Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

IPv6-only Hosting Won't Make Sense For Years

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the or-will-it dept.

The Internet 173

rawagajah writes "World IPv6 Day this Wednesday will shake out any bugs for websites running on IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. However, cloud server provider ElasticHosts points out that IPv6-only websites are still a long way off — they only make sense after access is overwhelmingly IPv6 capable. In the meantime, the market in IPv4 space will presumably only grow, benefiting the IPv4 hogs..."

cancel ×

173 comments

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

Slashvertisment please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349052)

Some cloud unstart makes a blog, and the blog entry gets slipped in as a "story".

FUCK OFF PLZ.

SNI and other alternatives (1)

memyselfandeye (1849868) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349070)

This is why I generally support the big guys, Google et. all, when they go out and state they will no longer support older browsers. Not only is it good for security and designers, but it's good for server admins. With apache2 and IIS supporting SNI on all browsers, except XP SP2, it's time to move on. I really don't feel like playing the domain games of yesteryear with IP addresses.

2.5 cents

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349210)

This is why I generally support the big guys, Google et. all, when they go out and state they will no longer support older browsers.

The problem as I understand it in the case of IE is that MS considers the SSL implementation to be part of the OS not part of the browser and as such they won't implement SNI in IE on XP.

People are far more reluctant to upgrade their entire OS than to merely upgrade their browser.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350152)

This is why I generally support the big guys, Google et. all, when they go out and state they will no longer support older browsers.

The problem as I understand it in the case of IE is that MS considers the SSL implementation to be part of the OS not part of the browser and as such they won't implement SNI in IE on XP.

People are far more reluctant to upgrade their entire OS than to merely upgrade their browser.

This is because SSL is built into the OS through the Win32 API. All applications should be using it. Real developers use available APIs instead of cluster fucking 35 different versions of shit and different libraries into their OS for fun (like Linux).

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350170)

That's not a problem. One more reason for people to use Firefox or Google Chrome :).

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351042)

Both have the same problem, as the issue is in Windows XP's SSL implementation, which all browsers use rather than doing it internally.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349702)

But frankly we wouldn't be having this problem if the US and other government would step in and deal with the hogs. last time I saw the figures we are talking less than 30% of IPV4 was being utilized with the rest being taken up by squatters and hogs that got huge blocks back in the old days. If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now.

So I propose a simple answer: Each address costs you $1 a month. The hogs want to sit on them and then sell them for a fat profit like it was rare property? Enjoy the property tax. At just $1 a month it wouldn't hurt the little guy but would make those sitting on huge blocks to either "piss or get off the pot" and since we would be treating the addresses as property if they give the block back they get a one time tax credit of $1 per address as incentive.

Because if we don't do something "radical" like this the whole thing is gonna be a massive clusterfuck. I'd said a good 85%+ of the routers being sold this very minute are IPV4 only, the dead economy has caused plenty of layoffs and under-staffing in IT depts, especially in the flyover states which I predict will end up with massive outages when we do flip the switch due to staff with little training in IPV6 and simply not enough hands on deck, I've yet to hear how we are suppose to deal with the privacy concerns of having everyone tied to a unique address which is the *.A.As idea of heaven, not to mention nosy governments, and finally we still haven't seen a plan proposed that won't end up causing massive eWaste in the consumer section when the above routers and switches aren't given any IPV6 firmware upgrades thanks to the router companies looking at IPV6 as a perfect way to sell new routers to everyone.

So I say my proposal would buy us the time we need to fix the above problems and make the IPV6 transition a nice slow methodical orderly change over rather than the "Oh shit what are we gonna do?" mess that we have now. Whether it be from greed or apathy IPV4 has been allowed to be massively abused and neglected and the IPV6 gear and training simply isn't there on the consumer side nor in SMBs. Everyone laughs now about how when Y2K hit nothing happened, well I'm betting that if we don't do something the IPV6 switchover has the potential to be the total clusterfuck that Y2K was supposed to be, only worse. As someone in one of the flyover states I can tell you most places simply ain't ready, and since all of y'all on the coasts have some of your data pass through our area getting to point b from point a having the flyovers fail could cause a major outage, who knows, maybe ven a domino effect. So have the hogs pay $1 a month per address and we'll see if they want to hang onto those addresses or not.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (3, Insightful)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350004)

"it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now."

We've had a decade to do a nice orderly IPv6 rollout. The problem is no one will spend the time/money to do it until it is absolutely unavoidable.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (2, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350472)

If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now.

More time isn't what is needed. They've already had lots of time (nearly a decade).

So I say my proposal would buy us the time we need to fix the above problems and make the IPV6 transition a nice slow methodical orderly change over rather than the "Oh shit what are we gonna do?" mess that we have now.

That's the only way it's gonna happen. Like many other problems (pollution or fossil fuel) that cost a lot of money to fix just to get back to nominal, it's not gonna be dealt with until stuff starts actually breaking.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350772)

less than 30% of IPV4.. If the unused addresses were to be put back.. give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout
you mean another 5 years on top of the nearly 13 years that ipv6 has been around?

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351276)

Your $1 tax is ridiculous, because only large organization have big pools, and THEY don't care paying. If you have a /16 of IPv4, that's about 800 000 USD per year, which is nothing for a company doing billions. Now, take a small provider with a /21, the 2048 USD per month cost might kill it, while almost probably he is using it fully.

What's really bad is that everyone is using at least 256 IPs per announcement, because otherwise, many ISP just ignore the route announce, to save on the precious memory of their antediluvian routers. And I know what I'm talking about here. If you want to kill a waste, this is were to have a look into.

Re:SNI and other alternatives (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349822)

Just like old browsers, IPv4 only clients will continue to haunt us for years to come. It depends a lot on your audience, Game! [wittyrpg.com] for example sees something like 10-20% IE users (all versions combined), the rest using Firefox, Chrome or Opera. But if you look at the cross-section of browser usage in big companies, you'll see something closer to 80% IE usage (and primarily IE6/IE7 at that).

I predict that once XP goes off extended support, people will finally start migrating away from it and IE6 will die with it. This will be a massive step forward for the web and can't happen soon enough. Even ignoring the fact that we can stop working around IE6's remarkable retardedness, being able to use SNI willl be a major plus.

might be good for specialized uses (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349076)

IPv6 only might still be good for remote servers, for backup etc. where clients don't necessarily want everyone in the world to have access anyway.

Re:might be good for specialized uses (1, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349230)

It's also fine for anything that is not directly connecting to clients. There's nothing wrong with having your database server only accessible via IPv6, if your web front end is dual stack. If clients always connect via a reverse proxy, then your web server can be IPv6 only as well. If you're doing load balancing via a transparent reverse proxy, then this means that you only need one public IPv4 address for the proxy, but can have a large cluster of v6-only servers.

Re:might be good for specialized uses (2)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349432)

OTOH, it doesn't really matter if your non-internet-facing servers are v6 or V4, since they'll only serve local adresses ?

Re:might be good for specialized uses (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351816)

Who said non-internet-facing? I said that they were not facing the clients, not that they weren't facing the Internet. Even if they're in the same data center, if they're in managed hosting then you probably want them to be Internet facing.

Re:might be good for specialized uses (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349788)

Thats why this article is misleading...

Of course v6 only won't make sense for years. It won't make sense until 99% of the internet is dual stack or v6 only- how long that takes is an economics problem. Whats important is that servers/hosting is dual stacked during the transition. When you're looking for hosting services native dual stack will soon be a requirement. Its not right now, but it will be very soon. This really isn't very complicated- dual stack your public servers as quickly as possibly (really not that hard), and let internal infrastructure sort itself out over time. If the price for v4 addresses shoots up people using routable v4 addresses that aren't actually reachable will quickly re-ip and sell, and just a wag, but anyone on the ball enough to do that will probably re-ip to v6, not rfc1918 v4.

Re:might be good for specialized uses (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351362)

First of all, dual stack IS ALREADY a requirement for some customers, and not doing it is already hurting some hosts. While you are right, dual stack isn't very complicated, it isn't easy to find providers that wont have silly answers like "yeah, we're working on it, it's going to be available soon". Out of 12 data centers we are in, only ONE has it ready, and asking them about router announce and auto configuration was too much for their support. In all other places, we had to find IPv6 brokers and do the routing ourselves, using v6 in v4 tunnels. In some places it's ok (when brokers are close to the servers), but in other places (like Asia) it isn't satisfying at all, because it's adding latencies. But all together, IPv6 is a lot of fun, and seeing that routing is totally different is funny too. It's like having 2 versions of internet at the same time. Sometimes, going by the IPv6 is faster than IPv4 ! :)

On the other hand ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349086)

Dual stack hosting does make sense right now, what is slashdot [ipv6-test.com] waiting for ?

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349180)

Apart from adding maintenance costs, how much sense does it make ? IPv6-only clients are a small market.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349276)

Put a fast server on the IPV6 address. Give an incentive to switch.

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349458)

If you build it they will come?

The GP was saying there's no reason to invest in ipv6 server infrastructure because there are no ipv6-only clients to serve.
Or, more specifically, why add the cost (administrative overhead) of IPv6, when the only people you can reach with it are probably also available via IPv4?

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349660)

Because by doing it in an calm and orderly fashion now you save yourself a lot of panicking, firefighting and half-assed last-minute "fixes" in the future?

I actually suspect there will be a future market for IPv6-to-IPv4 proxy services for companies stuck with shitty ISPs that wake up late and realize they need their servers to be accessible through IPv6 yesterday. Just pay another company that has IPv6 access to proxy all IPv6 HTTP/SMTP/whatever requests to the company's IPv4 server for that service (and knowing how these things play out the "solution" will be an ugly kludge with services running on non-standard ports or through some proprietary tunnel protocol on the backend server so that they can tell which customers are using "IPv6" and which ones are connecting directly through IPv4).

Of course, I'm sure it's much more fiscally responsible to not invest a single cent in preventing this major cost down the road...</sarcasm>

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350118)

So, pay the early-adopter price now, or the late adopter price later...
But there's a nice middle ground, where you start implementing when enough of your audience is available for it to make sense.

It's the same argument for practically every new technology.
Of course, people just aren't very good at finding the crossover point. You've got the IT guy who started screaming for IPv6 in 2000 (to pad his resume), you've got the Manager who thinks it's cool (thanks to some "IPv4 sky is falling" Gartner report), and the CIO who has to justify the cost.

Of course, I'm sure it's much more fiscally responsible to not invest a single cent in preventing this major cost down the road...

You say that like IPv6 is old hat. There's still quite a few bugs to be ironed out.
Those who wait until it's "too late" will inherit the tutorials/guides/fixes provided by the blood/sweat/tears of the early adopters.
It'll cost a lot more to implement now than it will in a few years.

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350264)

Your post reeks of trolling and cynicism.

The global IPv4 pool has run out, that's a pretty good sign we're past the early adopter stage so telling people to hold off on getting dual-stack up and running is just dumb (or greedy if you think you can make off of those people later).

There are also plenty of people who have been pushing IPv6 for a long time because they believe it is the right solution, a necessary one at that, and not because they're greedy or looking to further their careers. But you knew that, didn't you?

And what "bugs" are there in IPv6 that desperately need to be fixed? I've been running dual-stack at home for years without any problems (at least not any that could be traced back to flaws with IPv6 itself) and my employer has been running dual-stack on servers for almost a year and recently transitioned all desktops to dual-stack. Sure there were some implementation issues but those always pop up when moving a large number of systems to new technologies no matter how stable and well-engineered the new tech is.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

kirillian (1437647) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350832)

So what you're saying is, you think the early adopter stage is gone...whereas GP thinks the early adopter stage is currently going on...sounds like you're trolling him...his main point was not that we're in the early adopter stage, but that it's difficult to tell where exactly that middle ground is. While I agree with you that we're probably fast approaching that middle ground or there potentially, I think it's arrogant to argue that you can see that we're there already. Leave that for history to decide when we look back in 5-10 years with a slightly more clear picture. Regarding the IPv6 "bugs"...Unless he's referring to the general issue of lack of anonymity built into IPv6 (due to unique IP addresses), I myself would like to know what bugs he is referring to... Regardless, the general tone of your post I felt was extremely out of line and uncalled for, no matter my own personal standing on the matter. Maybe you felt affronted by the charges that he made of the IT guy trying to pad his resume or the Manager spiel, but I didn't really see those as intentional slaps - just exaggerations based off of his personal experiences intended to narrate (remember that high school English class where you learned about hyperbole?).

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351088)

And what "bugs" are there in IPv6 that desperately need to be fixed?

None, it's the vendors [webupd8.org] (and administrators) that screw it up.

I'm NOT saying IPv6 is useless.
It's required, but convincing the financial guys to spend money so you can address something which won't help their bottom line THIS QUARTER is... difficult. Let alone something like IPv6 which still has (many?) years left for the ROI to make sense.

Honest question: Inside the firewall, what benefit is IPv6?
The geek in me wants to switch, but the lazy bastard in me doesn't see any use for it (and I know it'll screw with things like VPN and online games).

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351744)

I suspect NAT64 will be around for a long long time to keep IPv6 people talking to IPv4 only hosts.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349780)

If a website has one IPv4 server and one IPv6 server and one is down or slow, I will go to the other. That is just natural. If enough websites do that, IPv6 will have the reputation of being faster and there will be pressure from clients to get this.

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351696)

You want to take a fast server and put the slashdot code on it? That is cruelty to hardware!

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349680)

Small but growing, leaving it off until the market grows too large to ignore is going to guarantee you won't be ready when the time comes.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349860)

Then wait until market is large enough, minus the time it takes to do add the IPv6 support. Switching to IPv6 will only get easier after you wait until everybody else has figured out all the problems, and all the hardware is supporting it.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349892)

Small, but growing. There will soon be economic pressure for v4 addresses, and it won't take too many people moving to v6 make it worthwhile to maintain dual stack servers.

First hand experience on this one- if you're already using best practices for web hosting, adding v6 addresses is stupid easy, and requires no re-work to your backend. Why _wouldn't_ you add v6, even to capture (or keep from losing) 1% of your traffic?

Right now the reason is: horribly misconfigured dual stack clients will fail when accessing dual stacked servers. Thats what v6 day is for, with most of the large web sites going dual stack for 24 hours, hopefully most of those issues will be brought to the surface. Once people like google see that lost misconfigured dual stack traffic is equal to incoming v6 traffic, they'll switch to dual stack permanently, and the transition will officially begin.

Re:On the other hand ... (2)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350060)

Because a lot of people don't care about 1%. When Firefox had a market share of 5%, there were still plenty of sites that didn't support it.

Also, people moving to IPv6 doesn't mean they can't reach IPv4 sites anymore. As long as they can reach them through some NAT service, the IPv4 web hosts will be fine.

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350498)

If they're big enough, and make money via page views, they'll care about 1%. Which admittedly may be a small number of sites, but it'll be the largest sites. Once they're dual stacked others will follow (maybe not banks... they're obnoxiously behind the times).

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349196)

Slashdot can't even fix simple bugs in the Javascript for their own website. What makes you think they will even think about IPv6 anytime soon?

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349544)

Javascript and HTML are application layer protocols. IPv6 is a network layer protocol. One should have nothing to do with the other. You should be able to switch to IPv6 as easily as moving a website to new hardware. If a website requires IPv4 then it is broken, and has been for a long time.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349250)

Slashcode monkeys still can't even support Unicode on the site even though it was standardized back in 1991. You really think they could handle setting up the site to handle dual stack?

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Mathness (145187) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349350)

For 736c:6173:6864:6f74:2e6f:7267:: or similar to become available? :)

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349356)

Dual stack hosting does make sense right now, what is slashdot [ipv6-test.com] waiting for ?

Getting their IPv4 codebase to work properly...

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349592)

Yeah, they should get up to date like the W3C [ipv6-test.com] have.. oh, wait.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350222)

Because the W3C is the one who standardized IPv6... oh, wait they have fuck all to do with the Internet Protocol standards. On the other hand, the real people behind the IPv6 standard, the IETF [ipv6-test.com] , does have a website that is IPv6 ready.

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350464)

Wow, the people who developed the standard use it, that's life changing knowledge!

Instead, let's look at some of the W3C's "Mission" [w3.org] statements:

Web for All - The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability

Web on Everything - The number of different kinds of devices that can access the Web has grown immensely. Mobile phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, interactive television systems, voice response systems, kiosks and even certain domestic appliances can all access the Web

This is just one of the groups that I'd have expected to have IPv6 addresses by now. Facebook and Amazon don't either..

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350910)

Facebook does, actually, at http://www.v6.facebook.com./ [v6.facebook.com]

> ping www.v6.facebook.com

Pinging www.v6.facebook.com [2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=169ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms

Ping statistics for 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3:
        Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
        Minimum = 169ms, Maximum = 170ms, Average = 169ms

On 'World IPv6 Day', they'll be making their main site (i.e. www.facebook.com) IPv6-enabled. That's really what the point of this day is ... not to test IPv6 itself, but to iron out bugs that might occur when major sites go to dual-stack on their main sites (both on their end, and the users' end).

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351798)

Facebook does, actually, at http://www.v6.facebook.com./ [v6.facebook.com]

That's a lie, my browser says "The requested URL could not be retrieved"!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:On the other hand ... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351838)

Wow, the people who developed the standard use it, that's life changing knowledge!

Which was the point. Why do you point out the W3C? And why do they need an IPv6 record to accomplish their goals? I'm pretty sure you can have web for all and web on everything at this point without an IPv6 record.

This is just one of the groups that I'd have expected to have IPv6 addresses by now.

Good for you?

Facebook and Amazon don't either..

Facebook does. But why either one need them when less than 1% of their users will be using the IPv6 version, is the better question.

Re:On the other hand ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350968)

Also, what is Elastic Hosts [ipv6-test.com] waiting for? Even a pro, IPv6-aware hosting company doesn't have dual-stack? Even after they wrote this article saying it's sad that a market for IPv4 addresses will arise?

Easy for me to be critical, but isn't this exactly the sort of behaviour that causes the situation they lament, that IPv6-only hosts are severely disadvantaged? We need people who run services on the net (hosting companies) to run IPv6-enabled sites, so we don't have to pay the IPv4 hogs--the old, established internet players, who don't innovate on the internet.

Slashdot is looking extremely lame now. This is worse than no unicode support, which was just lame, this is actually holding back the internet, and ensuring the brain-damage called NAT stays with us.

sell it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349094)

make ipv6 prioritised traffic, brand it as faster than IP4

Re:sell it (3, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349146)

Right now most residential ISPs don't offer IPv6 period.

We arn't even at the "getting customers to buy into it" phase yet, we are at the "getting it available" point. Which is (and I know this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten already) quite sad considering how much the ipv4 problem has been known about and a solution available.

What is really sad is... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349264)

when i was taking my cisco classes back in 2001 in high school they made a big deal about how we were running out and IP6 was going to be ready in a few years ...this was 10 years ago!

What is really, really sad is... (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349360)

What's really sad is that I'm in networking classes right now (not in the Cisco ones yet, that's in a few semesters). And the only mention of IPv6 has been when I asked about it, or asked "how would ___ be done under IPv6?". They aren't even preparing new networking people to work with IPv6. I'm probably going to have to teach myself everything.

Re:What is really, really sad is... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350094)

What's not so sad is that there's no need for classes anymore. It's all online now. Yes, you should be teaching yourself. Most of what you need to know you'll end up learning outside the classroom, anyways.

IPv6-only hosting in my pants (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349100)

I have IPv6-only hosting in my pants.

Re:IPv6-only hosting in my pants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349278)

The internet won't be complete until my penis has an IP address.

Re:IPv6-only hosting in my pants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349568)

the IP address for your tiny penis is BAT.HRO.OOM

Right... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349106)

It's going to make sense when we run out of fucking addresses.

It's asshats like this....

Re:Right... (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349158)

Even then it probably won't.

Until IPv6 is available to most residential users, it's gonna make more sense to buy ipv4 addresses at high prices than to switch to ipv6 where the huge majority of the internet can't actually get to your site.

The problem here isn't the web hosts, it's the residential ISPs who are _still_ dragging their feet on this.

Re:Right... (3, Informative)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349284)

Comcast is rolling out IPv6 right now in the US. http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net]

They have had a beta rollout for the past year to work out the issues.

Customers in Denver, CO are currently getting IPv6 to their homes right now.

Hopefully they'll start rolling it out in the San Francisco bay area soon.

Re:Right... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349288)

ISPs won't upgrade because there isn't any IPv6 content. No content is being migrated to IPv6 because there's no ISPs supporting it.

No, this does not surprise me.

Re:Right... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349202)

why are developers always so shortsited?

640kb is enough for anyone...

oh my code will never be around in 2038 so lets use a 32 bit integer to store number of seconds since 1970...

ipv4 ought to have enough addresses...

Re:Right... (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349260)

It's going to make sense when we run out of fucking addresses.

Of course there is the definition of "RUN out" to consider. IP addresses aren't like oil, we don't use them up. When demand exceeds supply then (provided the RIRs don't mess things up too much) they will simply become more expensive causing the least profitable uses to be sacrificed.

I'm betting the first thing to be sacrificed will be public IPs for people on normal home broadband plans (mobile broadband seems to be using private IPs already)

Re:Right... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350000)

My WISP (I am a fixed installation) doesn't have real addresses for me, so I'm there already. It does prevent me from playing some games and such, but the latency isn't that great anyway.

Re:Right... (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350972)

No thanks. While that suits many average users, I would change ISPs if they did that to me. (NB. both my home ISP and my mobile phone have proper public IPs at this stage, and in fact my home connection is full native IPv6/v4 dual stack already, though I do understand that's a rarity for a residential ISP)

You're completely right though, of course. I foresee an awful period of horrible double-NATtedness for most home connections in the not too distant future.

Furthermore (0)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349154)

The company also revealed research implying that fish could not swim in a sea of pudding.

It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

torgis (840592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349182)

Meh. Who cares? In all honesty, most people (myself included) don't know or care which protocol our devices are using when communicating with teh interwebs. It's not as if any of us have a say in the matter, in most cases the technicalities are handled upstream by our ISPs. When the ISPs have decided they are done battling over the little remaining IPv4 space and start switching en masse to IPv6, then the users downstream will, of course, be switched over. In most cases, this will probably be done without end users having any clue that some magical, mythical transition has occurred. They'll just power on their computer, phone, television, or toaster, and it will have internet.

The few internet-facing IP addresses I have are for my phone, iPad, and my home router. I'm guessing that AT&T will handle the switchover for my phone and iPad with a simple software update. The remaining device - my home router (Linksys WRT54G) will either be able to handle the new addresses (problem solved) or not (time for an upgrade). Such is the cost of progress. I have no plans ever to switch my home network to IPv6 unless someone can make a compelling case as to why that would make any sense at all.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349262)

I have no plans ever to switch my home network to IPv6 unless someone can make a compelling case as to why that would make any sense at all.

Yup. Unless you are a business and have to figure something out more complicated than "the addresses of my machines have all changed", there isn't much reason in playing around with ipv6 until your ISP actually starts cooperating. I mucked around a little just to get some familiarity (and truth is, I actually don't like how ipv6 works), but once I got stuff communicating it got kinda dull.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349426)

I'd agree that as a home user you have little control over the implementation of such things. But there are reasons you should at least want it. The primary reason being that those devices you mention don't have fixed IP addresses (unless you pay extra for that). There is a whole world of possibilities that open up when every home can get a block of fixed IP addresses. At the highest level, it means you don't need 3rd party "services" to connect to other people, or even to connect to your own machines when you're away. The implications of that are game changing.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349706)

At the highest level, it means you don't need 3rd party "services" to connect to other people, or even to connect to your own machines when you're away. The implications of that are game changing.

You know you can do all of that already if you actually want to, right?

You're still going to want 3rd party services to communicate your IPv6 address to friends (or even to your other devices probably). Unless you want to drive to their house and read it out manually. I hope I never have to read out or scribe an IPv6 address manually :/

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349454)

uTorrent is reporting a few peers with v6 addresses, so I'm guessing I have v6 access. Didn't do anything at all for this, though.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

Artemis3 (85734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349746)

Either your ISP is supporting IPv6, or your OS is using a tunnel. Windows Vista and 7 by default do by try 6to4 and teredo tunnels if the ISP doesn't assign an ipv6.

Linux users can just install miredo to have a teredo tunnel. It is nice to use ipv6 capable DNS, such as OpenNIC; do these and you'll get 10/10 score at http://test-ipv6.com/ [test-ipv6.com]

More ISPs should be supporting dual stacks by now, that means an ipv6 capable DNS and assign both ipv6 and ipv4 to clients. That will ensure a transparent switchover and ease ipv6 only services, which will start slowly, but will growth with time; especially with regions like Asia running out of ipv4 addys.

It makes sense even if the ISP itself is using a tunnel for all its customers, while their upstream providers get a clue. Of course that also can be done in any LAN, which is why doing it in your home to get the starting knowledge is a good idea...

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351020)

It's most likely a tunnel ... easy to find out: just find out what your IPv6 address appears to be and do some Googling. Teredo and 6to4 have distinct prefixes that are reserved for those uses, I believe.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

crossconnects (140996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349608)

It will make sense to the home user for gaming situations, and when ISP's no longer support IPv4, though that's a long way off.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350084)

Wow you have no clue how it works. Here's what's really going to happen. Broadband ISPs are going to start adding IPv6 to the subset of cable and DSL modems that can handle dual stack. Unless you're running a router that is dual-stack capable (and most people aren't and most new routers aren't either), that's where it will end. There are very few COTS routers out there that will gracefully handle dual stack, such as the Apple Airport Extreme. You can also run a custom firmware on many older routers that is dual-stack capable like DD-WRT and OpenWRT.

Trust me. It is not all pixie dust and fairies like your post.

CAPTCHA: "borrowed". As in "borrowed time".

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350692)

My router that my ISP sent me 4 years ago, is dual stack and it is enabled by default. My ISP does not support IPv6 however. But in my experience most hardware does have dual stack support.

Re:It's not up to the end users anyway (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351834)

My ISP (web tapestry in the UK) has provided IPv6 for a while, but I had to get my ADSL-connected firewall to handle the router advertisements, and install/configure a router advertisement daemon for my lan.

I think what will happen is that ISPs will have IPv6 working, and if the CPE can't do anything useful, they will set up web cache/proxies for their customers so that they can access IPv6-only web sites.

Makes sense for several years already.... (1)

fuzzel (18438) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349370)

It makes sense for several years already, as a lot of "firewalls" (eg, that nice Great Chinese Firewall) and various other such country-wide blockades to the Internet, do not have a single bit of understanding of IPv6, and as long as they remain that way, IPv6 will work like a charm......

Next to the other thing for home users: everything becomes accessible, instead of having to get IPv4 addresses from your home ISP (which generally they won't do, but indeed there are cases where they do), or getting a private server outside in a network, which is not home. For years already: set up an IPv6 tunnel, get a prefix, use it from anywhere.

There's at least one use for IPv6 hosting (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349388)

For hosting an IPv6 version of your site in parallel with your IPv4 only hosting.

Also useful for testing purposes.

This is useful if the price is right, and your existing hosting provider does not support IPv6. Nothing requires you to turn off your IPv4 site, in order to host an IPv6-only version of it somewhere else :-)

Making sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349594)

No more IPv4 addresses means there WILL be IPv6 only networks, regardless of how good or bad it is.

Beside the point (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349604)

For a website owner working together with a hosting provider that still has plenty of IPv4 addresses, why would you even want to move to IPv6-only? Especially when so many in the world aren't even running dual-stack? The only good reason that I've heard so far to set up an IPv6-only website is for testing purposes (You can't see this site unless you have IPv6!).

On the other hand, soon there will be plenty of people and organizations in the world, starting in Asia, that will be IPv6-only. Not because it's better, but because they won't have any choice! For those people, whether it will be useful or not to run IPv6-only will be entirely beside the point.

As for us here in the West, where our pools of free IPv4 addresses are not yet being rationed, that doesn't make it important for us to start running IPv6-only... it makes it important for us to start running dual-stack! Not just for the sake of the Asia-Pacific folks, but for ours too. The chances are good that one day you'll want to access something over there that happens only to have an IPv6 address.

One question that anyone in the world could ask is whether it is useful to run dual-stack -- even if you don't have to. In my experience, most definitely. True, it does require a bit of extra work that must be done properly, but afterwards the main advantage for me has been that, with no NATs that must be traversed, remote management is much easier than before.

Re:Beside the point (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350306)

soon there will be plenty of people and organizations in the world, starting in Asia, that will be IPv6-only

They might go massive IPv4 NATs first. Especially since:
1) it makes control of the population easier.
2) it makes P2P harder
3) it makes it harder for users to set up their own servers

What tech people see as problems, would be considered benefits by some governments and organizations.

IPv6 is a disaster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349620)

There was zero improvement over v4 and no reason for anybody to switch. IPv6 is a designed by comittee standard that has seen little real world traction. It's dick-waving proponents endlessly present it as the only solution to the exhaustion of ipv4 address space. What utter crap!

If it aint broke, don't fix it. The "problem" with ipv4 was address exhaustion, nothing else. Nothing that requires a huge kernel module adding protocol features that nobody ever asked for.

So here we are, out of address space because "the answer is ipv6"... the answer to what exactly? It's about time someone did the obvious and proposed a simple extended ipv4. The reserved header bit could double the address space, someone smart could make that doubling expotential. IPv6 is a failure.

Re:IPv6 is a disaster (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36349782)

I have been waiting for someone to propose IPv4 2.0 -- ip4+ip4=IPv8. Yes, it's a big fat address space. But, it would encapsulate IPv4 quickly and easily; and provide a direct and compatible "upgrade" path. The knowlege base would stay mostly the same -- get rid of the damn hexadecimal IP addresses.

Re:IPv6 is a disaster (2)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350722)

and how big are your routing tables?

Re:IPv6 is a disaster (2)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350820)

And there's the same problem with nobody buying the IPv4 2.0 kit because nobody uses IPv4 2.0
And it doesn't have the built in cool stuff which nobody has worked out that they want yet (Mobile IPv6 + ubiquitous IPSec means no more half-arsed VPN software - hooray!)

And who wants the knowledge base to stay the same? If there's a better way to do things, lets do it!

1% is a whole lot (2)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349862)

All my websites have been IPv6 ready for many years now and I have never noticed any problems with having them available over both IPv4 and IPv6, but that does not mean there are none. I have read than less than one percent of the users will have IPv6 configured without actually having IPv6 connectivity and I probably loose that traffic. This is what the IPv6 testing day is all about: to see just how much traffic you loose because of badly configured clients. Less than one percent traffic loss may be acceptable to me, but it's not acceptable when you're a huge profitable website. It's pretty obvious that nobody in their right minds will make their high-traffic website available over IPv6 only before 99.5% or so of all users have a IPv6 connection.

I disagree (1)

Erik Hensema (12898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36349964)

At some point, connection quality on IPv4 will be worse than connection quality on IPv6 for a significant amount of people. Their CGNAT may be overloaded. They may run applications which don't work correctly behind CGNAT.

When this point is reached, dual stacked hosting will be an advantage over IPv4-only hosting. Search engines may start to weigh in IPv6-reachablilty of sites. When this happens, you'll want to be with a hoster which supports IPv6 already.

Thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350002)

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

This is where government should mandate compliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350126)

One of the instances where it makes sense! Require major internet companies to be IPv6 compliant.

Meh (1)

Nammut (1352909) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350186)

Granted:
IPv4 address space is 'close' to being depleted.
IPv6 is 'far' from being common.

Still:
Yes, you should consider the fact that IPv6 will give you decent end to end connectivity again(finally), or at least it can. (some seems to have a problem letting go of NAT)
No, you should not buy any soft or hardware anymore that doesn't support IPv6.

Yes, chances are your ISP is slow with implementing IPv6 and making it available natively on their network for you, most are. It's an investment they without an obvious profit or ROI for that matter.
Yes, chances are your hosting provider is slow with ... (see above, same thing applies)

No, your home network does not need IPv6 in itself, it's puny and has very few devices. Yes you should still aim for IPv6 on your home network if you're gonna change the network (equipment/configuration) anyway, it'll save you from having to fix it later on when you need that one IPv6 only program to run or that one IPv6 only service you wanted from the web. (or worse when you want to play that one awesome game that won't work behind a NAT)

No, IPv4 is not evil, it's just outdated.
Yes, IPv6 is good, the next step and the future etc. ...

So basically if you're a decent nerd, next time you mess up your network you might as well get the IPv6 configuration sorted and done. Then, when your ISP catches up you may only need to change the prefix and have connectivity.

Unless of course, you enjoy being limited in your internet access and connectivity (Might I suggest getting a hold of some coax and ARCnet NIC's in that case)

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350658)

No, IPv4 is not evil, it's just outdated.
Yes, IPv6 is good, the next step and the future etc. ...

What the hell are you talking about? With the fragment bit and MSS rewriting commonly performed during NAT, when was the last time you saw an IPv4 PMTUD black hole? When was the last time you used IPSEC? How does IPv6 solve the loc/ID split? I can go on and on and on....

So basically if you're a decent nerd, next time you mess up your network you might as well get the IPv6 configuration sorted and done. Then, when your ISP catches up you may only need to change the prefix and have connectivity.

Unless of course, you enjoy being limited in your internet access and connectivity (Might I suggest getting a hold of some coax and ARCnet NIC's in that case)

There you go again, offering advice on something you appear not to understand. The single pressing problem with v4 is address exhaustion. Had IPv6 limited itself to that problem, we'd all be using it right now!

Re:Meh (1)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350862)

Nope - there are two pressing problems with IPv4: Address exhaustion and routing table explosion. IPv6 fixes one of them and helps with the other (if there was a solution to multihoming that was neater than SHIM6 and didn't require BGP then it would have completely fixed the routing table growth, but you can't have everything.)

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351548)

Nope - there are two pressing problems with IPv4: Address exhaustion and routing table explosion. IPv6 fixes one of them and helps with the other

Nope. If IPv6 is a good answer to address space limitations, why are we not already using it?

if there was a solution to multihoming that was neater than SHIM6 and didn't require BGP then it would have completely fixed the routing table growth, but you can't have everything.

I did mention location and host id splitting [ietf.org] -- you may not agree but do keep up ;)

Re:Meh (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351822)

Nope. If IPv6 is a good answer to address space limitations, why are we not already using it?

Because we haven't needed it yet, as IPv4 addresses were still available. And still are, apart from in the APNIC region.

Chicken-and-egg continues (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350474)

Web hosts will still not support ipv6 because there aren't enough customers for it to be worth it. ISPs will not support ipv6 because there aren't enough web hosts to be worth it. Everyone sits around waiting for somebody else to move first, in a classic deadlock pattern.

Money is a powerful motivator (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351678)

The deadlock will be solved by the market for IPv4 addresses that everyone seems to think is so horrible. The unused IPv4 addresses will get sold off first. As prices go up, even currently used IPv4 addresses start looking like a juicy money-making opportunity. Hosts that can migrate without much pain will get paid to do so. ISPs and vendors who want their business have an incentive to make the process even less painful. Gradually, the cost of IPv4 will go up, the cost of IPv6 will go down, and people will migrate naturally of their own accord.

IPv6 Article Mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350636)

Is there some kind of mandate at /. for putting up an IPv6 article every week which leads to the same comments ad nauseum?

Sticking IPv6 the Bizness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350894)

...Is what it's all about.

The number of high-end, hugely expensive firewalls and load balancers that do not support IPv6 is legion. Blowing five digits or more plus labor to update, versus paying a few cents more per IP... Well, let me tell you what any sane business is going to do. ...And before the trolls come, yeah, no, IPtables and HAproxy are not the answer. We're talking enterprise, not website about your cat.

IPv6 is overwrought (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351232)

It's not widely deployed because it's way too overwrought, and it's pretty easy to screw up and turn into a security and usability boondoggle.

How about this? This is my proposal for IPv5. Whack another two octets onto the front of your addresses, so that the entire 0.0.0.0.0.0/48 block is reserved for IPv4 use - if the first two octets are zeroes, it's IPv4 over IPv5. I suppose we could also reserve 10.0.0.0.0.0/48 for local networks, and we could reserve 127.0.0.0.0.0/8 for the loopback address, which would be 127.0.0.0.0.1. Of course, 0.0.127.0.0.1 would still work as well, but why not have a "native" loopback.

While I'm at it, jumbo frames can be up to 1MB. Network gear claiming to be IPv5 compliant MUST support this. Boom, less overhead.

Everything else remains the same. Ports still exist in the same manner, you don't have silly assignments (My cell phone claims a /13 when using IPv6. Wryyyyyyyy?), and if 65536 present day internets are not enough someday, rinse, repeat, and go to IPv6 with 64-bit addresses. You could easily distribute real IPs to every connected device, but since NAT still works, you wouldn't need to. Gram's toaster oven and laptop doesn't need to be world-accessible, and SHOULD probably be NATted away behind her $40 Best Buy router.

Anyone know how to set up a RFC?

To put it bluntly (1)

olterman (2230796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351616)

Not much will happen when most end users still use IPv4. Truth is that IPv6 offer zero to "some" benefits to the end user and "switch" will happen only after IPv4 is eradicated and not possible to use.

Re:To put it bluntly (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351734)

There are benefits to IPv6-only. Among them, no RIAA or MPAA snoops (at least for a few years).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?