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!

Most Enterprises Plan To Be On IPv6 By 2013

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the get-on-the-wagon dept.

Networking 167

Julie188 writes "More than 70% of IT departments plan to upgrade their websites to support IPv6 within the next 24 months, according to a recent survey of more than 200 IT professionals conducted by Network World. Plus, 65% say they will have IPv6 running on their internal networks by then, too. One survey respondent, John Mann, a network architect at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said his organization has been making steady IPv6 progress since 2008. 'Mostly IPv6 has just worked,' he said. 'The biggest problem is maintaining forward progress with IPv6 while it is still possible to take the easy option and fall back to IPv4.'"

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

Wrong survey audience (5, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903548)

If it were up to the IT professionals, more businesses would already be on it.

They should have surveyed CFOs to see what percentage of businesses will budget anything for an IPv6 transition in the next 24 months.

I'm an IT professional, but I'm not currently authorized to work on a transition of our network because I have a long list of things that was deemed more important by management.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903564)

indeed

Re:Wrong survey audience (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903570)

100% of CFOs said "What? Who are you? How did you get into my office?"

Re:Wrong survey audience (5, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903778)

Sure, IT pros are probably more likely to want IPv6. But most of the survey questions were action ones - what have you done about IPv6? When a quarter say they've already started rolling out internal IPv6, and 13% more say they're done, that says a lot. The numbers are similar for web servers with public IPv6 - 20% have started, 13% are already done. It would appear that this is a technical problem that can be explained to the bosses easily: "I'm sorry, but the Internet is full. We need to upgrade to the new Internet if we want to add more stuff. We'll still work with the old Internet, so we won't lose customers, and we're only going to need to replace ___, ___ and maybe ___."

Re:Wrong survey audience (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904192)

It would appear that this is a technical problem that can be explained to the bosses easily: "I'm sorry, but the Internet is full. We need to upgrade to the new Internet if we want to add more stuff. We'll still work with the old Internet, so we won't lose customers, and we're only going to need to replace ___, ___ and maybe ___."

Boss: "The Internet is full!? Didn't we just buy a whole pack of 2Thz hard drives???"

IT guy: "No, we just need to upgrade to IPv6 or we'll lose connections and Google hits. --and it's 2TB, sir, two teraby--"

Boss: "Look, we'll empty out our Internet modems, and you go someplace else where you can make them VIP6 or V8 Splash or whatevertheycallit so you can fill'em with porno like you always do. You're fired."

Re:Wrong survey audience (2)

luizd (716122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903854)

Individual coherence makes collective incoherence.

It is logical to not migrate as it costs and nobody uses it yet (but me). It does not add a think to your service, except if your end-user is a technical one (that for some reason, want IPv6). However, the logical "not migrate" movement creates a great incoherence when it introduces extra costs in order to overcome the lack of IPv4 when bad times comes. At that time, CFO will start to worry when the cost of IPv4 get skyrocketed.

So, if you migrate now and nobody does, you gain nothing. It only costs. If you do not migrate now and everybody else does, you gain as you postpone an investment without immediate return. When you migrate, it will be easier and cheaper. Now, it nobody migrates, we get doomed.

Who migrated until now are just people that like new technologies because they are new, even if they are worse. I migrated to IPv6 but it introduced extra lag as my ISP does not provide it and I'm using a tunnel.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

jm493 (532871) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904454)

From now on, make sure every new bit of hardware/software you buy has IPv4 IPv6 feature parity. Won't cost you much if any extra. In 1 year, 25% of your gear will be IPv6-capable. In 2 years 50% etc. If you don't do that, in 2 years when you suddenly do need IPv6, there will be HUGE costs doing forklift replacement and re-testing of IPv4-only stuff you bought recently.
The other thing is that IPv6 deployment takes time. You don't get to see the 2nd problem until you have found and fixed the first problem. We have had 20+ years to iron out all the wrinkles in IPv4. Give yourself as much time as you can to find/fix the wrinkles in IPv6, *before* it becomes mission-critical.
Everybody's IPv4 network isn't the same - different hardware and software mix, different security policy, management tools etc. Everybody's IPv6 network won't be the same either. Delaying a migration doesn't make it easier/cheaper, it just delays it and makes it more rushed/error-prone.
Can you learn to swim by reading books or watching YouTube? No. You have to actually go and get in the pool, swallow water a few times, practice etc. Same with IPv6 - you have to actually fire it up and use it, make a few mistakes, learn from that, and eventually get good at it.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905496)

While that might be true in the corporate world in the consumer world it is the opposite. Take a look at Newegg, Tigerdirect, etc and what do you see? Nothing but IPV4 routers as far as the eye can see. Frankly the ONLY IPV6 router I've seen is the overpriced Apple one that is frankly overkill for 99% of the average home with features they'll never use!

What I want to know is why the government hasn't put a big screeching halt to this "designed for the dump" eWaste being shipped in. We did it with TVs, making sure they had digital support for a couple of years before we switched, yet here it is when we've already run out of IPV4 addresses (technically, in reality less than 35% are actually being used, the rest are squatters and old companies sitting on insane amounts of IP addresses they got grandfathered at the beginning) and yet the market is if anything piling on MORE IPV4 routers which will all have to be shitcanned.

Lets be honest folks most of the routers being released now will NEVER get so much as a single update and frankly I'd be amazed if they even have the CPU and memory capable of IPv6. These routers will all go straight into the garbage unless something is done about it because as it is now nobody is gonna buy the Apple one when they can have their choice of IPV4 wireless routers for less than a third of the Apple model and their ISPs go "IPV6? What's that?". We need to have ALL routers being sold now be dual support or not allowed to come in off the boat.

Re:Wrong survey audience (2)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905678)

A lot of the manufacturers are sitting on IPv6 enabled firmware until the ISPs get farther along. I know Telefonica (Spain) is planning to remote reflash all of their customer side DSL modems with IPv6 capable firmware during their IPv6 rollout planned for later this year.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904728)

I'm an IT professional to and a consultant for an MSP.

We're not looking forward to IPv6 for a number of reason.
1. Very few products that support it.
2. The layer switches, routers, and broadband modems that do are only 1st generation.
3. Lack of IPv6 only infrastructure makes reliable VPN access next to impossible.
4. Lack to support knowledge of IPv6 for many in-house IT departments. Admins included. This makes troubleshooting more difficult for lvl1 and some lvl2 support staff.

What will happen in the future however is that ISPs will be forced to NAT consumer accounts and perhaps raise a premium for business accounts that require a public IP4. Scarce resources such as IP4 blocks tend to raise prices. But you know what, we would rather pay extra per month for what we already have until the IPv6 market becomes more mature. As for the whole chicken-egg problem regarding IPv6? Not my problem. What is my concern is reducing overall costs that encompass IP hardware, ISP fees, and support.

I'll be sure to check back in another 3 or 4 years. 2 years is still a little to early in my opinion.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905178)

1, Any web based applications support it by default if the webserver does (which all common ones do), you can still do dual stack internally for legacy cruft... i certainly wouldnt deploy anything new that didnt support ipv6, how much legacy cruft do you have which requires ipx/spx or appletalk?

2, Routing hardware has been supporting ipv6 for a LONG time... Cisco introduced support for it in 2001 - 10 years ago, i would hardly call the current hardware "1st generation". Windows also gained production support in 2001 (XP), and other systems had it around the same time or earlier.

3, you can tunnel an ipv6 vpn over the ipv4 internet if your vpn endpoints dont have v6 connectivity

4, then your support staff and admins are poorly trained, there really is no excuse for anyone working in it to not have a working knowledge of ipv6.

This whole "not my problem" attitude is pure arrogance, and is the reason why ipv4 will become extremely costly for everyone. It doesn't take much effort to go dual stack, and if everyone had done that 10 years ago we wouldnt be having these problems now and ipv4 would be pretty much deprecated.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905710)

They should just have added an extra octet to IPv4. IPv6 is overly complicated, who wants to remember the internal IPv6 address range? sure, let's ping ::::::3e:1f:00:7a - oh wait, I have one colon too many.

Re:Wrong survey audience (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905792)

They should just have added an extra octet to IPv4. IPv6 is overly complicated, who wants to remember the internal IPv6 address range? sure, let's ping ::::::3e:1f:00:7a - oh wait, I have one colon too many.

Sadly, this does bring up a very valid point. A lot of 'peripheral' network equipment tends to get addressed by address directly (more out of habit and laziness on the IT admin part than anything, but one shouldn't underestimate that!). I work as a software developer in the MFP (think: networked office printer/scanner/fax/copier devices) industry. By customer request, all the software I create tends to show your list of devices by IP address first. Of course, both my software and the devices it works with fully support both DNS and IPv6, so typing a hostname or IPv6 address will work, but if the customers don't set the devices up to USE these functions, we can't exactly force them.

Of course, the 'local network' world can probably stick to IPv4 for a fair bit longer (or theoretically indefinitely) while the connections out then make use of IPv6; however as more people hear buzzwords like 'cloud', more and more previously 'internal' things are going to start having connections to the outside and there's a big potential for mess.

Now, why don't people just happily type in IPv6 addresses? They're too hard to remember as the parent points out. Well, why don't they use DNS? Because doing so requires a DNS server (fine in bigger offices, but a bit overkill for a 10 person shop with only a couple of devices)

Adding octets to the IPv4 format as the parent suggests would've been a much 'easier' transition for most people. Sure there's a lot that would need to have been considered, but it's probably not dissimilar to the amount required for consideration with the current IPv6 way of doing things.

And yes, I'm aware one could theoretically write a complete IPv6 address with dotted quad style notation, but if no-one else does and the majority of software didn't support it, then doing so would be a bit dumb.

Re:Wrong survey audience (2)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905474)

As a CCIE, I can assure you that IPv6 is well supported on all network products, many security products, and all server platforms for 5-10 years now. The problem is the people making decisions in the enterprise. There is no hope if you look that way, cause the people that end up in those positions usually in the past have shoulders that look like Mount Everest - the risk aversion is unbelievable, even when they have to live with mediocre and often breaking solutions, they still find it easier just to patch on "workarounds" rather than doing the right thing of redesigning and reimplementing it.

When the IPv6 wave hits, it's not going to be driven from the enterprise, it'll be because we'll run out of IPv4 addresses on the Internet. Enterprise networks will still run IPv4 for the forseeable future, and it is all down to enterprises being reactive to deploying technology rather than pioneering.

Why does my organization need to change? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903582)

It doesn't affect my organization if they can't issue out new ipv4 addresses, so why am i going to worry about changing to ipv6 yet?

Re:Why does my organization need to change? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905192)

Why doesn't it? Do you not use the internet at all?
If they can't issue new ipv4, then potential customers may only have ipv6 and be unable to access your website.

Re:Why does my organization need to change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905346)

I don't think there will be users with only IPv6 anytime soon.
If there are, I feel really sorry for them, as they can access only a tiny fraction of the net.

IT DEPT websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903592)

Who gives a shit if an IT department website runs IPV6

Who did they ask? (3, Interesting)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903640)

2013? Seriously?

Who would be going to these sites?

I'm guessing about .1% of ISP's will be able to support native V6 by then...

Or maybe when they were asked respondents thought they were answering something about a new version
of Intellectual Property.

Re:Who did they ask? (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904274)

I'm guessing about 99% of ISP's will be able to support it considering the government requires it. There aren't too many successful ISP's in the US of any size that don't do significant business with the government.

Re:Who did they ask? (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904362)

Doesn't mean they upgrade/replace all their routers right now. They just upgrade their backbone and put in new routers for IPv6 support and move .gov customers over. Existing customers just stay on the old crud until they complain, and then use the same method - new routers for IPv6 customers. That's VZN & AT&T's present MO.

Re:Who did they ask? (1)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904444)

Gotta move the content first. The government should offer porn sites a gratis transition/upgrade if they'll go IPV6 only ;)

Re:Who did they ask? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904542)

Just get most of the 'free' porn downloading sites to go IPv6-only and see how fast the internet jumps to IPv6...

Netwokrk World was the one asking (3, Funny)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904798)

Since it was Network World, of the IT/Mac/PC World fame(infamy), I consider these results to be about as accurate as a 2yr old calculating the speed of light.

Re:Who did they ask? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904868)

2013? Seriously?

Who would be going to these sites?

I'm guessing about .1% of ISP's will be able to support native V6 by then...

1% of US telco's perhaps. 3 out of the 4 of Australia's biggest Telco's are running or rolling out IPv6 in a dual stack configuration (IPv4 and IPv6 run concurrently).

Willing to bet that Europe is the same and Asia is way ahead of us.

Not needed plenty of ipv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903662)

Look at the Akamai story earlier on /. it shows only 580M ipv4 address are appearing on the interwebs so there is plenty of addresses like 2G yet to be used.

Ya right maybe off XP by 2013 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903672)

I work for a pretty good sized company and we'll be lucky to be off XP by then...

Re:Ya right maybe off XP by 2013 (4, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904286)

I work for a pretty good sized company and we'll be lucky to be off XP by then...

No need to worry about that. XP has IPv6 support.

A statistical knee-slapper (2, Informative)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903772)

"...Plus, 65% say they will have IPv6 running on their internal networks by then, too."

OK, you almost had me at upgrading corporate web servers (comprising of usually only a handful of machines serving that purpose), but do you honestly expect me to believe that 65% of corporate IT budgets are suddenly and magically going to prioritize an IPv6 transition, as they sit comfortably behind their NAT-enabled firewalled environment, the same environment that will continue to work with zero change?

Talk about going from zero to bullshit in 4.2 seconds. If corporations haven't been listening about the impending "doom" around IPv4 for the last decade, they sure as hell aren't going to start that suddenly now.

and what does IPV6 do for inside network any way? (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903826)

and what does IPV6 do for inside network any way let any on the web have a open IP to any printer / pc on the network? VS some kind of NAT like setup?

Most inside networks are under some kind of port blocking / firewall system. Also what about all the old printers / hardware / apps / os's that can't do IP V6?

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904218)

Old hardware aside, nothing is stopping you from using private IPv6 addresses inside your network as a pseudo-nat.

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904340)

Many propose doing both. If you don't obtain PI IPv6 space from your RIR, I would highly suggest this. All internal-to-internal traffic should use your private IPv6 addresses, and the public IPv6 addresses are used just for accessing outside your networks. The advantage to this is that only your public facing services and routers have to be renumbered when you change ISPs. All your internal networking stays the same.

Re:what does IPV6 do for inside network any way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904692)

If you get PI space from your RIR, those are the IPs to configure as per your needs. Unlike IPv4, IPv6 allows multiple addresses per interface, so you can have both a PI and PA space - the latter being needed to connect to your ISP. So use the former to configure your network (static/dynamic and stateless/stateful) and the latter - just autoconfigure w/ random interface stateless IDs, so that you'll be live online. If the ISP changes, your PI addresses stay w/ you, just take the PA addresses that you get and again do an auto-reconfigure, and you should be done.

For within the network, link-local addresses (FE80::/10) are what are assigned, and there is site-local addresses (FC00::/7). I'd like to understand the differences b/w the 2, but from what I do know, the former is automatically assigned to a node when IPv6 is activated/configured. So if every node within a network has a different link-local address, that itself could be used. If you run ipconfig on your Windows 7 PC, you'll notice that under IPv6, it already has a link-local address.

NAT is out of the question for pure IPv6 - there is no NAT 66 the way there is NAT 44, or NAT464, or NAT646. Since there are enough addresses, for any routed communications, the address of the IPv6 node will be public, and no translation will be required. As slimjim8094, NAT and security are 2 different things, and the obscurity that one gets only delays and complicates the communications. But w/ IPv6, that internal network would need/have its own firewall, just as an IPv4 network would, except that for the latter, it happens to be shared on a NAT router. With IPv6, one would have exactly what one had in early IPv4, b4 one had CIDR and NAT.

To answer Joe the Dragon's question about fixed IPs, ISPs would normally give you a bunch of addresses, typically /48. That would allow you, or a company, to have 65536 networks, and within each network, 2^64 nodes (I happen to disagree w/ this split, but that's how it is) An ISP won't give even a single subscriber just one /128 address: at worst, they might give one a /64.

Only thing I don't understand - if one has multiple levels of nesting of networks before one gets to a node, will that be decodable by the network, or does the whole setup have to follow a hub topology?

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (2)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904440)

Why do you assume that you wouldn't have a firewall for your internal network, even if it's publicly-routable? People have a bad habit of conflating NAT and security...

Every host on the Internet is "supposed" to be able to directly address every other host, but for firewalls of course. A flat address space simplifies things tremendously.

Imagine if your network printer worked from Starbucks, because it was just one fixed address on the Internet. Or you could bookmark your TiVo's web interface without any port forwarding, or some nasty polling interface involved to schedule shows on their servers. IPv6, by reinstating end-to-end connectivity, will do this.

but will IPV6 give fixed IP form ISP or will that (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904546)

but will IPV6 give fixed IP form ISP's or will that be higher cost like it is now? With you geting DHCP and With tivo they should tie in at least on comcast to that IP based back hall for VOD. Any ways comcast has a nice remote DRV system that works at the comcast.com web site.

Re:but will IPV6 give fixed IP form ISP or will th (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905420)

The only reason you do not get fixed IPs is the lack of IP space. It is a lot simpler for the ISPs to assign fixed IPs out of a huge address space than to mess with private IP spaces as they do now.

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (3, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904584)

If you're a business, it allows you to MERGE NETWORKS or talk between two discrete LANs in a far more convenient manner. If you've ever had to support the situation where say, you want to talk between a corp network running on 10.0.0.0/8 and another corp also using 10.0.0.0/8, you'll understand the brain damage that IPV4 NAT brings to the table.

Ditto for home users trying to VPN into your network when they're using 10/8 or another one of the private networks on their LAN that you happen to have employed inside your LAN as well.

IPV4 is broken and needs to die.

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904612)

NATv6 exists. As does NAT-PT (which actually does translation so IPv4-only can access IPv6-only and vice-versa).

I don't see why we can't have NATv6 routers now - I like the fact that my internal network numbering doesn't change whenever my ISP decides to give me a new prefix. So I don't get end-to-end connectivity. I don't care - even if I did, I'd stick a firewall in front and it'll break end-to-end connectivity anyways.

Re:and what does IPV6 do for inside network any wa (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904786)

NAT only exists for v6 in the context of communicating b/w v6 and v4 networks: there is NAT64, NAT646, NAT464 but no NAT66. The biggest advantage of IPv6 - which is an offshoot of their huge #addresses - is that it eliminates the need for NAT when only v6 to v6 communications is involved.

Private addresses are just that - non-routable addresses. They're not needed for the purposes of mapping to a public address: they co-exist alongside a public IPv6 address. That's different from IPv4, where a node had no routable IPv6 address, and just depends on the NAT gateway to route things to it.

Stop saying NATv6 - you're making it look like one could insert NAT b/w IPv6 nodes if one wanted to. Currently, the standard doesn't support it - IPsec works beautifully w/ IPv6 b'cos there is no NAT trying to monkey about w/ the IPv6 header. All the NATs there are in IPv6 are only there for the purposes of translation to IPv4, and that's what NAT-PT is as well.

Your issue about network numbering is solved if you take Provider-Independent addresses from your RIR (ARIN, APNIC or whatever). As I wrote above, unlike IPv4, IPv6 allows multiple addresses per interface, so you can have both a PI and PA space - the latter being needed to connect to your ISP. So use the former to configure your network (static/dynamic and stateless/stateful) and the latter - just autoconfigure w/ random interface stateless IDs, so that you'll be live online. If the ISP changes, your PI addresses stay w/ you, just take the PA addresses that you get and again do an auto-reconfigure, and you should be done.

Sticking a firewall wouldn't break end-to-end connectivity - it would just block any traffic that you set it up to block. IPsec ensures that your end to end connectivity is secure.

Also, as smash mentioned above, If you're a business, it allows you to MERGE NETWORKS or talk between two discrete LANs in a far more convenient manner. If you've ever had to support the situation where say, you want to talk between a corp network running on 10.0.0.0/8 and another corp also using 10.0.0.0/8, you'll understand the brain damage that IPV4 NAT brings to the table. Ditto for home users trying to VPN into your network when they're using 10/8 or another one of the private networks on their LAN that you happen to have employed inside your LAN as well.

YEs and I Plan .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36903838)

to become a billionaire in the next 12 months. Who gives a rats ass.

Re:YEs and I Plan .... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904224)

I doubt it. You plan may ON being a billionaire in the next 12 months, but I highly doubt you've actually planned TO be one.

will they recode / buy new apps just do IPV6 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903862)

how many management tools / VPN don't do IPV6?

Re:will they recode / buy new apps just do IPV6 (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904248)

It probably won't matter. IPv4 is likely to coexist for a long while yetespecially on intranets. IPv6 gives access to places that are too new to have been able to get an IPv4 public address.

Re:will they recode / buy new apps just do IPV6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905812)

Yeah, but having multiple protocols on the same network would be pretty confusing, and even if it were there, dual stack rules dictate that IPv6 connectivity would take precedence. So you try to connect to another pc on your network, and end up using IPv6 anyway.

Lot simpler to stay w/ just 1 protocol. So if you're moving things to IPv6, plan an eventual migration of everything, not just publicly facing websites and users.

Besides, all the vendors of network management tools and VPNs will introduce upgrades to support IPv6 (if they don't already), since they do want to have a reason to get their installed base to upgrade to something.

When will the Directv boxes go IPV6? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36903876)

They have lot's networking stuff but no place to set IPV6 addresses.

external or internal website? (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904004)

if this is about internal websites, then it's a good effort, but who really cares.

if this is about external websites, then again it's a good effort, but ...

where's the upgrade plan/strategy for the people who will want to access these ipv6 websites?

my isp has no plan/strategy how to upgrade to ipv6 afaik. and I am afraid to ask.

Re:external or internal website? (1)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904596)

Look up NAT64

Re:external or internal website? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905492)

my isp has no plan/strategy how to upgrade to ipv6 afaik. and I am afraid to ask.

Find out another ISP that already supports IPv6, like Comcast or HE, and then tell your ISP that you need IPv6, and will switch to that provider if they can't support it.

There will be IPv6 only sites for new sites that either can't nor won't have IPv4 addresses, and there will be IPv6 only users from ISPs that will assign IPv6 by default, unless asked. So IPv4 only sites might only be accessed by users if the latter's ISPs use dual stack routers, or some translation mechanism, like 6to4 or Teredo. As for IPv4 only users trying to access IPv6 only sites, they too would either have to use dual stack, or tunnel the IPv6 site address within IPv4 packets and send them.

Not as useful as it could be (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904038)

ISPs are still wayyyyy behind. Hopefully more IPv6 enabled websites will apply pressure to them.

No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904054)

There are a lot of devices out there that cannot handle IPv6. Not only is it not feasible to just tell everyone "Oh go replace it," not all of them are cheap things that get replaced often. Some are things that are around many a year.

What we need is a good 4 to 6 NAT standard, and to try to get ISPs on board with that. You have the modem/bridge/router work all IPv6, but run an IPv4 DHCP server. Have it hand out addresses that aren't used, maybe in the experimental range since it won't even step on old IPv4 NAT with that, and reserve another section internally for its use. It then internally handles all the translation. An IPv4 device requests a site that request goes to the DNS server in the router, which goes out and gets the AAAA record. It then maps the IPv6 IP to one of its internal IPv4 IPs for the IPv4 devices. The IPv4 device has no idea what is going on, traffic works just as it always has.

Until we get something like that going, there is going to be a large scale adoption problem. Nobody wants to go IPv6 only because doing so cuts off IPv4 sites. Nobody with IPv4 needs to go IPV6 since everything supports v4.

A 4 to 6 NAT system would be a real boon for ISPs since it would alleviate address space concerns. Hell customers could have static IPv6 addresses no problem. Would be worth their while to do, as address space becomes more scarce, and nobody would mind because everything would just keep working.

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904106)

Congrats! You invented 4to6 CGN!!!

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904318)

Uhm, you've missed the "Enterprise" topic here. SOHO has it's own problems, sure. However, most major vendors have had router and firewall support for some time.

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904588)

What good is an enterprise system if SOHO customers can't reach their IPV6-hosted web sites?

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (1)

foksoft (848194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905264)

And what good is enterprise system if SOHO customers can't reach their IPv4-hosted web sites?

As you can probably see, the key to success in transition to IPv6 is dualstack for services, not for users.

If we will have all websites and VPN's and other services available via both IPv4 and IPv6, then there is no problem if users are on IPv4 or IPv6. They will just choose whatever is available from their ISP. And as more and more users will be IPv6 only, then content providers who stick to IPv4 only will fade out.

Just check with web/server hosting in your region to see how many of them already provide IPv6 connectivity. The content providers are those who should act now. Users will simply follow.

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905428)

Not everyone cares about SOHO users. No one is saying anyone should put up IPv6-only websites either. My point was that this article was about Enterprise plans for IPv6. Not ISPs, not SOHO users, not hosting.

Enabling IPv6 now is going to allow other enterprises who enable IPv6 to connect to my enterprise employer natively, instead of going through NAT devices (be it 4to4 NAT, 6to4 NAT, or even 4to6 NAT).

It will also allow my enterprise employer to connect natively over IPv6 to content provider services. We already do that to all Google services.

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904756)

More or less, ya. I expect to be running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel for another 8 years at the very least. Back in my NT4 / Novell days, we had IPX/SPX running along side IPv4 for quite some time. If history is of any indication, this is just another cyclical repeat of that. Oh, and moving from 32bit to 64bit OS and app support has been other thorn in my side. Transitions always suck. Just part of the IT world we live in.

Re:No the biggest problem is IPv4 devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905504)

People are working on that; http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6144

Yes, it's coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904060)

I am a network engineer for one of the world's largest corporations (300,000) employees--this week I was just assigned to our IPv6 readiness project, and will be ordering lab equipment shortly. At this rate, we'll have basic IPv6 connectivity up and running for all external facing services by the end of 2012.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904092)

that's all nice and then at the end of 2012 you'll be able to access the one and only website that's ipv6 ready. namely your own website.

do webhosting companies like bluehost, inmotionhosting, godaddy, etc. have an ipv6 strategy? do customers have to pay extra to have their website appear on the ipv6 internet? or ... ???
what's the plan/strategy?

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904290)

Yeah, great idea. Let's complain that nobody is implementing IPv6 while at the same time berating and insulting those that actually try to do something about it!

Idiot...

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904380)

so ... judging from ur reply it looks like you don't know either what's the deal with these web hosting companies.

does one have to pay extra to make a website get an ipv6 address. or will they upgrade/migrate customers automatically to an ipv6 address.

I still don't have an answer to these questions. but would like one.

what's their plan/strategy?

Yeah, great idea.

and btw - I am not offering ideas - I am asking questions.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904822)

Many are already delivering IPv6 to their servers. Some set it up with AAAA-records in DNS. Some have been doing that for 4 or 5 years.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904794)

funny, I"ve been updating Debian, Ubuntu, Postgresql, and FreeBSD from ipv6 mirrors for months. There's actually a lot of good stuff out there on ipv6 already.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905700)

I just took the first one and googled. I didn't find any official announcements, but according to forum messages they plan to have IPv6 ready this year. So next year, maybe? ;)

I also suspect that since I have never heard of those companies, except GoDaddy, this is U.S-companies? The U.S. is possibly the country furthest behind in the IPv6-race, excepting Denmark (where I live).

Linode is slowly rolling out IPv6 finally :D

Anyway, today IPv6 is useful already to provide ssh-connectivity (and stuff that uses ssh like git) between developer machines. It's worth the setup cost just for that, in my estimation, even with tunnels.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

bn-7bc (909819) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905732)

I can't speak for bluehost bat a friend has a vps at godaddy an he confirms that they have IPV6

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904172)

Who's your Firewall vendor and what are you doing for advanced IDP / Application layer protection / Web filtering / intrusion detection? Many vendors are claiming IPv6 as a feature in firewall products but as soon as you scratch the surface you find that that support is often VERY limited, sometimes it is just routing and basic state-full fire-walling, other times feature are unstable / unsupported in on IPv6 traffic.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904258)

A lot of those problems are going to be worked out with the help of gentlemen like the GP, in their big corporate IT labs. It's surprisingly common for expensive, complex equipment like this to be debugged partially on the customer's dime, and I hope the rest of us can benefit from the result.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

j h woodyatt (13108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904272)

Turns out for external facing web services, you don't need any of that. You just rack up an IPv6 load-balanced proxy and point it at your existing IPv4 servers. The trick is making sure you don't shoot yourself by implementing a stupid per-source address limit and kill your site over IPv6 because all the IPv4 source addresses are the for the proxy array.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904830)

Or the other way around, so you can remove the proxies in X-years and your webservers logs don't say: proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address, proxy-ip-address.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904250)

There are about 30 companies in the world with 300,000 employees, 10 in the US (GE, IBM, USPS, UPS, McDonalds, Walmart, Sears, Target, GM, Citigroup). Most of those have readily accessible IPv6 plans (pretty much have to), they don't just hire some yahoo and say 'Get 'er done', hell some of them *sell* IPv6 solutions (dysfunctional ones but they'll sell it to you).

    Corporations that big have a VP of Strategic Planning or some such in charge of IPv6 migration and their schedule is not based on some random hardware delivered to a readiness lab. Maybe Bob's Big Barn webhosting outlet does but GM sure as heck doesn't.

Re:Yes, it's coming (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904628)

Corporations that big have a VP of Strategic Planning or some such in charge of IPv6 migration and their schedule is not based on some random hardware delivered to a readiness lab.

Well, my bet is that at some point Mr. VP of Strategic Planning is going to involve at least one network engineer (as the GP claimed to be). And said engineer will probably have to, you know, test things to make sure they work in a lab somewhere prior to actually executing the IPv6 Strategic Plan. So I don't really get where you're going with this.

Two major enterprise features missing (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904222)

We're still missing two major components: Commercial IPv6 Web and Spam filters. Without that, I don't think you want to let your users lose on the IPv6 web or open up your MX to the new spammers.

Re:Two major enterprise features missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904280)

You forgot to mention IE 6 support too

Re:Two major enterprise features missing (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904884)

I don't know of any IE6 specific problems, I do know that Windows XP supports IPv6. Which kind of works.

Re:Two major enterprise features missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904986)

IE 6 can't use DNS for simple address to IP translations with IPv6.

Re:Two major enterprise features missing (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904304)

s/lose/loose

Anyway, you can deploy it for now on the low-hanging fruit:

Get direct RIR allocation (don't wait around for your ISP). You'll be portable and never stuck to one ISP again (yeah, IPv6 makes renumbering easier, but it still isn't easy, and static addressing is not going to go way, get real).

Tunnel and run BGP to HE with your edge routers and tell your ISPs your're shopping around for a better solution.

Turn it up on your firewalls and most dns servers (leave at least one still ipv4-only in the case of someone else with broken DNS resolvers that think they have IPv6 connectivity but don't).

Regarding your firewalls, only allow access to your public-facing websites and lab networks.

Push your web and spam filter compan[y|ies] to get full IPv6 support now. Simply allowing IPv6 traffic to pass or not is not acceptable (Looking at you, Websense).

Re:Two major enterprise features missing (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904592)

All IPV6 needs for mass adoption is for a few pornographers to publish new content exxxclusively on IPV6.

Not missing, fire up google and take a look (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904614)

There are appliances based on spamassassin and squid - both of which have handled ipv6 for at least a couple of years. Also a few seconds googling brings up a software solution from roaring penguin software that explicitly filters ipv6.

Re:Not missing, fire up google and take a look (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905388)

I've used sendmail + spamassassin and squid for years with IPv6 on a personal level. That's not the problem. The problem is the backend database support. While even Roaring Pengiun Software [roaringpenguin.com] supports IPv6, where do they get their database from? No major database/lookup service supports IPv6 yet. The same is true for Squid - where are you going to get your block lists and filters for IPv6 traffic when no one is selling it?

Re:Not missing, fire up google and take a look (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905712)

Why not use ip6tables, if squid doesn't yet support it?

Re:IE 6 too (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904792)

That is a major hassle right there since everyone (enterpise) uses it heavily still. I can only imagine IPv6 might break ActiveX stuff written in VB 5 or 6 as well and maybe old Java intranet sites where IPv4 conventions are hard coded in and god knows what else.

Re:IE 6 too (1)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905726)

Possibly, but I doubt it. Usually, you are using host names, and all the details are handled by (C or possibly Java) libraries, which means your old applications still works beautifully.

Of course, if you have intranet sites for registering your IP address or setting up a VPN or something like that, that might need an update. But the place where you write your business proposals, maintain your CRM database etc. should just work.

No they don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904418)

Seriously... NO THEY DONT, most organisations are nowhere near ready for fixing old apps that are coded using 1980's best practices with hardlinks to everything inside because nothing ever changes.. epic fail on the selection criteria for this survey...Thats jsut considering badly written applications, there is also probably a lotof old hardware which won't even support IPV6 which also won't be replaced thanks to the boy who cried wolf millenium bug...

The millenium bug was real and alot stuff did get (2)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904576)

The millenium bug was real and alot stuff did get fixed but this yet again seem like a other lets keep useing the old code base issues.

Really? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904496)

Most Enterprises Plan To Be On IPv6 By 2013

Maybe I've just been unrealistic; but I assumed most of the NCC-1701 series, at least, were already running something more advanced than that.

Re:Really? (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904942)

Most Enterprises Plan To Be On IPv6 By 2013

Maybe I've just been unrealistic; but I assumed most of the NCC-1701 series, at least, were already running something more advanced than that.

They couldn't even install fuses to stop the control panels from blowing out whenever the ship hit a little turbulence. They're probably still running a token ring.

Re:Really? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905816)

Wouldn't token ring be the better choice in an environment with many interferences, which space probably is. ;-)

Ohh yeah, in 18 months, and please let me... (-1, Offtopic)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904560)

buy that pretty orange bridge there in San Francisco, you do have the deep right?

IPV6 has been a mess since the beginning, IS a mess and will continue to be a huge fucking mess for a long time.

They designed in the most ass-hat way possible, made it practically unusable for humans and just for fun made it require a DNS server for everyone for all intents and purposes.

I can mount up an IPV6 stack on my OpenSuSe box right now, but I can't use it for anything since my AT&T equipment does not support it and neither does AT&T's network.

The committee of ass-hats that designed this have not a damn clue about the real world and only exist in the their pristine bubble. The rest of the world has to deal with the vagaries of a thousand different ISP's and DCE manufacturers that have various levels of support for the gawd awful steaming pile that is IPV6.

You want more addresses, then mod IPV4 from a byte per address element to a word per address element and you have 65535 class A's

That can be a simple software update and it can be done incrementally without having to re-engineer the hardware.

That will give enough breathing room to build IPV7 which can be built into something that does not break the entire system.

Re:Ohh yeah, in 18 months, and please let me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904606)

And then IPv7 would like exactly like IPv6 because it is a GOOD SYSTEM.

Re:Ohh yeah, in 18 months, and please let me... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904698)

You could have ipv6 in minutes on your OpenSuse box, with your existing network gear. You could do the quick and dirty way with merido, or spend some more time and have the full monty, with no money at all and not changing your ipv4 gear. I have at&t ipv4 only adsl to my home, yet every box in my home has full ipv6 automatic address assignment and access, and moreover my servers at home have *static* ipv6 addresses, even though my ipv4 connection is dynamic. How 'bout them apples? I happen to use SixXs free service, but there are many others. Educate yourself, quit cursing the darkness and light a candle.

Your proposed "solution" would be a routing nightmare, the routing tables would be too huge, wouldn't work. ipv6 solves that problem and keeps all routing tables small, because it was designed by very smart people who did work in the real world. ipv6 works great, works well on dual stack machine with ipv4, and can be set up by anyone anywhere even if they only have ipv4, including static address even if their connection is dynamic dhcp.

Re:Ohh yeah, in 18 months, and please let me... (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904712)

that's miredo (spelling), but yeah, anyone on slashdot who doesn't have ipv6 (even if their isp is ipv4 only), is a lazy git who should turn in her or his geek card. Too easy and way too many ways to get connectivity through tunnel. Many free services out there, will give you your very own *static* /64 subnet and a tunnel, you can have a static ipv6 address for every cell in your body!

Re:Ohh yeah, in 18 months, and please let me... (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905590)

You want more addresses, then mod IPV4 from a byte per address element to a word per address element and you have 65535 class A's

That can be a simple software update and it can be done incrementally without having to re-engineer the hardware.

That will give enough breathing room to build IPV7 which can be built into something that does not break the entire system.

Doing that would break just as much equipment as the IPv6 transition since you propose changing the header layout. The source IP is defined as bits 96 - 127 and the destination IP is defined as bits 128 - 159. Anything that changes those would no longer be IPv4 or even remotely compatible with IPv4.

Most enterprises plan to deploy IPv6 (3, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36904706)

in two years.

It's been the case since 10 years ago.

roflmaopmsl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36904934)

70% ? No way I believe that, unless they were talking to the pointy haired bosses rather than those that know what they are doing.

There are not enough ISP's offering IPv6 services and I doubt that even by 2013 that there will be significantly more than there are now, apart from the logistical nightmare of switching everything over to IPv6 and replacing all those devices that don't understand IPv6.

Not to mention having to deal with routing BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously, two firewall configurations, two DHCP configurations, two DNS configurations, two proxy configurations, meh, it's a nightmare.

Someone was talking about this the other day "wouldn't it be cool if all the PC's and printer's had public IPv6 addresses - we could connect to them directly from anywhere" - I said "yeh I'm sure the hackers think that would be really cool too...".

Subnetting levels in IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905052)

I do have one question about sub-netting in IPv6, as opposed to IPv4. In IPv4, say one had a network, like 11.54.97.152/8, one could nest networks within them, like have 11.54.x.x/16, within that, have maybe another network like 11.54.97.x/24. Essentially, have one router at the front, connected to a bunch of switches (for different networks), which again in tun are connected to more. That way, have nested networks, thereby ensuring that when someone is added to one of the subnets, that change would percolate throughout the network.

Question here - does IPv6 work that way? The last 16 bits of the network ID that follows the global ID is the subnet ID. Can they be configured so that x:x:x:6000::/52 can have subnets like x:x:x:6c00::/56, which can have x:x:x:6c80::/60, which in turn can have the subnet x.x.x.6c8b::/64? Is this sort of nesting allowed in IPv6?

One thing I do think - the entire 64 bits for the interface ID, or the number of bits allowed within a network is overkill, just thinking about it logically. No single network is ever going to have too many nodes, just to avoid the excessive collisions that would result. Like if you had a carrier who was providing LTE access to a city, every one of its COs would be a separate subnet, if not more. Let's say 16 subnets per office? In which case, how many subscribers does it expect to have on each of them?

I think the IETF would have done well to have defined the entire first 64 bits as the global ID, the next 32 bits as the subnet ID, and the following 32 bits as the interface ID. That would allow every subnet to have 4.3 billion nodes, which is still too much, but it also extends one's subnet area and allows an organization to have 4.3 billion networks. So a major telecom carrier worldwide can have far more than 65536 networks (currently, if it needs more, it has to buy /44, or /40 right up to /32): with this new arrangement, it has enough networks to cover every square mile in the US. And each of these networks will have plenty of addresses for the entire population AND devices it covers - none of them will likely be 4 billion.

With such an arrangement, the IANA could have handed out one /16 address block to each of the RIRs, and out of those, the RIRs could have handed out a /32 block to each of its member countries (or group of countries - maybe all the Pacific islands, not counting big countries like Japan, Taiwan, Australia, NZ could be grouped as one), which would give each country addresses for 4 billion organizations that want them. Each organization would then have 4 billion subnets, which could be organized as allowing anything from 1-8 hierarchical levels. Each subnet could then have 4 billion nodes. Within those subnets, the owner of a subnet could configure them by assigning first statically addresses like web server addresses, then dynamic addresses, followed by stateless random interface ID addresses.

I think that that 32:32:32:32 split, instead of a 64:64 split would have been a much cleaner way to assign the addresses. Maybe they can fix it in IPv7, if IPv6 can't accommodate such a change. B'cos I can see a lot of waste in how the IANA has assigned them - too many to RIPE-NET for possibly the reason that there ain't enough networks to allow them.

Re:Subnetting levels in IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905628)

With such an arrangement, the IANA could have handed out one /16 address block to each of the RIRs, and out of those, the RIRs could have handed out a /32 block to each of its member countries (or group of countries - maybe all the Pacific islands, not counting big countries like Japan, Taiwan, Australia, NZ could be grouped as one), which would give each country addresses for 4 billion organizations that want them. Each organization would then have 4 billion subnets, which could be organized as allowing anything from 1-8 hierarchical levels. Each subnet could then have 4 billion nodes. Within those subnets, the owner of a subnet could configure them by assigning first statically addresses like web server addresses, then dynamic addresses, followed by stateless random interface ID addresses.

I think that that 32:32:32:32 split, instead of a 64:64 split would have been a much cleaner way to assign the addresses. Maybe they can fix it in IPv7, if IPv6 can't accommodate such a change. B'cos I can see a lot of waste in how the IANA has assigned them - too many to RIPE-NET for possibly the reason that there ain't enough networks to allow them.

In fact, I'd change that a bit more: instead of 0x2001, I'd assign the first 2 bytes as follows:

First nibble: 0x2
Second nibble: RIR: 0xb=APNIC, 0xc=ARIN, 0xd=LACNIC, 0xe= RIPE-NCC, 0xf = AfriNIC
Second byte: assigned to countries in each RIR, allows for 256 countries in any.

So that way, only the first segment goes, but you have a 48 bit space for organizations, allowing for 281,474,976,710,656 organizations in any country, and each having 4 billion subnets, and each of those having 4 billion users.

Re:Subnetting levels in IPv6 (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905650)

Yes, you can subnet your network however you want and I've had some fun playing with exactly this.

The reason they didn't define a 32:32:32:32 split is because:
1 They intended to allow for MAC based autoconfig and a MAC address is 48 bits
2 They actually don't care how you layout your local network.

If you use MAC based autoconfig that still leaves you with 16 bits to play with for subnets and if you use DHCPv6 you can play with the whole range if you like.

Dual-Stack Lite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905588)

To what extent can ISPs solve this issue by deploying dual-stack lite on their networks?

Dual stack lite ain't exactly dual stack: what it means is that the network backbone and everything in b/w will be IPv6. If 2 IPv6 nodes have to communicate, it's native - nothing special needed. If 1 or both of those are IPv4, then essentially, the IPv4 packets are tunneled within IPv6 packets and transported. The IPv6 packets would travel until the local routers, from which point the IPv6 decapsulation would happen, and then, the ISP would use large scale NAT - which uses IPv6 address to go to particular customer networks, and from that point, use their private IPv4 address to get to their destinations.

That way, whenever the IPv4 part of the segment becomes IPv6, the network is ready. It doesn't have to wait for the nodes. And organizations can freely convert to IPv6 @ their own convenience, w/o having to factor in whether their partners are IPv6 or not, and purely on internal constraints, such as budgets. No translation is required either, and organizations don't have to hemorrhage money on IPv4 routable addresses.

This should solve the problem for Windows XP computers that ain't IPv6 enabled. For Windows 7 laptops, it shouldn't be a problem, since IPv6 is natively supported, so they should be able to go live. Same for Linux and OS-X. So only issue I'd see here would be for websites that are IPv4 only, but DS-lite would seem to solve it using LSN.

Re:Dual-Stack Lite? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36905840)

For Windows 7 laptops, it shouldn't be a problem

Windows 7 desktops are different?

enterprises don't need ipv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36905724)

How many enterprise networks need more than the 10/8 172/12 or 192/16 blocks? - sounds like 70% of IT departments are cowboys

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?