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 Is Becoming Viable

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the ok-but-what's-your-64-bit-phone-number? dept.

Android 209

An anonymous reader writes "With the success of world IPv6 day in 2011, there is a lot of speculation about IPv6 in 2012. But simply turning on IPv6 does not make the problems of IPv4 exhaustion go away. It is only when services are usable with IPv6-only that the internet can clip the ties to the IPv4 boat anchor. That said, FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IPv6-only capabilities. There are multiple accounts of IPv6-only network deployments. From those, we we now know that IPv6-only is viable in mobile, where over 80% (of a sampling of the top 200 apps) work well with IPv6-only. Mobile especially needs IPv6, since their are only 4 billion IPv4 address and approaching 50 billion mobile devices in the next 8 years. Ironically, the Android test data shows that the apps most likely to fail are peer-to-peer, like Skype. Traversing NAT and relying on broken IPv4 is built into their method of operating. P2P communications was supposed to be one of the key improvements in IPv6."

cancel ×

209 comments

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

FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IPv6- (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693648)

But not Linux.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693684)

Bullshit sir, I run Linux on my IPv6 connection.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (5, Informative)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693722)

Is it dual stack? FreeBSD developers have actually set it up in recent releases so you can compile with ONLY IPV6 (INET6), IPV4 (INET), or SCTP only. Then they came up with a bunch of tests to see how IPV6 only would work on the Internet and then they checked for compliance. It's rather amazing what they've accomplished so far and most of it within days of last year's world IPV6 day.

I expect a recent linux kernel to do well with IPV6. I'm not questioning that. Just wondered if it's still dual stack dependent and how much testing has happened with userland bits. Since it's a distro problem more than just the kernel. In FreeBSD, they have to make sure all the userland parts work too. The biggest missing piece is DHCPv6 in FreeBSD that I know of.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693748)

Which is going to be really important as it can be really hard to verify that things are working on a dual stack system. I remember the last time I tried it I never could figure out if it was working as it should be or just falling back to IPv4 and quite honestly I had neither the time nor the inclination to dig too deeply into it.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (4, Informative)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694082)

Is it now? How hard is it to remove the IPv4 assignments from your network interfaces and lo? Oh, that was pretty easy. Took seconds.

I'm happy for all the BSD guys who are doing the IPv6-only dance of joy but it's a political move rather than a useful one to remove the IPv4 stack from the kernel on anything but extremely limited devices. You don't actually gain anything by removing it on a desktop, laptop, server, or most consumer embedded devices.

At this point, it's a lot like buying an electric car when your power comes from a coal plant. It may make you feel better about yourself but nobody actually gains anything.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (3, Funny)

knifeyspooney (623953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694518)

At this point, it's a lot like buying an electric car when your power comes from a coal plant. It may make you feel better about yourself but nobody actually gains anything.

Well, with an electric car, you move the emissions to the industrial area that hosts your local coal plant, and so hopefully make the neighborhoods you drive in healthier places to live. Similarly, the uh, network ecosystem of the, uh kernel environment... Ugh. This is the one time when a car metaphor won't work!

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694600)

Sure it will. It's like tossing your ratty old spare tire out because you have four spankin new ones on the wheels. You lose a security blanket you might need for the sake of not having anything ugly and old around.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694810)

I see jackass, so you don't even need to know what OS I'm running to decide that it's easy to do on the OS I was using? FYI Windows XP doesn't support IPv6 out of the box, so let's see you try that before mouthing off.

Also, on what planet does that troll comment deserve +anything?

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695306)

Since it's unlikely you understand why you were down-modded into oblivion, I'll point out what was blazingly obvious to everyone else: The OP was referring to Linux, and the reference to removing IPv4 was implicitly also referring to Linux. As a result, your post is now rated exactly where it should be.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693718)

Of course Linux is not "working on" IPv6 implementation. IPv6 already works on Linux AS IS and has been for a number of years now.. Lots of places alrady have IPv6-only for internal networks. IPv4 is only for legacy apps, like phones.

So move along troll, move along.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693770)

The point here is that FreeBSD functions completely without IPv4, and not just over the internet, but internally as well. It's actually a much tougher task with Linux as Linus only controls the kernel, he has to convince other projects to go IPv6 only as well.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (2)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694100)

Even that Linus controls only the whole Linux operating system, it is still the Operating System job to offer network protocols to every program. The programs can itself then offer own protocols (like http, ftp or ssh).

Operating System offers Transport and Network layer protocols to Session, Presentation and Application layers.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694364)

You seem to be confused. Linux is a kernel, no more no less. A Linux distro is a Linux kernel with a 3rd party userland. The kernel itself really has very little to do with what protocols are ultimately offered to the userland as those all have the option of loading kernel modules if need be.

Honestly, it's not that complicated. Those userland programs are why Linux can't yet be IPv6 only yet. I believe that most of them can handle it, but there are still IPv4 only utilties left.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (2)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695364)

errr...um... from what I understand, all of the low level protocol stack is in the kernel. the userland utils (iputils) and network applications make calls to the kernel. I don't even think libc gets involved here. if you want an ipv6 only system, just set the v4 ip to 0.0.0.0. it's not difficult.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694568)

====
ifconfig lo down
ifconfig eth0 del YOUR_IP
killall dhclient
====

Hey, that was easy!

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694818)

Not really, I could have done that on FreeBSD years ago. You do realize that the loopback interface isn't necessarily IPv6 compliant, which is the whole point of this. They made it so that you could compile the kernel and the userland all without the use of IPv4.

But, then again, why bother with facts when you can post a smart ass comment.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693948)

Yes, but each command has been duplicated: ping, ping6; tracert, tracert6; etc. It doesn't seem particularly elegant to me. Why not just modify ping to accept both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses?

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693986)

Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.

In a few years time when we're hopefully all using IPv6 then it might be reasonable to switch it.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694104)

I would hold that a binary executable would be quite modifiable without changing the output from a given standard.

If that was the case, how could I expect to create even a basic ASCII text editor?

Though admittedly, it would explain a lot about Microsoft Word.

Now deciding what to do in an IPv4/IPv6 situation regarding Ping and other such protocols would be important, but wait, wait, didn't they do that when writing IPv6?

Tell me I'm not hallucinating.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694340)

I don't even know how to replay to your poorly worded post.

It's the complete utility that's the problem, not just the output. It has to be able to handle IPv6 and be able to do something useful with it. Putting them together in one utility makes very little sense as the only people likely to still be using IPv4 in 10 years time are people in an enterprise environment and they'll likely to adding the IPv4 version to their install images. Well them and retrogamers, but they'd know how to install the package and use it if they really needed it anyways.

You don't write protocols based upon how they will or won't reuse existing utilities, doing that is extremely short sighted and I'd be shocked if they took this into consideration outside of the migration provisions. Ultimately it's up to the person who is typing the command to know what they're wanting, you're not going to create a program that knows that reliably. If you don't believe me, boot up a copy of Windows and see how many times it makes the completely wrong decision about what you're wanting.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694872)

I'm thinking IPv4 will be around for a long time to come, for those of us on hardline internet. It's easier to block a range of IP addresses than it is to manually insert random IPv6 addresses. The US government will want to control access to the internet, thus, IPv4 is a Good Thing from the viewpoint of the US government and their corporate sponsors.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694366)

how could I expect to create even a basic ASCII text editor?

Easily. But once you've created it, you're not allowed to change it or else everyone else using your basic ASCII text editor will be pissed off. I wonder how microsoft felt when they were going to change qbasic while edit.exe expected it to work the way it had for a decade.

I'm sure there are a half billion scripts out there that expect to see "64 bytes from foo.com (xx.xx.xx.xx): ..." and will shit themselves when it becomes "64 bytes from foo.com [xxxx:xx::xxxx]: ..."

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (5, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694578)

Because Ping is almost 30 years old and changing it that substantially would break functionality in a huge number of OSes. Not to mention the fact that as long as IPv4 is in common use it's going to be damn confusing figuring out when it's safe to use ping in IPv4 versus IPv6.

You have things totally backwards. The operating system figures out whether a host should be reached via ipv6 vs ipv4 based on your systems IPv6 connectivity and DNS. You can't know it in advance.

If I browse to www.slashdot.org and it has an AAAA record and my computer has IPv6 I get to slashdot via IPv6. Having ping being the only utility left on the fricking operating system that does not work this way is more broken than any nastalga.

Traceroute is 30 years old too and it works just fine with both protocols enabled at the same time.

Total nonsense. traceroute

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

bbn (172659) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694968)

It is ping and traceroute that are the odd ducks. Most of the unix commands have a -4/-6 switch: telnet, ssh, mtr and so on.

It is quite annoying actually. I can ssh any domain and it will automatically work no matter if that domain has a A or AAAA record. But to ping the same domain I suddenly need to know.

This example is quite obvious but it might not be in a few years when IPv6 only sites are common:

# this fails
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping -c1 ipv6.google.com
ping: unknown host ipv6.google.com

# this works
baldur@pkunk:~$ ping6 -c1 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(fra07s07-in-x67.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fra07s07-in-x67.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=43.4 ms

--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 43.449/43.449/43.449/0.000 ms

# curl automatically does the right thing:
baldur@pkunk:~$ curl -v http://ipv6.google.com/ [google.com]
* About to connect() to ipv6.google.com port 80 (#0)
* Trying 2a00:1450:4001:c01::67... connected
* Connected to ipv6.google.com (2a00:1450:4001:c01::67) port 80 (#0) ...

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

ender- (42944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695034)

It is ping and traceroute that are the odd ducks. Most of the unix commands have a -4/-6 switch: telnet, ssh, mtr and so on.

It is quite annoying actually. I can ssh any domain and it will automatically work no matter if that domain has a A or AAAA record. But to ping the same domain I suddenly need to know.

It depends on what OS you're running. While linux [and my mac] has ping6 and traceroute6, Solaris 10 does not use separate version of ping/traceroute. So if you have a dual stack network, when it resolves the domain name, if it gets an IPv6 address, it'll ping that address. If it doesn't have an ipv6 interface, it's smart enough to know, and will ping the ipv4 address. Of course if you try to ping an IPv6-only target [ie ipv6.google.com] on a host that only has ipv4, it will say it's an unknown host. It's quite nice. Of course, there's lots of other annoyances with Solaris's ping, like the fact that you can't give a count of how many times to ping unless you also give a packet size. :^/

### Host with dual-stack network

ender@host1:~$ host www.fearthepenguin.net
www.fearthepenguin.net has address 173.236.150.4
www.fearthepenguin.net has IPv6 address 2607:f298:2:122::49f:d613

ender@host1:~$ ping -s www.fearthepenguin.net 56 2
PING www.fearthepenguin.net: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from fearthepenguin.net (2607:f298:2:122::49f:d613): icmp_seq=0. time=37.2 ms
64 bytes from fearthepenguin.net (2607:f298:2:122::49f:d613): icmp_seq=1. time=35.7 ms

----www.fearthepenguin.net PING Statistics----
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/stddev = 35.7/36.4/37.2/1.1

### Host with IPv4 network only

ender@host2:~$ host www.fearthepenguin.net
www.fearthepenguin.net has address 173.236.150.4
www.fearthepenguin.net has IPv6 address 2607:f298:2:122::49f:d613

ender@host2:~$ ping -s www.fearthepenguin.net 56 2
PING www.fearthepenguin.net: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from apache2-argon.lusaka.dreamhost.com (173.236.150.4): icmp_seq=0. time=37.2 ms
64 bytes from apache2-argon.lusaka.dreamhost.com (173.236.150.4): icmp_seq=1. time=36.8 ms

----www.fearthepenguin.net PING Statistics----
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip (ms) min/avg/max/stddev = 36.8/37.0/37.2/0.29

ender@host2:~$ ping -s ipv6.google.com 56 2
ping: unknown host ipv6.google.com

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694070)

Those ain't commands but system programs.

pingm, tracert, cp, mv and so on are p r o g r a m s and not commands.
Commands are shell (like Bash, what is one program as well) internal functions.

Do not mistake program and command as same thing.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694224)

ping and ping6 speak ICMP and ICMP6 respectively. Those are not the same protocol, and they are both lower-level than IP, not higher, so they are real differences in the way the programs work. Their UI looks the same, but they're not very alike under the hood. If you're going to combine IP-ping and IPv6-ping you might as well throw AppleTalk-ping in there -- just because they have similar names doesn't mean they should all be in the same tool.

traceroute is at least IP-layer, so while it has to handle both stacks it doesn't do particularly different things. And because of that you'll find that the traceroute implementations that are still being maintained support both stacks -- traceroute6 is often just a link to traceroute, or a link that prepend "-6" to your arguments.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

lindi (634828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694282)

ICMP runs on top of IP so I'd say it is a higher level protocol.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695162)

traceroute is at least IP-layer, so while it has to handle both stacks it doesn't do particularly different things. And because of that you'll find that the traceroute implementations that are still being maintained support both stacks -- traceroute6 is often just a link to traceroute, or a link that prepend "-6" to your arguments.

LOL traceroute is just a bunch 'o ICMP pings with varying TTLs.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695282)

LOL traceroute is just a bunch 'o ICMP pings with varying TTLs.

Umm. no. ICMP unicast L2 ping utilities measure single hop one to one TTL. While traceroute ICMP unicast works the same, default behavior in most multicast l2/l3 traceroute utilities measure one to many hops in-route TTL.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694338)

ping/ping6 are network diagnosis tools. You want to be able to check IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity. explicitely. I agree that this could have been done with a single command with -4 and -6 options, though.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694524)

Yes, but each command has been duplicated: ping, ping6; tracert, tracert6; etc. It doesn't seem particularly elegant to me. Why not just modify ping to accept both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses?

There is no justification for not fixing linux ping. Microsoft has it right. Traceroute works properly. What broke when traceroute was fixed to support both versions? There is no excuse for not fixing ping.

Now that virtually all host applications had been modified to support ipv4 and ipv6 transparently based on DNS I don't want to hear this total nonsense fixing ping will cause breakage. Bullshit.

The whole point in the transition is that you do not know ahead of time whether a host is IPv4 or IPv6. By not fixing ping and something does does not work you 'ping' it and the result you get is totally out of step with the way the rest of the operating system and your apps work.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694378)

There are different grades of IPv6-only. For example lots of computers that claim to work IPv6-only still have "localhost 127.0.0.1" active because some programs expect to see that. And there is also the question how much unused IPv4 code is in an OS its kernel even when IPv4 is not used at all. The definition above seemed to be more to mean that the apps where communicating over IPv6 so enough web resources should be available through IPv6 or through translating proxies, and the user land programs should be able to deal with IPv6 addresses.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695184)

Way to totally misunderstand the post.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693762)

IPv6-only. Linux has worked on IPv6 for a long time, and in general, will work on IPv6-only, but some specific tools and applications present in some Linux distributions will not.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (2)

daniel23 (605413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694054)

Like just about everything done in perl.perl-considered-harmful [psu.edu]

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694566)

I was trying to remember which tools I'd read about lacking proper IPv6 support, but I hadn't remembered Perl. That's a real problem.

Another reason I need to get on with learning Python.

Re:FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IP (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694536)

Android is Linux.

Why is this even needed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693650)

Why not just let websites have longer names? Like google2.com or whatever. Or google.company. Lots of names left.

Not sure if serious (3, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693686)

Are you trolling, or horribly confused between domain names and IP addresses?

Re:Not sure if serious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693808)

Nope. It is called DNS since it is a "Domain Name Server". The question is about how many websites can there be, to put in in lay language, and that depends on the name length.

Re:Not sure if serious (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693834)

You may find this video [youtu.be] informative.

Re:Not sure if serious (1)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693868)

Sorry, try again, still waaaay off the mark.

Re:Not sure if serious (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694176)

All DNS does is allow you to type "google.com" into your browser rather than http://74.125.224.82/ [74.125.224.82]

Re:Why is this even needed? (0)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693702)

Right. That was why .xxx was introduced. It opened up so many free "names" as you call them, on the "regular" internet. All those porn names are free for you to use now.

Really, if that was the issue then just using 26 letters in a name and 20 char names gives 26^20 names. That's more than could possibly be needed. So ask yourself, Einstein, what's wrong with your point?

Re:Why is this even needed? (2)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694408)

Of course! einstein.xxx!

...

Oh god!

$ host einstein.xxx
einstein.xxx has address 130.250.5.253
einstein.xxx has address 130.250.4.253

Re:Why is this even needed? (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693736)

The problem under discussion is a shortage of IPv4 addresses, not a shortage of domain names. A device needs an IP address to send and receive anything via TCP/IP, as on the Internet. Domain names are an optional convenience.

Re:Why is this even needed? (1)

lsolano (398432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695352)

How could you even discover that /. existed?

I mean, confusing IPv4/IPv6 addresses with domain names.

Finally, some sanity (4, Insightful)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693798)

Given the fantastic growth in the number of Internet-enabled mobile devices, and that the infrastructure for such devices is still in rapid development, it makes sense that this is where you'd see IPv6 completely implemented first.

Re:Finally, some sanity (4, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693858)

All that needs to happen now, is to get ISP to get their asses in gear and adapt IPv6. I know mine still doesn't on cable, and their DSL side has been in beta for 4 years. Cable though isn't so much their fault, but rather the fault of who they buy their headend connection through(rogers). And since most of their hardware is still docsis2, and they're still using docsis2 DPI hardware, well I'm sure it'll be another 10 years.

Re:Finally, some sanity (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694528)

Especially as LTE is basically built on IP6.

Re:Finally, some sanity (1)

complete loony (663508) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694938)

Even a NAT'd private IP6 address space, behind limited IP4 addresses, would be better than reusing the same 10/8 addresses for every private network.

Re:Finally, some sanity (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695514)

My Rural Wireless ISP does this.. every customer gets a 192.168.100. address.. very, very annoying. They say some equipment doesn't support IPv6, but would it be too hard to throw a 6to4 server up?

IPv6 and Unicorns (1)

ukoda (537183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693832)

Until IPv6 is offer by a single ISP or Telco then it is the stuff of myths. Nice to read about but not part of the world I live in.

Re:IPv6 and Unicorns (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693912)

Indeed, but OTOH it's important to have the ability to use it as soon as the ISP supports it. What worries me is that at the rate my ISP is working on it that it won't be ready before the first few IPv6 only sites come online.

Re:IPv6 and Unicorns (2)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693916)

It is offered by some ISPs. Not my own, but they do however have a tunneling service that most machines should automatically detect.

Re:IPv6 and Unicorns (3, Interesting)

rogueippacket (1977626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693966)

The part I found interesting about the article is the focus on mobile devices - indeed, this is the area most likely to receive IPv6 before the public Internet at large. This becomes even more realistic when you throw LTE - a technology which is not strictly IP-based, being deployed by more operators worldwide virtually every day. The entire platform is almost a clean slate, as it were - a provider could conceivably activate an IPv6 gateway to their LTE network, and away they go. By contrast, this would be much easier than issuing IPv6 addresses over a well-established landscape of home routers. Just food for thought.

Re:IPv6 and Unicorns (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694658)

http://www.google.com/patents/US4429685 [google.com]

"This invention relates to a method of growing unicorns in a manner that enhances the overall development of the animal."

Re:IPv6 and Unicorns (4, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695200)

internode already offer native IPv6, and have for a number of years now. In Australia...

IPv6 working != Internet IPv6 ready (5, Informative)

bigogre (315585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693900)

I get to test software on the Internet. In the grand scheme of things there are few servers out there talking IPv6 at the moment. There are relatively few Web servers talking IPv6, and there are relatively few DNS servers talking IPv6. If I configure a caching DNS server to be IPv6 only I can only talk to a few things today. Even if the DNS server is configured to talk IPv4 but I query for names on IPv6 (AAAA records) there are few to find. Many DNS servers don't even handle AAAA requests properly. A lot of infrastructure is yet to be deployed to make IPv6-only a viable way to access the Internet.

Those millions of mobile devices talking IPv6 today can only do that going through NAT64 gateways (read that as NAT 6 - 4, as in allowing IPv6 to access IPv4). Yes, having the devices that can talk IPv6 is part of the solution. Now the servers need to be there.

I suppose you could call the large number of IPv6 devices the "chicken". Now the chicken needs to lay the egg.

Re:IPv6 working != Internet IPv6 ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38693964)

T-Mobile USA seems to have ipv6 working on a handful on Androids https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch

Re:IPv6 working != Internet IPv6 ready (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694162)

I suppose you could call the large number of IPv6 devices the "chicken". Now the chicken needs to lay the egg.

Or are the large number of devices an "egg" that now needs to hatch a "chicken"? Hmm?

Bingo (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694324)

This isn't IPv6-only in any meaningful sense of the term. All you've done is move the dual part of the stack from the mobile device to the operator. In fact since the *overwhelming* majority of servers are reachable by IPv4 only, the NAT64 will be used for almost everything. And since the IPv4 address the device would get in a dual stack setup would almost be from a NAT as well, you haven't actually changed IPv4 address usage in any significant way.

This is one of those necessary steps that has to be taken on the road to an IPv6-only world and I am glad to see it happen, but it is one that offers fairly little direct benefit. And the really big problems remain: (1) The millions of home routers that aren't IPv6-capable and the failure of the vast majority of ISPs to offer IPv6 connectivity to their customers.

Re:Bingo (1)

wirelessfly (2552658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694454)

The problem is that the ISP / Mobile operator can no longer give each subscriber and IPv4 address since they have run out. Yes, there will be NAT64 for the legacy things that require IPv4, but IPv6 flows will be supported end to end ... Most Mobile phones and PCs in homes sit behind either a carrier NAT or a home NAT. With IPv6, there are enough address for everyone.... but the legacy IPv4 will be behind a NAT64... which is a punishment for failing to get to Ipv6

Re:Bingo (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695480)

I have to say of the various solutions for giving users without a public v4 IP access to v4 services NAT64 is the one I like least since it involves messing with DNS (which among other things will probablly make it fundamentally incompatible with dnssec), adds additional complexity to the translation (need to translate between protocols as well as translate addresses) and can't support legacy applications or devices.

DS-lite seems like the best solution to me. The access network can be V6 only, it's horizontally scalable, legacy clients can be supported by implementing it at the CPE and it doesn't mess with IPv6 service at all.

Re:Bingo (2, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695574)

The problem is that the ISP / Mobile operator can no longer give each subscriber and IPv4 address since they have run out. Yes, there will be NAT64 for the legacy things that require IPv4, but IPv6 flows will be supported end to end ... Most Mobile phones and PCs in homes sit behind either a carrier NAT or a home NAT. With IPv6, there are enough address for everyone.... but the legacy IPv4 will be behind a NAT64... which is a punishment for failing to get to Ipv6

Most mobile phones/smartphones/laptops on mobile data plans do NOT get an IPv4 address. They're NAT'ed. They may be transparently proxied too. Unless you go for the mega-expensive laptop data plans that offer a real IP (e.g., "VPN" support), then you're likely stuck behind several layers of NAT.

As for IPv6 having enough addresses for all - it's a great concept, but what I really want is just NATv6. Something that isolates the internal network numbering from my ISP. I mean, all that needs to happen is your ISP decides change your prefix and you'll spend the next day and a half trying to get everything back up on the network as they lose access, and fail to get the new address. In a company with 1,000 PCs, this could give the IT department headaches as various computers and devices fail to get the new prefix and lose access to email/internet/etc.

When this hits your parents house, it's going to be really fun rebooting routers and computers and devices.

At least with NATv6, if the ISP decides to renumber their networks, at worse you reboot your router. Inside network doing IPv6 Everything else still talks to the router since the gateway address didn't change, and everyone's happy.

Hell, people bitch and complain when their static IPv4 address changes and they have to update their DNS and IPs of all their servers. Heaven forbid you miss a config file and now some services can't start up.

NAT is a hack, but it's a nice one that isolates external world changes from the internal ones. Given most places will have firewalls that break end-to-end connectivity. Hell, mobile providers may firewall mobile devices "for their protection".

Waste and Bloat (2, Insightful)

Renegrade (698801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693934)

50 billion mobile devices? How much of this will end up as landfill? Does everybody REALLY need seven mobile devices?

Also, I'd feel a lot better about IPv6 if there weren't quite so many RFCs associated with it. The more complex a standard is, the more room there is for security holes, bugs, and non-conforming implementations... Is the second system effect going to bite us in the ass really hard?

Well, maybe we WILL need seven devices, just to load the new stack once..

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694168)

Seven devices? Hmm. Are we counting automobiles? I could manage that. My farming uncle could manage a dozen if he counted all his tractors and harvesters.

Actually, I could use one for each TV in my house, and the media player. Do those count as mobile devices?

Re:Waste and Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694262)

Do you move your TV's often?

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

Renegrade (698801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694784)

No, they don't count as mobile devices. How many TVs do you need anyways? Time to get a bit of exercise, you can walk to the living room!

Also your car doesn't need an IP address. Period. End of story.

Re:Waste and Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695242)

Once every car comes with a built in digital media management system and is expected to be able to maintain an internet connection at all times - they may. Required, no, but expected.

Re:Waste and Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694186)

Connected to mobile networks is what the article references. This could make sense.

Phone
Tablet
Kindle
Portable Game Console
Automobile
GPS
WhisperNet Devices....

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694448)

I think the count will go more like:

NSA tap
FBI tap
State tap
County tap
City tap
Republican tap
Democrat tap

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

Renegrade (698801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694710)

I bundle Phone/Tablet/Kindle into "3-generation-old-iphone". It's kinda small, but I have mild myopia (about -1.75 diopters) so it's easy for me to read e-books on it.

I'm in .ca, so I doubt I can even get a kindle here anyways.

I have a PSP, but there really isn't much out for it that I haven't finished already, and the 3-generation-old-iphone is sorta absorbing that functionality. I'm also rather disillusioned with console-y things anyways.

I don't drive the car at all (it's literally without a valid license plate due to me not caring), and my phone does GPS (which I don't need generally anyhow), so the phone's doing four to five things by itself now..

So I basically have:
- smartphone
- psp (retired)
- laptop (which barely qualifies as mobile, it's basically a desktop replacement unit)

Only the smartphone has any vague need of anything that isn't RFC1918 space, and 3/4 of the time, it's in that space too. The only thing I ever did with the PSP with the 'net was downloading updates..and games come with those anyhow, since it's part of their DRM system...

It's rare for me to need more than 1 IP for any of those at any given moment in time, and they're usually fine with NATted IPv4 space.

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694248)

Over 8 years. My phones last longer than 1 year, but not everybody actually takes care of theirs. Especially not if it is still under warranty when the next generation is released.

Don't worry, be happy (1, Funny)

celtic_hackr (579828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694250)

Criminal Hackers all over the world are working hard to come up with lots of zero day exploits for IPv6. When it finally goes live, they'll have plenty of hacks to bring it down in the first hour.

Re:Waste and Bloat (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694280)

consider it this way. 1 phone per person. 1 ipad/tablet/ereader per adult, 1 laptop per student 1 desktop per house -- plus several smart tvs, plus 1 wifi gateway plus game machines blah blah blah.
marketing was clearly relying on a future of thorium reactors every few blocks away. i just recently learned the earth and it's magnetosphere are based on thorium reactions in the magma layers of the planet.
widespread computing has its drawbacks.

Re:Waste and Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694382)

Your mom.

Re:Waste and Bloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694486)

Also *most* mobile networks are nat'd anyway. There are very few that are on public addresses. For example take onstar you really think they are using a public network? Its private and probably uses one a 192, 10 or 172, subnet...

IPv6 and 4G (4, Interesting)

anarcat (306985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38693998)

One thing that is not mentionned here is that the 4G specs actually mandate IPv6 and deprecate IPv4 support - something that should really push IPv6 adoption forward, especially with providers that offer both cell phone and traditionnal internet connectivity...

Good thing too. Getting those suckers in would have been difficult otherwise. With IPs running out in Europe this year, we are really starting to feel the pressure now...

Re:IPv6 and 4G (1)

wirelessfly (2552658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694494)

This is not at all true about 4G, it does not require IPv6. AT&T and DT are rolling LTE out without IPv6 right now. LTE is a great opportu

Still work to be done (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694038)

Though this discussion has focused purely on web access over the Internet, as many people mistakenly believe they're the same thing, there's still work to be done for enterprise and service provider networks to operate on pure IPv6. For example, with IPv6, there isn't really provider independent address space. So, when you get all your address space from your ISP, how do you dual-home to different ISPs? ISPs are not going to accept your advertisements of another ISPs address block like they would with IPv4. Why? Since the IPv6 address space is so large, they've already decided to limit the scale of the global BGP address table. So what? Well, now your hosts have to have multiple IP addresses. No big deal, IPv6 hosts already would already have multiple addresses assigned anyway for other purposes. The problem is now your hosts have to have the intelligence to decide which address to use. You could get around this by using only one ISPs addresses internally and NATing to the others for traffic in and out of the other ISPs link, but then you get back into what you were doing before with IPv4. Additionally, if you decide you no longer like that ISP, you have to readdress all your hosts. This is only one problem in a long list of many semi-larger (LDP can't signal over IPv6, etc.) and smaller, probably ignored problems (BGP router IDs currently only supported a 32bit number and are usually the IPv4 address used to initiate the session, etc.)

Re:Still work to be done (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694194)

I believe it doesn't matter. If you are on a LAN that connects to multiple providers, each client will have multiple addresses. [isp1]:[mac address], [isp2]:[mac address] and [internal lan]:[mac address] (roughly) The hosts don't have to decide, they just use whatever they want. And I don't think you have to readdress, as dhcp and the automagic self-addressing scheme will figure it out.

Re:Still work to be done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694270)

The end device does have to decide, though I'm sure this problem is not too entirely difficult. Readdressing workstations and clients is probably not a big deal either. As you pointed out, most are not statically configured. Readdressing hundreds to thousands of servers is more than a minor problem. This is why there's so much work done to keep data centers as flat as possible, to interconnect them as flat as possible and to separate the "identifier" and "location" functions of an address [read: LISP]). I don't think any of these problems are huge and new RFCs and standards are created everyday. I just think they still have to be solved and there are more than just a few.

What is this doing in here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694152)

Nick: [picks up snowglobe] What is this doing in here? Faggot shit! [throws snowglobe]

Stop Letting Idiots Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694240)

50 Billion devices ... laughable stupid PR. IPV4 exhaustion, also laughable. Whole premise, with no new information, laughable. Why front page?

IPv4 Applications? (2)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38694276)

I'm surprised at the amount of need for IPv6 upgrades at the application level. Really I would hope more OSes would allow IPv6 only with an internal IPv4 fake NAT approach to translate IPv6 information (local and remote targets) to fake internal IPv4 addresses. Remote targets would also need some form of IPv4 to IPv6 resolution. Perhaps add a notification from the OS that the application in question is not IPv6 capable and running in a compatibility mode with degraded performance.

And yes, I know part of the reason for IPv6 is to eliminate NAT, but I am just considering all the legacy application issues sure to arise without strong OS level support for bassackwards compatibility. Application level support should mostly be confined to various master server schemes, like IM clients, where the master server gives peers IPv4 addresses from clients for features like video chat. Still, some kind of DNS-like system for servers to aid in resolving IPv4 addresses to IPv6 would act as a patch during migration for legacy programs.

"Success" of IPV6 day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38694312)

You're kidding right? There was a noticeable degradation in V4 performance for the exact period described by the V6 test.

Hurricane Electric had some links carrying v4 traffic that went completely down; at least of their peers severed the connection in the middle of the test.

If this had been an attack, people would be getting. This crap isn't finished enough to "test" and screw up the (overwhelmingly huge) part of the net that *actually works*.

IPV6 on Smartphones already (1)

pentalive (449155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695024)

I was recently in attendance in a chat room where I noticed several people's connections info seemed to include IPV6 addresses (hexadecimal separated by ':' ) When I asked one of them how they were liking IPV6, they responded that they did not even know they were using IPV6, that they were using their iPhone to join the chat room.

Re:IPV6 on Smartphones already (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695502)

out of interest do you remember if they were using regular IPv6 addresses, 6to4 addresses (2002::/16) or teredo addresses (2001:0::/32)?

Ipv6-only Skype failing on android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695116)

So Skype would be extending current service levels to ipv6-only...

Re:Ipv6-only Skype failing on android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695160)

So Skype would be extending current service levels to ipv6-only...

Zing!

Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695232)

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

wirelessfly (2552658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695268)

and XKCD wins again rot@lil:~$ host xkcd.com | grep IPv6 xkcd.com has IPv6 address 2001:48c8:1:d:0:23:5482:d026 rot@lil:~$ host slashdot.org | grep IPv6 rot@lil:~$ Next thread, when is slashdot getting IPv6

How does Grandma acces the IPV6 cloud? (0)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695288)

Or anyone else with an IPV4 only address?

Who's going to pay for the billions of IPv4 devices that need to be replaced in order to offer IPV6 only services to folks?

I say simply bolt another 8 octets onto existing IPv4 address space, and use the tried and true TCP/IP protocol suite.Backwards compatibility is good.

Call it IPv7...

Re:How does Grandma acces the IPV6 cloud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695492)

I say simply bolt another 8 octets onto existing IPv4 address space, and use the tried and true TCP/IP protocol suite.Backwards compatibility is good.

Okay captain dipshit. I'll explain why you are stupid.

First, IPv6 does reuse the TCP part of the TCP/IP stack. Second, as for "bolting on" another 8 octects to existing IPv4 address space...you'd still BE DOING THE EXACT SAME SHIT AS YOU ARE WITH IPV6! How exactly do you make a bunch of devices handle this "extra" 8 bits of data. So you go from a 32bit integer to a 40bit integer, yeah that's not going to break anything....

Also most operating systems are already prepared to deal with IPv6, a lack of IPv6 connections is the main issue. So your "IPv7" idea, would require all the same fucking work over again, but putting shit back 10+ years. Good idea.

Who's going to pay for the billions of IPv4 devices that need to be replaced in order to offer IPV6 only services to folks?

The customer of course. Let me guess you want fucking government handouts for IPv6 devices too?

Lack of choice of ISP's is a problem... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695362)

Somebody from my ISP has told me, in so many words, that they have absolutely no intention of making IPv6 available to consumers until [!!!!] they run out of IPv4 addresses... which the fellow I spoke to insisted was still years away, and offered absolutely no timeline given for any actual switch. To top it all off, he said that they would not even be doing any sort of gradual transition when it does happen... that the switchover would be essentially instantaneous for everybody, and would be transparent for anybody using a currently patched version of their OS.

I hate my ISP... but there's only 3 to choose from where I live, and the other two each have problems of their own that I would be utterly unable to live with.

Re:Lack of choice of ISP's is a problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38695424)

Thank the lovely FCC for re-regulating the telco infrastructure to allow monopolies to kill almost all ISPs nearly overnight.

Re:Lack of choice of ISP's is a problem... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38695512)

It may well be years away for them depending on how many IPs they have spare and how stable the size of their customer base is.

I suspect his insistence that it would be instantanous and transparent either means
1: He hasn't got a clue
2: They don't have any plans
3: They are hoping they can wait for everyone else to transition first.
4: They really plan to deploy IPv4 NAT instead of deploying IPv6 but they don't want to admit that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?