article - I just got full native IPv6 running for my home internet connection last week (dual stack, of course).

Works well - the DSL modem connects like usual and the ISP assigns you a dynamic IPv6 /64 for the PPP session (ie. the modem's public IPv6 address), a static /60 for your LAN (your router then dishes out IPs within this subnet to the machines on the network via prefix delegation), and of course your good old standard single IPv4 address.

My Linux, Win 7, Mac OSX machines, iPad and iPhone all had no issue correctly picking up their IPv6 address and using it. The only things on the home network that are still IPv4 only are my old D-link NAS and the Wii. Attempting to access something, IPv6 is tried first, and it that fails it'll fall back to IPv4. Most Google sites are IPv6 enabled it seems, though other than that, the vast majority of stuff I access is still IPv4 only at this stage.

It really is weird having every machine in the house with a unique, globally addressable IP again after all these years behind a single public address using NAT. No more port forwarding.

Re:I'm using it (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229230)

It sounds like more trouble than it's worth at this point. I would be happy to have unique ip addresses so I no longer had to port forward to my apache and openssh server. But things are working fine at this point, so I'm not sure why I should put any more effort to reconfigure everything.

Re:I'm using it (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229426)

Well I suppose it depends on how complex your setup is of course. But for me it was as simple as:

1.ISP announces that they now support native IPv6 for residential DSL customers. If you'd like to use it, and you have a modem/router that supports it, simply change your login name (in your modem/router) from username@ISP.net to username@ipv6.ISP.net

2. I had a modem/router that did support native IPv6, so I went into the router web interface, clicked the 'enable IPv6' box, changed the PPP username as requested, and let it reconnect.

3. Profit? Well no ... but that's all that was needed. IPv6 aware machines on the network immediately picked up an IPv6 address via stateless autoconfiguration (I could manually assign IPv6 IPs or use DHCPv6 if I really wanted but frankly the autoconfig works flawlessly).

My existing NATed IPv4 settings and port forwardings etc remained intact, since it's dual stack. Machines on the LAN just now also have a global IPv6 address as well.

Really the 'pain' involved is just waiting for your ISP to support it, and potentially upgrading your router to one that is IPv6-aware. But once everything is in place it is just a few clicks. Having said that, if you have a particularly complex setup with heaps of servers and port forwards etc. it might be trickier - but keep in mind that none of that breaks just because you enable IPv6: your existing IPv4 configurations are still there and working just as well as they have always done.

Re:I'm using it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36229672)

The last thing I want is every device in my home having a globally addressable IP address. The second to last thing I want it to be managing a stateful IPv6 firewall in my home.
NAT may be evil, but it's a useful evil in a world where 450,000 script kiddies want nothing more than to figure out how to make my IPv6 light switches cycle on and off in the middle of the night.

Re:I'm using it (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229760)

Yes this is definitely something to be aware of. However, from what I've seen, consumer routers that support IPv6 natively also have a built in stateful IPv6 firewall - turned on by default with generally sensible settings for a home user. Additionally, behind that you still have Windows firewall/Mac OS firewall etc on the end machine - again this is turned on by default in most OSes (Windows since XP SP2). Non-computer devices OTOH may be a concern (eg. your example of light switches), but again the routers firewall should still help here.

Not to write off the issue - it is definitely something that needs to be brought to people's attention, and I bet there will be some high profile security failures on earlier versions of IPv6 routers and devices. But it isn't inherently any more dangerous than the earlier days of home Internet when machines connected directly to the net rather than via NAT and can be managed by router manufacturers ensuring they ship good firewalls in their products.

Re:I'm using it (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229788)

Not to mention that if you really don't want a particular device getting an IPv6 address, you can always just tell it not to have one/ignore IPv6 allocation in the network settings.

Re:I'm using it (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230272)

It really is weird having every machine in the house with a unique, globally addressable IP again after all these years behind a single public address using NAT. No more port forwarding.

You mean the Internet as designed isn't a pain to use? Who'd a thunk it?

Easy solution: (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228486)

Fire all the useless incompetent IT clowns who keep prolonging the problem.

Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228526)

IPv6 is necessary. Most everyone agrees on that.

The trouble is, nobody wants to pay the cost of switching until enough of everybody else switches to make it worthwhile. So long as there's no significant IPv6 traffic to a website, there's no reason for the servers to make the effort to support IPv6. So long as there's no significant number of websites that support IPv6, there's no reason for ISPs to make the effort to support connecting to IPv6 websites and converting their users over to IPv6. In both cases, there's no short-term return on investment, so each organization separately decides it's a bad idea and tells their tech team to stop bugging them about it.

There are only 2 solutions I can think of to actually force the transition to occur:
1. Government mandate. Not my first choice on this, but one of the few things that would work.
2. Let the crisis happen. They'll be a long period where the ISPs try to cobble something together using NAT, but eventually that won't work either, and then they will scramble to try to make something with IPv6 work spending about 10 times the cash they really needed and having their tech teams working 80-hour work weeks for months.

Based on what I've seen, my money's on option 2.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228616)

there's no reason for ISPs to make the effort to support ... converting their users over to IPv6.

Only DOCSIS 3 cablemodems are being manufactured. DOCSIS 3 requires ipv6 support. This is apparently the thin edge of the wedge, or the egg in the which came first the chicken or the egg, or whatever metaphor or analogy you'd like.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228820)

Even if the cable modem supports it that doesn't mean the rest of the system will. Most home routers don't support IPv6 and while windows XP supports it it's disabled by default.

The key problem with IPv6 remains that you can't really deploy v6 only nodes until you have eliminated the v4 only nodes and in the meantime deploying a dual stack node offers no real benefit over deploying a v4 only node. Transition mecahnisms can help to an extent but 6to4 requires a public v4 IP on the system implementing the transition mechanism and teredo is rather fragile since it fights NAT.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229146)

Even if the cable modem supports it that doesn't mean the rest of the system will.

Well if you get picky and define "support" as synonymous with "works", most ISPs don't "really support ipv4" either because the only support you'll ever get is "reboot yer router and/or reinstall windoze"

The key problem with IPv6 remains that you can't really deploy v6 only nodes until you have eliminated the v4 only nodes

Not so... I have some experimental ipv6 only boxes at home. Set up a caching web proxy (I use privoxy; many years ago, like a decade ago, squid didn't do ipv6). Oh and you need a ipv6 dns server on the lan, so if your BIND is version 8 or older (90s-ish era) then you need to upgrade it.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228660)

I agree. Classic race to the bottom in the bad way. Seems many business are penny-wise and pound-foolish these days.

You see it all the time in telecom for some reason.

the whole OH NOEZ! We have to spend money on INFRASTRUCTURE!? I wanted a fat bonus this year! bullshit.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228670)

using NAT, but eventually that won't work either

And I've got one guess on exactly where that road leads. The ISPs see the business opportunity there to sell "premium" accounts not behind NAT for anyone who wants to host anything at all. R.I.P. Peer-to-Peer.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228980)

don't think console owner will be amused by this.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229114)

I recently talked to the owner of a moderately large ISP, and from that I gather that this is how it's going down:

1) It will be a year or two before the transition happens. The guy I talked to has enough IP addresses to last two years (and he actually hands out static IPs to his customers).
2) It will be expensive for ISPs. The way they deal with it is by replacing all their old equipment.
3) There isn't going to be a rush to weird masquerading schemes, because doing that will require just as much new equipment as switching to IPv6. Except then they'll have to do it all over again when the scheme runs out.
4) Some ISPs may need to make the switch earlier, for example, those in China where they (reportedly) don't have as many IPv4 addresses.

It will happen, and ISPs are quite aware of their needs and what it will take.

Re:Classic chicken-and-egg (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229316)

There is also an issue of many people not wanting to have everything addressable. This isnt because they are lazy, it is because they want it that way. I manage hundreds of servers, and maybe ten or tens that are exposed to the world. I know this can be blocked, but it is a lot easier to have my private little world which just doesnt work outside of its sandbox, and then set up NATs to the rest of the world to the specific machines that need to be exposed. This is the easiest explicit deny unless implicitly allowed rule ever.

I would like to have my personal devices addressable, but from a work perspective, i like those servers hidden. For this conversation, that means the people with the content are going to keep the content on IPv4 on purpose, and without the content available on IPv6, then the ISPs will have no need to support the change. government mandate and a sea change within the DC are both required.

Does anyone know if norther Japan ISPs offer IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228550)

I'll be moving to the Aomori prefecture on Honshu (the main island) in a few weeks, and I'm curious if I'll be able to get an proper IPv6 connection there. I'll probably have to request it, but I was planning on getting a business class connection anyway.

ipv6 in my pants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228562)

I have ipv6 in my pants.
(and available for all your ipv6 dns needs at dnshat.com)

The real reason why IPv6 traffic is low (4, Insightful)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228564)

There isn't enough porn. What ever happened to the free IPv6 Porn project? :)

Re:The real reason why IPv6 traffic is low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36230380)

Well, what's its unique selling point? You have to have something on IPv6, that nobody else in the world offers.
A (believable) Natalie Portman nasty hardcore porn?
A big orgy with Kara Thrace, Jolene Blalock, Alyssa Milano, and Jessica Alba joining in. No men (unless you count Kara ;). All strap-ons, deep-throat and fisting.

IPv6 would be standard in about a week. ;)

I know I am stating the obvious (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228584)

Right now there is no market for ipv6 because no one is on it. But, no one is on it because there is no market for it, so dominant ISPs don't offer it.

It's a chicken-and-egg syndrome. The IPV4 crunch should move things along, you would think, but does your cable, DSL, or fibre "broadband" provider offer IPV6? Does your consumer router even support it? I've seen a lot of hasbro routers and even entry-level "enterprise" routers which still today do not offer IPV6 functionality. Plus, there is probably a lot of entrenched legacy systems in place quietly passing packets along, forgotten long ago by system administrators as personnel has overturned, so cutting over to ipv6 overnight could potentially introduce lengthy outages as old networks are traced and old equipment replaced - or very expensive firmware updates+service plans are purchased.

Plus, ipv4 is easy to manage; your average network engineer has IPs memorized for when things break, or at least a somewhat logical addressing scheme so it's super-easy to guess the IP of a specific component when DNS breaks or is inaccessible, to be able to log into the device and fix it. the dot-quads make things really easy, four integers with a max of three digits (people memorize numbers and spelling most easily when broken down into chunks of three or less) per integer. It's going to require a lot of training, documenting, and large financial cost. It should have been done up front in 1998-1999 when the ipv6 spec was largely finalized, prototyped and tested, before broadband became truly mainstream. It would have been much cheaper to do the work as much of the Internet infrastructure was still being built, but it wasn't deemed profitable then because even right up to the dot-com bubble business analysts still insisted the Internet was just a fad. Now it's quite necessary, but ISPs don't want to do it because the expense could be immense.

There are reasons the cutover hasn't even been attempted yet. It's going to be costly in many ways.

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228704)

Plus, ipv4 is easy to manage; your average network engineer has IPs memorized for when things break, or at least a somewhat logical addressing scheme so it's super-easy to guess the IP of a specific component when DNS breaks or is inaccessible, to be able to log into the device and fix it.

So, you've got xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:/48 for your small business (I'm going with a small single-office business for this example's sake, if you have multiple offices you can probably just get a prefix per office and another one for your central server room and the backup server room). What you could do is something so deceptively simple as taking say, xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:1:/64 and putting your servers there with static IPs. So now the office gateway is xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:1::1, the primary DNS is xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:1::10, the secondary DNS is xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:1::11 and whatever you're comfortable with.

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228738)

Plus, ipv4 is easy to manage; your average network engineer has IPs memorized for when things break, or at least a somewhat logical addressing scheme so it's super-easy to guess the IP of a specific component when DNS breaks or is inaccessible, to be able to log into the device and fix it. the dot-quads make things really easy, four integers with a max of three digits (people memorize numbers and spelling most easily when broken down into chunks of three or less) per integer.

I can agree with this part. Practically the sole reason I'm fearing the change is that I'll no longer be able to set up devices and connections easily. As it stands right now, I take one look at an IPv6 address, and it's enough to make me blanch and think "Holy hellbore, how am I going to remember that monstrosity of an address??".

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228996)

I can agree with this part. Practically the sole reason I'm fearing the change is that I'll no longer be able to set up devices and connections easily. As it stands right now, I take one look at an IPv6 address, and it's enough to make me blanch and think "Holy hellbore, how am I going to remember that monstrosity of an address??".

Can you memorize an ipv4 address and a credit card number?

Get yourself a /48, which is only 12 hex digits vs a CC which is 16 decimal digits, memorize it, and encode your ipv4 addrs in your ipv6 addrs as per this example:

ip addrs 10.1.1.10 on vlan 200 on blah:blah:blah/48 from your isp is ipv6 addrs:

blah:blah:blah:0200:0010:0001:0001:0010

This is the easy way to dual stack ipv4 and ipv6.

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230388)

I can agree with this part. Practically the sole reason I'm fearing the change is that I'll no longer be able to set up devices and connections easily. As it stands right now, I take one look at an IPv6 address, and it's enough to make me blanch and think "Holy hellbore, how am I going to remember that monstrosity of an address??".

That's the kind of thinking you and everyone else needs to unlearn. IP addresses aren't supposed to be memorized, especially not IPv6 ones. The fact that we deal with IPv4 addresses so much is evidence of limitations of our current system based on scarcity of addresses.

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228876)

Plus, ipv4 is easy to manage; your average network engineer has IPs memorized for when things break, or at least a somewhat logical addressing scheme so it's super-easy to guess the IP of a specific component when DNS breaks or is inaccessible, to be able to log into the device and fix it. the dot-quads make things really easy, four integers with a max of three digits (people memorize numbers and spelling most easily when broken down into chunks of three or less) per integer.

You can make it as hard as you want to. It does not have to be difficult. I have a substantial network at home and my scheme is:

"My /48" : "the VLAN" : "host"

My /48 is pretty easy to remember after I type it in 50 billion times. Its just one number. I have no problem memorizing multiple CCs, SS#, phone #s, so memorizing my /48 prefix isn't very challenging. I will be very pissed when/if I ever get "native" ipv6 and lose my tunnel and my ISP gives me a new /48 via DHCP every week.

Anyway, the VLAN is encoded very simply, blah:0100:blah is the /64 for vlan 100. I could do something ridiculous and convert 100 decimal into 64 hex and then encode that as blah:0064:blah but that is a complete waste of time and brain cycles.

The host is also beyond simple. Take a wild guess what my static host address is for a router? How bout blah::1? If, as usual, I have multiple routers in a vlan they number up from ::1. Luckily I have less than 24 routers... can you guess why? My DNS server lives at blah::53 and web server at blah::80. Take a wild guess what address my ntp server lives at?

I only use static addresses for stuff that matters... pure clients just get whatever radvd gives out, much as I don't care what ipv4 address my dhcp server gives pure client machines.

Also, frankly, lets be honest here, the days of having to justify buying a dedicated $15000 sparcstation with 4 megs of ram to barely handle running BINDv4 over my thinnet coaxial ethernet are kinda long since over... I have no shortage of secondary/backup DNS servers, and I can't remember the last time I completely lost DNS ...

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229536)

(prefix):0ff1:cexxx:xxxx:xxxx isn't crazy. You've got more characters to use; make addresses more memorable. Also, if you know the MAC address and prefix, you could just calculate the auto-generated v6 address.

Re:I know I am stating the obvious (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230354)

Plus, ipv4 is easy to manage; your average network engineer has IPs memorized for when things break, or at least a somewhat logical addressing scheme so it's super-easy to guess the IP of a specific component when DNS breaks or is inaccessible, to be able to log into the device and fix it. the dot-quads make things really easy, four integers with a max of three digits (people memorize numbers and spelling most easily when broken down into chunks of three or less) per integer. It's going to require a lot of training, documenting, and large financial cost. It should have been done up front in 1998-1999 when the ipv6 spec was largely finalized, prototyped and tested, before broadband became truly mainstream. It would have been much cheaper to do the work as much of the Internet infrastructure was still being built, but it wasn't deemed profitable then because even right up to the dot-com bubble business analysts still insisted the Internet was just a fad. Now it's quite necessary, but ISPs don't want to do it because the expense could be immense.

There are reasons the cutover hasn't even been attempted yet. It's going to be costly in many ways.

IPv6 will be easier to manage when used properly, since manual address allocation and complex port forwarding rules won't be needed any more. We need to move away from typing addresses manually and toward things like multicast DNS anyway. There certainly will be a lot of training required since the old ways are so entrenched. The cost of the transition will only increase and ISPs that delay it are just digging their pits deeper. Since most corporations only seem to look at short term costs and benefits, I expect we'll see some pretty deep pits.

As long as ipv4 lasts till October (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228662)

Why bother switching to ipv6? ipv4 only has to last until October 21st 2011 [nzherald.co.nz] .

Manufacturers are lazy as hell.. (1)

Mascot (120795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228666)

I bought a new wireless router earlier this year. I didn't even consider checking for IPv6 support. I just assumed no networking component today would be shipping without it. I mean, we've been reading "running out of IPv4 - switch to v6!" for what, a decade now? And we've been messing about with NAT and port forwarding due to limited IPs for even longer. It's not like they didn't know this was coming.

Needless to say, mentioned router did not include IPv6. But at least there's unofficial firmware for it that does. And, one never knows, the manufacturer might by some miracle decide to support the product even...

Of course volumes are low (1)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228752)

How the hell are you supposed to be able to send IPv6 traffic when your ISP can't be arsed to provide it. We pay BT £1,079 pcm for a leased line at work and they can't provide it. Whereas at home I use Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net] who provide native IPv6. So far I've been mightily impressed by them.

Sure there's tunneling, but it means my IPv6 traffic ends up coming out of a PoP in Holland. Then there's the issue with routers - I'm currently using a 7 year old WRT54g with OpenWRT on it, though it's far more stable than any ISP router I've had.

IPv6 (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228754)

Yeah, we're gonna have to do it eventually.

Yeah, it literally takes 10 minutes for anyone with a brain.

Yeah, there are ways for ISP's to even automate it and shield users from it (e.g. transparent tunnels so they carry on using IPv4 but IPV6 is the actual carrier).

Yeah, it lets you get rid of NAT (which was never really much of a problem).

But:

I did it. I went to the IPv6 test sites. They told me I was enabled. Ten minutes later, after not finding another IPv6 accessible website, I turned it off to save me having yet-another-avenue where someone could get onto my network if I'd made a mistake in the configuration, or forgotten to include ip6tables rules as wall as iptables rules, etc.

There was literally NO reason to have it enabled. The only "problem" I had was that ntpq seemed to think all my usual NTP peers were offline but that was probably just me.

YET AGAIN: When Slashdot posts AAAA records, we can start the push, otherwise we're just geeks pushing an agenda that we don't follow ourselves. When the BBC posts them, we're getting there. When every website I normally visit is IPv6 accessible, it's a success. Only THEN can we think about turning "off" IPv4. Until then, it's like someone 40 years ago with a video phone showing "how cool" it is. Fabulous. But not much point until everyone else gets them too.

Re:IPv6 (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230446)

"save me having yet-another-avenue where someone could get onto my network if I'd made a mistake in the configuration"

I wonder which is safer, security through NAT or security through obscurity via a HUGE address range. Even if you misconfigured your firewall, it will take a VERY long time to scan a /64, or ever worse, a /48 for IPs.

A /48 has 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 IPs. A 100mbit connection can send a maximum of 195,312 64byte ping packets(probably a different size for IPv6). If you had 10,000 devices on your network, they would have a 1 in 120,892,581,961,462,917,470 chance of hitting an in-use IP. On average, it would take 618,970,019,642,690 seconds of 100mbit/sec of scanning to find a single live IP, or about 19,600 millenia.

By default, the IP address you make out-going connections won't accept incoming connections. So even if someone logged you connecting to a web-page with xxxx::1, they can't use that IP to make a connection in to you.

I should hope any server that is meant to be facing the internet is locked down, even if your internal devices aren't.

IPv6 is still hard to implement for home users (2)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36228882)

The problem is that ISPs and router makers have been dragging their feet over IPv6 for years - there was just no ROI in the short term for them. Rolling your own solution is doable, but doing it properly without ISP or router support is still quite tricky.

Now of course, as IPv4 running out becomes a concrete problem, it's cheaper and simpler to focus on deploying carrier grade NAT - i.e. multiple end-users sharing a single globally routable IPv4 address.

I do have IPv6 on my home network; I've got a dlink 825 flashed with openWRT as my primary router (linked to cheapie DSL modem with PPPoE) specifically so I could run the AICCU client for sixxs.net for my IPv6 tunnel on it. RADVD handles advertising the tunnel prefix to the home LAN, so all my PCs, VMs, laptops etc have IPv6 addresses using one /64 out of my allocated /48. I had to do it this way as I have a dynamic IPv4 address, and the handful of expensive routers that do support proper 6in4 tunnels generally only work if you have a fixed real IPv4 address.

I have a similar setup at work, but there it's just a linux box with the main fixed IP router forwarding the 6in4 packets to it.

The main use for this for me is to be able to connect direct over IPv6 to any of my machines at home (mostly my NAS or VMs), using SSH or RDP etc - I've just put the static IPv6 addresses into my external DNS for my own domain. Very handy if I want to test how one of our hosted services looks from outside the work network, or to queue up a download so it's ready when I get home. I even use it at home to connect to work; since the IPv6 takes a different (shorter) route, it's quite a bit lower latency than connecting to the same machine via IPv4 and VPN (my firewall allows such connections from and to work, but not the general outside world)

So it has its uses for a techie like me; but for the average home user? It's way way beyond their ability to setup. Even setting up a single machine with a dynamic IPv6 tunnel is too complex, and certainly using 6to4 or toredo or the like relies too much on having a nearby translation gateway, and they're still pretty thin on the ground leading to a pretty rubbish IPv6 connection.

I honestly think we're going to see a lot more carrier-grade NAT from ISPs - it's already happening for mobile devices - than we see major IPv6 rollouts in the near future. Of course, that will break even more than it already is P2P apps like skype, bittorrent, IM file transfer etc etc, and of course running your own IPv6 tunnel will be that much harder behind a double NAT firewall.

I hope isoc fixes this before the 8th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36228998)

http://isoc.org/wp/worldipv6day/ [isoc.org] gives me a nice error message:

Catchable fatal error: Object of class stdClass could not be converted to string in /home/isoc/www.isoc.org/htdocs/wp/wp-content/themes/inc/functions.php on line 69

Does anyone else see that too?

The embarrassing thing (4, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229036)

...The embarrassing thing is that Facebook, a site for doing social things that isn't about tech is available over IPv6, but Slashdot, which is all about tech still is not available over IPv6.

Re:The embarrassing thing (1)

Kavli (762663) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229176)

...The embarrassing thing is that Facebook, a site for doing social things that isn't about tech is available over IPv6, but Slashdot, which is all about tech still is not available over IPv6.

Is it, really?
kavli@bollox:~$ host www.facebook.com
www.facebook.com has address 66.220.153.23

This is an IPv6-enabled site:
kavli@bollox:~$ host www.astmate.com
www.astmate.com has address 109.74.3.168
www.astmate.com has IPv6 address 2a02:750:5::164

  -- K

Re:The embarrassing thing (1)

Sparks23 (412116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229420)

www.facebook.com's AAAA record resolves to 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::b -- however, most folks can't resolve it. According to posts on the ipv6-ops mailing list, Facebook is still doing IPv6 in a limited testing phase, so they have DNS whitelisting enabled to avoid folks other than Hurricane Electric IPv6 testers getting the AAAA record while the IPv6 version of the site is still not quite there yet.

Presumably they'll turn off the whitelisting and let it resolve universally for IPv6 Day.

Re:The embarrassing thing (1)

ak_hepcat (468765) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229430)

http://www.v6.facebook.com/ [facebook.com]

they also have an alternate v6 site, but don't recall what it was.

Shaw sucks (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229190)

Really... they suck.

Last time I called them about ipv6 availability, the guy at the other end of the phone proceeded to claim that the stories about ipv4 exhaustion are just 'the sky is falling' hype... that there is no shortage of ipv4 addresses, and there is no need to begin a transition to ipv6 imminently. He compared it to Y2K, saying how everybody was all panicked before it happened and how it turned out that it wasn't anything to be all concerned about (never mind the fact that the only real reason it wasn't anything to be concerned about after the fact is because there were people were pulling 16 hour days, 7 days a week, in the months preceeding Y2K to mitigate the potential problems).

So I asked him when IPv6 migration would begin. He said that they didn't know... and he refused to transfer me to a supervisor when I asked him if he could transfer me to someone who might know.

He also told me that when switchover to ipv6 happened, it would be instantaneous as far as the end user is concerned, there would be absolutely no need for any end user configuration adjustment, as long as one was running a currently patched OS, beyond a possible reboot.

If I could find another ISP in my area that would allow me to utilize two globally visible dynamic IPv4 addresses, I'd be switching in a heartbeat.

Oh, how I wish I had taken note of that person's name.

Re:Shaw sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36230314)

you are in bc ? if so try teksavy.ca where you can have 6 additional ip for about 10$ a month on a residential plan

Thanks for the reminder (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229264)

I'm currently a student at a tech school. I'm working on a web development degree, but I joined the Network Security Club for some cross-field experience. I'll see if I can convince the club to convert our test LAN (five old servers, a dozen desktops, several switches and a router) to IPv6. Hopefully the antique Cisco router can handle that - these guys will hate me if I swap that out for a cheap home router running DD-WRT.

Question About Cable Routers (1)

Frightened_Turtle (592418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229376)

How can the average homeowner tell if their cable modem/router is IPv6 capable? Or, is this a non-issue?

I can ping6 the various computers on my home network that support v6, but currently cannot ping6 outside addresses. Hence, my question for those with the expertise to answer.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229584)

Typically if the web interface of the router has IPv6 related options in it I imagine. Mine has a whopping great button 'enable IPv6'. When pressed, it makes a bunch of other options appear (e.g. method of obtaining IPv6 addresses from the ISP: prefix delegation, DHCPv6, manual assignment etc.)

Or I suppose if the manual or box the router came in mentions IPv6 support ;)

Re:Question About Cable Routers (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229670)

How can the average homeowner tell if their cable modem/router is IPv6 capable? Or, is this a non-issue?

WRT to cablemodems:

You can only run, eh, "8 megs" or so over a single downstream channel... If your local cableco is selling services running faster than that, they must be doing channel bonding to do it, which requires DOCSIS 3 link layer protocol, and DOCSIS 3 certification / licensing / whatever has mandatory ipv6 support. Also no one in China has manufactured a non DOCSIS 3 hardware compatible cablemodem for I would guess a couple years now. Does not exclude the possibility of your local cableco having a warehouse full of brand new, "old" DOCSIS 2 modems.

Most people "get the cablemodem for free from their provider". Its possible you live in an area were you own and pay for the modem, much like the DSL guys do. Assuming you purchased it, look for "DOCSIS 3 support" on the shipping box, or just google for your model cablemodem and "docsis3" etc.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (2)

papasui (567265) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230172)

WTF is this crap? Don't just make something up and post it as a fact. DOCSIS 1 .x - 2 supports up to a 42mbit (minus overhead traffic) downstreams on non Euro-DOCSIS systems. This is because ATSC uses a 6Mhz channel for the downstream. If were talking EuroDOCSIS it's PAL and has 8Mhz channels so you could get up to 55Mbit (minus overhead traffic). Now this is total channel capacity so if you have multiple high usage users you'd need to implemement load-balancing. DOCSIS 3 takes over from any speed above 42Mbit for Docsis and about 55mbit for Euro-DOCSIS. IPv6 is natively supported in D3.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230350)

I will admit it depends on your local node size and the guts of your local PR flacks.

If you assume you've got maybe 800 passings, maybe 400 subs, and maybe 1 in 100 runs torrents all day at 8 megs each, thats 32 megs right there...

If you assume your local PR flacks are more honest than normal, then they'll say you'll probably only get "about 5 megs". If your PR flacks are ambitious, they'll quote the full downstream of a 256QAM which is 42.88 megs, even though no one will ever get it.

I stand by my quote, if your local cableco advertises more than 8 megs, its probably DOCSIS 3.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

papasui (567265) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230472)

I've been doing 25mbit/3mbit on DOCSIS 2.0 for a few years now and 100mbit/5mbit on DOCSIS 3.0 for about a year. Servicing approx 500k subscribers. It works fine.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230176)

Uh... you might look again. DOCSIS 2 can do 30 Mbit on a single downstream.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230412)

Uh... you might look again. DOCSIS 2 can do 30 Mbit on a single downstream.

For 64-QAM yeah. For 256-QAM more like 40 megs on the same channel. Gonna need a clean plant with decent SNR to run 256-QAM but its quite possible.

I've never seen a node / CMTS DS that was only connected to one subscriber. I'm sure someone out there has.

Saying the total shared DS speed is 30 megs therefore I got "30 megs service" is kind of like saying my old dialup ISP had a T3 for us to share, so I had "45 megs dialup service"...

Re:Question About Cable Routers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36230284)

Dear @vlm,

You are absolutely incorrectly stating that a single downstream channel is only capable of "8 or so megs" of data. Also, there is no direct relationship (if you have DOCSIS x, you have speed y) between DOCSIS levels, and speeds. Although, more recent versions of DOCISS do allow channel bonding, all DOCSIS levels support very similar signaling schemes and therefore channel throughput.

For example, an old DOCSIS 1.0 modem, running in 64 QAM would yield approximately 20-24 Mbps of data throughput.

The same modem, running in 256 QAM would yield approximately 34-36 Mbps of data throughput.

The more recent versions of firmware support bonding, but bonding requires that multiple tuners are built into the modem. This drives up expense, of course, so not all boxes are created equal.

That being said, all of these parameters depend on several factors:
- What the modem was configured for by the MSO
- How congested the upstream/downstream channels on your DOCSIS router are
- RF parameters (SNR, path attenuation, etc).

Re:Question About Cable Routers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36229826)

http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011/?searchterm=None would be a good place to start.

Re:Question About Cable Routers (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229912)

Go to . If it just shows a normal IPv4 address, then you don't have it.

mac has had IPv6 support since way before X.4 (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229674)

Macs have had KAME since at least X.2 and I believe before. I don't know if it was in the GUI setup, but it definitely was in the file system. I set it up because I was trying to get my mac to talk to my work VPN, which used an IPsec protocol (and gee, IPv6 comes with IPsec!). I'm guessing it was there before X.2, possibly X.0, but I'm not going to pull out my X.0 disk to check. I left my previous ISP and was running IPv6 before Tiger was released and will support it again if my current ISP ever does support it (my domain is registered with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and IPv6 is running on my server - waiting on Qwest)

It's sad... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36229762)

IPv6 is the Microsoft Bob of the new Millennium. So, like Bob, let's drop it, keep Clippy and the Dog, and move on to IPv2000, to be followed by IPvXP, IPvVISTA (which we will all have to install, but downgrade to IPvXP), and IPv7.

That's a hell of a path from IPv6 to IPv7, but hey, what are you going to do? Install IPvBuntu?

I have no incentive (1)

ThinkDifferently (853608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230152)

I'd have to buy a new router, my ISP just hasn't come up with a good plan to roll it out, and I haven't even used it at work for my entire 17 year Systems Engineering career.

Also, to all those who tout DNS as the savior for remembering complex IP(v6) addresses, consider this, router & firewall rules don't use DNS, logs record IPs not names, and when you roll out large amounts of servers or workstations and have to enter in the IPs manually, who wants to enter in a 128-bit hex address? I find it much easier to remember what 192.168.0.x stands for than 3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf. I can even recall my Internet IP address from memory without relying on DNS (which I've had to do a few times).

I'll make the switch on the Internet when my ISP mandates it and I get a new router. But, as for my LAN, I really have no desire to use it.

IPv6 is all over BitTorrent (1)

Frater 219 (1455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230168)

I have IPv6 through my ISP, Sonic.net. Whenever I use BitTorrent, I see plenty of IPv6 hosts. The reason is pretty obvious to me: if you're passing IPv6 through your home router, you have an externally-reachable IPv6 address ... but you may not have an externally-reachable IPv4 address thanks to your home router's NAT.

Presumably, this means that one incentive for home users getting IPv6 is to get a better-connected BitTorrent network. BitTorrent is pretty popular, but ISPs are never going to tell you "Get IPv6 so you can download movies ... er, I mean, Ubuntu Live CDs! ... faster."

Ignorance is bliss and nobody has made me switch (1)

ThinkDifferently (853608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36230316)

...unlike digital broadcast TV, which was a bit painful, but I got through it...after a few thousand dollars in equipment upgrades over the years.

Give me a good reason to use, or make me use it, or I will continue blissfully using the Internet without it. So far, that's worked for me.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...