×

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!

Apple Under Fire For Backing Off IPv6 Support

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the no-ipv6-for-you dept.

Networking 460

alphadogg writes "Apple Computer came under fire for back-pedaling on its support for IPv6, the next-generation Internet Protocol, at a gathering of experts held in Denver this week. Presenters at the North American IPv6 Summit expressed annoyance that the latest version of Apple's AirPort Utility, Version 6.0, is no longer compatible with IPv6. The previous Version, 5.6, offered IPv6 service by default. While home networking vendors like Cisco and D-Link are adding IPv6 across their product lines, Apple appears to be the only vendor that is removing this feature."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

460 comments

Because 32bits of addressing... (1, Funny)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#39693225)

is all the world will need for the next 20 years, right?

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693291)

Cue every fucking Apple fag in the world parrotting that IPv6 is evil and broken - and that's why Apple has removed it.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693465)

Cue every fucking Apple fag in the world parrotting that IPv6 is evil and broken - and that's why Apple has removed it.

Oh, come now, the Apple cult is so hilariously mindless and zombie-like in their devotion to The Almighty Ascended Lord Jobs (and Apple, the avatar of His glory and honor) by this point that you can do better than simple profanity and homophobia. How about a few oblique Nineteen Eighty-Four references, specifically a rewording of the infamous "We were always at war with Eurasia" lines? That would fit quite well, given Apple's historic stubbornness to the point of attempting to rewrite history and silence opposing opinions (re: their history of deleting "inconvenient" posts in their forums, their refusal to acknowledge malware spreading on OS X, etc).

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693479)

Come on. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel you homophobic troll.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693517)

Go back to r/shitredditsays.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1, Offtopic)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39693523)

Troll, yes... but words change, and I note that in some forums (/b/ being one) the term 'fag' is used as a general insult without sexual implication, in the same way that gamers might call something 'gay' to disparage it. So the homophobia is uncertain.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693527)

Are you insinuating that Apple fags are gay?

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693857)

Come on. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel you homophobic troll.

You are totally stereotyping apple fags as homosexuals. What is this world comming to?

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693767)

Cue every Apple hating fuck.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (2, Informative)

V!NCENT (1105021) | about 2 years ago | (#39693489)

I was really puzzled about this, so I went to 'investigate' the issue a bit. Turns out Airport is not a router, but a sort of wireless switch (no modem). So this is probably another speed optimization as packets are 96bit smaller and your home network probably isn't filled with more than 4294967296 devices.

The first thing that comes to my mind is how in the hell this is going to work when you want to access the internet in such a configuration. The utility or physical Airport station probably converts this. I don't think Apple is that retarded...

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (3, Informative)

Cinder6 (894572) | about 2 years ago | (#39693609)

Source on this? It seems to do the important parts of routing, at least for a home network configuration--assigns IP addresses, allows port forwarding, etc. And it certainly can do IPv6--the option was removed, for some reason, from the newest configuration utility. Also, it obviously works when connecting to the Internet, unless it has a really sophisticated Slashdot emulator :)

You can still download the old Utility: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US [apple.com]

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (5, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | about 2 years ago | (#39693597)

I guess I'll try one more time. Whether in this *specific* case it's a good or bad thing, remember that most of us are running small IPv4 networks. IPv6 adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed.

I just wrote an article on this for an industry trade magazine. One gem of a quote came from a vendor who makes audio-over-IP remote equipment (i.e., remote broadcast from a site away from the studios). He said, and I quote, that his company is IPv6-ready at the hardware level, but hasn't added it yet, because -- here's the quote -- "not one single customer has requested it." In fact, those who have added it get support calls from people: "why is this so slow?" "Why can't I connect?" The answer? Disable the IPv6 unless you KNOW you need it! :)

Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | about 2 years ago | (#39693727)

IPv6 makes VPN a lot easier and more reliable. Many small businesses care about that so that their employees can work while at home or traveling.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1, Redundant)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39693821)

existing solutions work just fine with ipv4.

I don't believe, for a second, that all addresses in companies or homes need to be public addresses!

and, of course, there is some security to NOT being directly touchable on the net.

I don't WANT my address to be easily and directly reachable.

running ipv6 is about as useful, to home users, as running BGP.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (-1, Flamebait)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 2 years ago | (#39693923)

I would very highly recommend you do not talk about things you do not understand. You really do make yourself look like an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall

I'd recommend Network+.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#39693911)

Where to you live that you can assume that your home, office and whatever hotel/coffeeshop/hotspot you come across has IPv6 working?

Last year, for World IPv6 day, the goal was to enable IPv6 FOR ONE DAY. And that's all most people got. This year organizers are trying to convince ISPs to actually leave it enabled. And most home routers that are actually deployed don't have IPv6 support.

So, for a very small percentage of people, IPv6 is making VPN easier today.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (2)

pankkake (877909) | about 2 years ago | (#39693751)

> A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6.

IPv6 isn't only about having more adresses. For instance, stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting in a local network.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 years ago | (#39693757)

But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?

You are planning to run IPv4 on the inside NAT'ed to IPv6 on the router? This is doable but somewhat tricky since you need to fake DNS. You won't get any of the IPv6 benefits, of course.

I doubt it will be a particularly popular deployment model. Putting complexity in the CPE's which are already behind schedule to save trouble for the client systems which have been ready for ages seems somewhat backwards.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (4, Interesting)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#39693789)

IPv6 allows us to finally get rid of NAT by having the router request several public addresses which are handed out to the individual computers.

The "not needed" mentality doesn't solve anything, especially because they could have just added an option to disable IPv6 instead of removing it.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (4, Funny)

udippel (562132) | about 2 years ago | (#39693827)

Inside the facility, who cares?

Patronizing, are you? What makes you think you may prescribe the type of internal addressing (size of RAM, internationalisation, etc.) to anyone and everyone?
I for one do care. Be it to work with IPv6 islands in an IPv4 shop, or student and research work. Maybe someone wants the same IP address wherever she goes?

It can be understood from your post that you say "as long as the Apple box allows a connection; by whichever means and difficulties including eventual downgrades and encumbrances, I will defend its weaknesses to the very end".
Though you could have said so.

Re:Because 32bits of addressing... (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | about 2 years ago | (#39693899)

Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?

That's all well and good, but the technology to translate an IPv4 private network to an IPv6 public network -- and the need to do that is coming quickly -- *sucks*. It is not nearly as trivial a problem as one might initially expect, and every solution I've seen other than dual stack is an ugly hack that makes IPv4 NAT look like the very model of elegance. Removing IPv6 as even an option at this point is just stupid. Make the default "off?" Sure. But remove it entirely? Stupid in the extreme.

Features (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#39693235)

With IPv6 likely to become mainstream soon, I'm sure they'll add it back ... for a fee. If it follows their use of XMPP, DAAP, ePUB, etc, there will also be proprietary extensions.

Re:Features (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693543)

IPv6 is never going to become mainstream. It will remain LAN side only, and then v6tov4 nat, and if we are doing that, just we can just use v4tov4 nat. If internet was about to be run on IPX (novell) then it would have run on this. IPv6 is nothing more than in in terms of broadcast and zero control over routing and advertisements. Internet works because of BGP, ipv6 does not work (well) with BGP, that is why ipv6 will remain in networks but network-to-network will remain at v4, and we have more than enough v4s for it. We will even have v6 to v6 VPN over v4 internet, so the v6 LAN will seem uninterrupted, but that is not so significant. ipv4 is the future, ip6 is an ill created IP version of IPX.

Re:Features (2, Interesting)

Gonoff (88518) | about 2 years ago | (#39693761)

I have heard one paranoid assertion about IP6 which said that the reason it was being pushed so enthusiastically is that every device in the world will gets its own address. With a GUID on all traffic, everything is traceable and MAFIAA and the spooks are happy.
discuss

Re:Features (4, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 2 years ago | (#39693585)

You know, I've been waiting for it to become "mainstream" for over a decade now. Constantly, people have said "It's coming! It's coming!". Support has been added to just about everything. The problem is still that all those pesky web sites that people want to reach haven't converted. I went cruising through the IPv6 migration sites, they show the dozens of sites that are available.

Here's a quick look.

$ dig AAAA www.isc.org +short
2001:4f8:0:2::d
 
$ dig AAAA google.com +short
 
$ dig AAAA www.google.com +short
www.l.google.com.
 
$ dig AAAA ipv6.google.com +short
ipv6.l.google.com.
2001:4860:8002::67
 
$ dig AAAA slashdot.org +short
 
$ dig AAAA ipv6.slashdot.org +short
 
$ dig AAAA www.slashdot.org +short
 
$ dig AAAA xkcd.com +short
2001:48c8:1:d:0:23:5482:d026

So, if you just switch over, you can't use google.com, unless you remember to use ipv6.google.com. You can't reach Slashdot. Try all the sites you frequent. Of my daily reading list, the only one that works by its normal name is xkcd.com. Most of them are big sites.

I'd expect to see ISP wide NAT deployed before IPv6. IPv6 is a novelty that may get adopted sometime in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it.

Re:Features (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693685)

Google's DNS servers only return IPv6 addresses if they believe you're capable of reaching them over IPv6:

http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/

Re:Features (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693795)

It's being adopted now. Verizon ran out of IPv4 addresses for their cell phone network. They're using NAT right now but that creates a huge headache not only because it requires more hardware, but also because an IP address no longer identifies a single cell phone on their network. They're forcing anyone who wants to talk directly to their cell network to be IPv6 capable in the very near future. NAT is fine for networks where there is a well-defined connection point between 2 different networks (like your internal home network and the rest of the internet), but it's not very nice to work with as soon as you have to have 2 devices within the same network that have to use the same IP. As soon as you put NAT there you can no longer connect to the device from the outside, the device must initiate the connection, which makes a whole class of programs much more difficult to make work well.

Re:Features (2)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39693875)

I disocvered that Youtube was delivering to me via IPv6 and I didn't even realize that. The main site has no AAAA record that I can see. But the video delivery actually went over IPv6, despite me only using IPv4 for DNS. I suspect they bugged the page with a transparent image that asks for a hostname that is only on IPv6, and set a cookie or something to engage IPv6.

Re:Features (4, Insightful)

marcansoft (727665) | about 2 years ago | (#39693891)

You don't "switch" to IPv6, you add IPv6. Nobody expects IPv4 to go away any time soon. What everyone's talking about is supporting IPv6 plus IPv4. So all your old sites work, but you can also reach any new hosts that have IPv6 addresses only directly, and get the benefits of avoiding NAT. Those hosts will likely be mobile customers at first, since that's one of the first places where ISPs are having to use v6. As for those users, they will be able to talk to IPv4 sites via DNS trickery and IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT, or just via plain old IPv4 NAT.

IPv7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693253)

Apple is secretly working on IPv7, where there's just a single light-weight packet type, and is exclusively available on the AT&T backbone (at a premium rate).

Re:IPv7 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693335)

Do those packets have rounded corners?

Re:IPv7 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693639)

You joke but the rounded corners make the packets move through the series of tubes better.

Re:IPv7 (5, Funny)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#39693337)

No, they are just pissed that the initial letter is capital. They are probably coming up with iPv6 for Mac.

Re:IPv7 (1, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#39693389)

Close, It'll be called iPv5, actually. It'll work only with HTML5, and its packets will only support one standard transfer protocol. Google, Mozilla, and Apple disagree on whether it should be HTTP, FTP, or FTTP respectively, even though FTTP [wikipedia.org] is not even a transfer protocol.

Also it'll make canvas and video faster somehow, possibly through the patent-pending technology called "magic".

Re:IPv7 (3, Funny)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#39693537)

Well, if they name it
the new revolutionary internet Protocol for enhanced experience on devices.

You could actually claim "iPeed on an iPad".

Re:IPv7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693549)

Actually, it will be called iPv4s.

Re:IPv7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693909)

Apple is secretly working on IPv7, where there's just a single light-weight packet type, and is exclusively available on the AT&T backbone (at a premium rate).

FYI, odd numbered IPv# indicates that it is experimental and not for public real-world use.

It figures (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693265)

Apple is a company where non-engineers make the rules, which allows them to create the best user experience, but in cases like this it would be better to have someone with a technical background in the lead.

Re:It figures (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693299)

The input boxes/fields became to big considering the maximum size/length of an ipv6 address. UI design just doesn't allow such huge elements.

Re:It figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693363)

As someone who actually uses this app, it seemed strange to me too when I first saw it. Like someone took away the admin/power user side and made it completely simple UI. They actually tell you to go and download an older version to do advanced stuff.

Something must have snuck past the (whoever looks out for shit like this) to make it into the wild. I do not mind a simple interface for the simple people, but give the power users an access panel or something.

Re:It figures (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#39693651)

As someone who actually uses this app, it seemed strange to me too when I first saw it. Like someone took away the admin/power user side and made it completely simple UI. They actually tell you to go and download an older version to do advanced stuff.

Something must have snuck past the (whoever looks out for shit like this) to make it into the wild. I do not mind a simple interface for the simple people, but give the power users an access panel or something.

If you like that, check out Lion Server. About 10 steps backwards from Snow Leopard Server. But it's easier. So easy, that you could put it on a toaster.

Somebody at Apple is regressing to the mean for some bizarre reason. I'm also OK with a 'simple' interface if you leave some functionality behind the scenes - dropdown menus (so 20th Century) or just a CLI - whatever. But something for those who walk upright all of the time.

And then there is Final Cut X. And Aperture.

The Apple singularity is going to be a little machine with a single button that just pulses quietly and does nothing at all.

Re:It figures (0)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 2 years ago | (#39693791)

well as some one who worked for a big telcom back in the 90's back in the mid 90's when the internet took off big time it was obvious even before then that ipv6 was a disaster. Developed in an ivory tower like OSI with ZERO thought given to interoperability and migration which should have been the Key things when developing a replacement for IPv4.

Because its not an Apple product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693271)

Probably removed it because Apple didn't design IPv6 and they'll release iIP next month to compete instead of following a standard.

Re:Because its not an Apple product (2)

Idbar (1034346) | about 2 years ago | (#39693375)

The internet protocol for enhanced experience, the new revolutionary: iPee

We still need subjects? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693297)

I'm sure slashdot readers are entirely unaware of what goes on when a program is rewritten. And naturally assume that when it happens, 100% of all features and abilities are reproduced without any complications in a couple months. Just look at photoshop - its been such a breeze to rewrite for adobe.

I'm sure no company would ever think about building a rewrite with enough features and polish to ship, then add in feature parity as updates later.

Re:We still need subjects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693311)

Logic doesn't work on Apple haters.

Re:We still need subjects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693499)

I just upgraded to Photoshop CS24. Too bad the filters don't work, and neither does export to jpeg, but hey I should give Adobe some slack. I cannot expect them to do magic when rewriting their flagship product, right? Oh well, I guess it will become available in a few months with SP1.

Idiot.

Re:We still need subjects? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#39693675)

I just upgraded to Photoshop CS24. Too bad the filters don't work, and neither does export to jpeg, but hey I should give Adobe some slack. I cannot expect them to do magic when rewriting their flagship product, right? Oh well, I guess it will become available in a few months with SP1.

Idiot.

CS Twentyfour? So they have really invented time travel then?

Did Adobe do it (in which case you'd be bounced into the Civil War if your mouse click is off by a pixel) or did Apple do it? (If so, say hi to Steve II for us).

What's the weather like?

Re:We still need subjects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693587)

Mod this AAPL shill down. IPv6 should not come under feature parity, in fact the lack of it should be a release blocker.

Non-sense! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693301)

Actually, the expertsare divided on whether IPv4 addresses will be exhaused. There may be many more addresses hidden out there. Before this is properly investigated it is too early to take action on IPv4 exhaustion. The idea that addresses are running out is only scare-mongering spread by the left-wing media. We should focus more on the controversy and less on IPv6 support.

Re:Non-sense! (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39693409)

you are right. we should 'teach to the controversy'.

IPv4 addresses are less than 6000 years old. they are our god-given right and no heathen lefty is gonna convince me otherwise.

USA USA USA!

Re:Non-sense! (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 2 years ago | (#39693699)

Not to mention the fact that adding IPv6 addresses hugely dilutes the value of IP addresses - you can't just print more IP addresses without causing hyperinflation! The internet IP economy will COLLAPSE!

That's why I've been switching to doing all my communications with packets made of solid gold. It's a little slower, but no dang socialist government is going to collapse MY packets' value! I'll be the one laughing when you guys have to use like a billion IP addresses just to send one "tweet"!

Re:Non-sense! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693431)

Actually, the expertsare divided on whether IPv4 addresses will be exhaused. There may be many more addresses hidden out there. Before this is properly investigated it is too early to take action on IPv4 exhaustion. The idea that addresses are running out is only scare-mongering spread by the left-wing media. We should focus more on the controversy and less on IPv6 support.

Yeah, that hockey-stick graph of IPv4 address usage has been shown to be based on possibly misinterpreted data. It's still possible that our address usage is in fact decreasing.

Re:Non-sense! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693437)

What we need is not IPv6, but IPv7. IPv7 will include massive taxes, that we will say will only affect the rich but everyone knows that won't cover its costs so once they start implementing it the tax will be extended to cover everyone. Only a small fraction of the taxes raised will go to implementing IPv7, the rest will go to shell companies owed by big donors to the president. After five years of massive spending and taxes IPv7 will be shown to be a complete failure and suddently everyone in office will pretend it didn't get passed directly along party lines and try telling us that it was a bipartsian issue.

Oh yea, and if you express ANY disagreement with IPv7 you will be called a racist (the only reason to oppose IPv7), a terrorist, or a flat earther.

Re:Non-sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693769)

If you hadn't tossed in the last sentence, I could easily have mistaken this rant as one describing Bush. It's cool that switching the letter next to someone's name brings about so much change!

Re:Non-sense! (1)

Semiprime (2479392) | about 2 years ago | (#39693863)

I'm personally a firm believer in abiogenic IP address origin (similar to Abiogenic petroleum origin [wikipedia.org] ). The issue is that those ICANN people who believe in the theory of biological IP origin are going about finding available IP addresses the wrong way. They just need to dig a little deeper where they will find large pockets of untapped IP addresses. If they also go back to some of the previously mined class A blocks they will find that a lot of new addresses have been spontaneously generated since they first allocated them. There's at least another 5-6 billion IPs waiting to be discovered. The true problem is that ICANN is trying to force their personal agenda on us which we all know is that IPv6 does not support the evil bit [wikipedia.org] .

and? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693303)

How much do you want to bet it shows up in a new update? This looks like FCPX, XCode4, iMovie08 etc etc all over again. Completely new redesigned version that has some feature that isn't used much stripped out that will be put in in a future update.

Battery life. (0)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 2 years ago | (#39693381)

Simple as that. That's their core philosophy. Batter life. IPv4 got it. IPv6 don't.

Re:Battery life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693403)

doubt it.

This is a small symptom of Steve Jobs being gone. Time management is entering back into their process. Want to hit date xyz so features A, B, and C will not get tested lets yank them.

It will get worse as time goes on.

Re:Battery life. (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 2 years ago | (#39693563)

I believe you. The loss of Steve Jobs, sadly, impacted the dedication to quality and that sense of pride surrounding their commitment to truly technically inspiring Apple products. QA is there which means untested or essentially unnecessary features can't ship, and that's good, but the fact they can't take the time to test them when it means a more beautiful and worthwhile product, that's bad.

I was obviously joking about battery life because they've used that claim to dismiss a half dozen technologies even under Steve Jobs, I was being sardonic, I think that's the word...

ipv4 is dead, long live ipv4! (0)

itzdandy (183397) | about 2 years ago | (#39693391)

I don't anticipate that ipv4 dies off as slowly as many people suggest. ipv4 is easy to understand, and addresses fit within the average technicians short term memory. Just try to remember ipv6 addresses, you brain will melt!

Soo many services are now becoming NAT compatible, and many ISPs are now NATing their customers and handing out private ipv4 addresses.

I do expect enterprise networks to migrate first. Microsoft has done a good job at making ipv6 a desirable thing in it's enterprise environment. Each computer gets a public ipv6 address and ipsec encrypts any domain related traffic for a VPN-free anywhere corporate network.

At home? probably ipv4 for a very long time and some 4to6 NATing either on the router side or way up at the ISP side as the server world goes ipv6..

just my thoughts.

Re:ipv4 is dead, long live ipv4! (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#39693733)

I don't anticipate that ipv4 dies off as slowly as many people suggest. ipv4 is easy to understand, and addresses fit within the average technicians short term memory. Just try to remember ipv6 addresses, you brain will melt!

IPv4 never has to go away. It can be used forever in internal networks.

IPv6 Addresses can be remembered if you select your local bits rather than let the slaac monster pick them for you. Google via IPv6 for example: 2001:4860:8005::68 ... Almost the same length as an IPv4 address!!

IPv6 lets you have some hexsp33k fun..

Face book:
2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3

cisco dog food ipv6 day:
2001:420:80:1:c:15:c0:d07:f00d

SPRINT!!! OMFG...
2600::

Re:ipv4 is dead, long live ipv4! (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#39693845)

I don't anticipate that ipv4 dies off as slowly as many people suggest. ipv4 is easy to understand, and addresses fit within the average technicians short term memory. Just try to remember ipv6 addresses, you brain will melt!

That's what DNS is for. DNS never really caught on in small private networks, but network equipment is increasingly making use of it. WHS 2011 can be accessed as "http://homeserver", most routers/APs support it as well... It's by far the least of anyone's worries

Re:ipv4 is dead, long live ipv4! (5, Informative)

jroysdon (201893) | about 2 years ago | (#39693861)

IPv6 is actually very easy to remember when done right. Further, we have DNS for address resolution - how many of the websites you visited today do you know the IPv4 address for?

For an enterprise, once they get their allocation, it's really not that bad. I will make up an allocation as an example:

2600:123:b000::/48

With 5 more octets left (octets isn't the right term, but divisions seperated by colons), you can do a large amount of intelligent numbering, and even just reuse all of your VLAN and IPv4 numbering right inside your IPv6 addressing.

For instance, if you have a server network at 172.16.2.0/24 and it is vlan 203, you can assign 2600:123:b000:203::/64 (with the nodes getting ::172:16:2:yyy), so a given server node with 172.16.2.105 would be 2600:123:b000:203:172:16:2:105 . It's wasteful, but with IPv6, who cares?

If you have more than one site, then each site should get you your own /48. When applying for addreses, you should do so for all sites at once. We have a /44 (x:x:b000 - x:x:b00f) as we have 9 sites. We can then assign each site based on their site numbers (2600:123:b001 - 2600:123:b009). We use 2600:123:b000 for infrastructure, and still have 2600:123:b00a - 2600:123:b00f left over.

So, site 3, vlan 405, network 172.24.5.0/24 would be assigned 2600:123:b003:405::/64 with nodes having 2600:123:b003:405:172:24:5:yyy. For workstations that use SLAAC and/or DHCPv6, you don't care about the last 64 bits and you rely on DNS. But you still know the site and VLAN if you use the same numbering. 2600:123:b002:464::/64, which is site 2, vlan 464.

All the IT staff has to do is learn that 2600:123:b000 - b00f is our assignment and explain the rest of our addressing plan. It's actually rather natural to do it this way and makes a ton of sense.

Oh, and personally I would skip doing any decimal to hex conversion where it can be avoided. For instance, I would not make vlan 165 be A5 (the hex value), but rather just 165. This does mean you'll "waste" something like 37.5% of your address space - but again, who cares? I'll take readability over maximum use any day.

peer-to-peer = loss of control (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693393)

Every big firm wants, above all, to get rid of the quaint notion that the Internet is a network of intelligent peers. Much better to have dumb terminals all locked in to your service.

Sticking with IPv4 and the resultant multi-NAT hell is a good technical step in this direction.

It's like Google pretending to champion IPv6 then setting absurd conditions for their IPv6 services. So ISPs which offer native IPv6 by default, such as England's Andrews&Arnold, have to jump through artificial hoops before they're "supported". And it's no coincidence that half of abusive SixXS is half-run by a Google employee.

Oddly enough - and this'll get me the mod to oblivion - only MS has historically shown neutral support for IPv6, neither trying to control it nor eschewing it. That's because, I expect, Microsoft was traditionally about the powerful desktop and local server (running NT, of course). Now it's jumped on the cloud bandwagon, who knows?

It will be back as a "new" feature (1)

emolitor (129606) | about 2 years ago | (#39693415)

Watch carefully as I suspect Apple will "magically" add this as a bullet point feature to help sell a new iteration of the product. (Failing to mention that it was previously supported) Wankers

Re:It will be back as a "new" feature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693441)

And it'll have an odd quirk whereby it'll only work with other Apple products.

Airport Utility 6.0 is awful (4, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | about 2 years ago | (#39693417)

I'm sure the functionality will be added back in.

Airport Utility 6.0 follows the recent trend of Apple making all of their software neutered versions of iOS versions (Lion to a certain extent, iCal, Address Book, etc)--so the comments here http://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/30/apple-releases-redesigned-ios-like-airport-utility-6-0-and-an-airport-base-station-bug-fix/ [macrumors.com] . So, they went from a useful program with a standard interface (old version) to one with a pretty UI that lacks major features.

The trend has been for Apple to add MOST features back in at some point, so hopefully it continues. I can't imagine Airport Utility will stay this way forever.

I just keep an old binary around...

Re:Airport Utility 6.0 is awful (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693469)

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't "upgrade" to OS X Vista, aka Lion.

Re:Airport Utility 6.0 is awful (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693565)

Indeed, they still offer the download for previous version (5.6) which happily coexists with version 6.0. I can only imagine they wanted to get the new version out fast, and extend it with non-essential features over time.

PS: The download link for those interested: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482

Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (-1)

redelm (54142) | about 2 years ago | (#39693467)

Disclaimer: I generally do not like Apple (quality but overpriced hardware, buggy, slow & closed software) in a manner rivalling my dislike for Microsoft.

But here I have to give Apple some credit (even if not for the same reasons) -- IPv6 is a privacy nightmare and a lawyer/spook/stalker's dream. Addresses will have 128 bits. Not only is this a significant increase in packet overhead, but it is highly likely that some portion will identify a person.

Yes, yes, I know there are lots of things the ISPs _can_ do to under IPv6 preserve anonymity. Most will not, and of the few remaining, a few unfriendly chats from the telecommunication regulators will persuade most. A token few might remain unpersuaded, but this is not a problem for authorities since they will collect many suspects in one place. Mixmaster/Anonymizer don't need to be honeypots when they are pink flags.

One of the important keys for anonymity is herd protection. Having an impossibly large number of people doing similar things so the anon is hard to distinguish. Like ecommerce using https unflagging encryption. Currently, most users are using corp proxies or using limited IPv4 addr that ISPs have to dynamically allocate. Of course there are logs of who has what IP, but these are generally difficult to access and most importantly, expire after some time. Retro-fishing becomes hard/impossible.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693555)

Uhm,

You do know, that IP addresses were originally designed to be assigned to a computer statically, right?
Each computer used to get an address, and the host file would be updated to include that computer's host name and IP address. Passing host files around got to be a nightmare, so DNS was invented, but IPs were still static for everyone except dial-up modem users.

NAT is here and it works for some things, but it is a shitty solution that causes all kinds of problems. NAT and dynamic IPs were not invented for privacy or anonymity, and they don't really do a good job at either. Having your computer have a globally routable IP address is a good thing, not a bad thing, and a lot of people pay extra for that "extra" feature (including people who want to run a server).

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (0)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 2 years ago | (#39693627)

"Having your computer have a globally routable IP address is a good thing, not a bad thing..."

Not from a security perspective.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (2)

xous (1009057) | about 2 years ago | (#39693703)

I'm getting really tired of idiots that think NAT is a security solution. It's not. It's a hack that breaks end-to-end connectivity.

The only way IPv6 can be a security issue is because incompetent fucks don't understand security.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (-1, Redundant)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39693883)

NAT is a security solution.

ping at me, bro. telnet at me. ssh at me. come on, I dare you.

you are not getting thru.

it IS security. it stops inbounds and works very very well.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (3, Informative)

jroysdon (201893) | about 2 years ago | (#39693895)

That's bunk. NAT doesn't provide real security, and in fact a false sense of security. Your firewall should always deny/drop traffic by default, except where permitted otherwise, either explicitly or by a stateful connection originating from the inside.

If you want pseudo anonymity on the level of what you have with IPv4, then leave the global randomize identifiers on. It's on by default in Windows. You actually have to disable it with netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693579)

On a further note, MS has put some level of annonymity into their adaption of the MAC address into IPv6 addressing.

PEBKAC flaw in logic (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 years ago | (#39693599)

Not only is this a significant increase in packet overhead, but it is highly likely that some portion will identify a person.

Without additional corroborating information all you can do with IPV4 or IPV6 is identify the originating computer. It is impossible to be 100% certain of who the person actually sitting at that computer is unless they transmit other uniquely identifying information or can be identified by third party sources such as security cameras. IPv6 is not meaningfully more useful for personal identification than IPv4.

Re:PEBKAC flaw in logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693765)

IPv6 is not meaningfully more useful for personal identification than IPv4.

No one but me uses my laptop. Currently, my IP address changes every time my ADSL modem is switched off/on (I switch it off when I'm not at home). Right now, my IP address only indicates which ISP I use. That will change with IPv6. An IP address will basically become a super cookie I can't delete in any way.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693605)

You're a moron.

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (1)

kwark (512736) | about 2 years ago | (#39693643)

"Not only is this a significant increase in packet overhead, but it is highly likely that some portion will identify a person.
Yes, yes, I know there are lots of things the ISPs _can_ do to under IPv6 preserve anonymity. Most will not"

It isn't the job of the ISP do generate random ipv6 addresses, it is pu to the user:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4941.txt [ietf.org] (nearly 5 years old though)

Re:Good for them! PRIVACY gone in 128bits (1)

syncrotic (828809) | about 2 years ago | (#39693679)

Would you maybe care to explain just what it is that you're on about? Seriously, not a single thing you've written makes any sense.

This is non-sense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693531)

They did not remove IPV6 at all. They new confit utility (v.6) doesn't let you configure it, but they say so right in the docs that it is one of th feature the new version does not yet support. They also give you a download link the previous 5.6 version if you want to configure those rarely used features. IPV6 is even enabled by default.

I hate ipv6 (4, Insightful)

Sir_Real (179104) | about 2 years ago | (#39693535)

There I said it. The lack of adoption and the lack of knowledge have made it a tremendous burden with absolutely zero benefit to our organization. I'm fine with running ipv4 into the ground. I just don't care anymore. I hate ipv6.

Re:I hate ipv6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693657)

And I absolutely hate IPv4. NAT, port forwarding, lack of address space, ever increase price per IP, fuck it!

Getting an IPv4 address that is then flooded with random shit traffic, what a mess.

PS. based on your comment, it seems you do not have IPv6 - you hate ignorance.

Re:I hate ipv6 (2)

rssrss (686344) | about 2 years ago | (#39693661)

That's funny. I talked to ipv6, and she said she still likes you.

Re:I hate ipv6 (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39693867)

nah, ipv6 has been dating DECnet phase V for the last few decades.

they have their differences, but their neighborhoods are similarly gated and their kids all share the same bus to school.

apple net (0)

dirty_ghost (1673990) | about 2 years ago | (#39693569)

apple is no doubt creating its own network. no more worry about DRM, or how apple will get your money into their pocket!

In other news.... (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39693645)

MS seen as backpedaling on it's support for 64-bit computing over Windows 8 only supporting 32-bit CPUs in tablets.

Come on people, this isn't backpedaling, it's a completely new version of a utility that in it's initial release supports what's in use in 99% of installations. Those who are actually using IPv6 can use the older version until this one adds support (probably in the next release).

Maybe Apple thinks the Republicans will win? (0, Flamebait)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#39693783)

And so the number of people who can afford internet access - and, consequentially, the need to enlarge the range of available addresses - is about to plunge dramatically?

(Yeah, you may think that is trolling, but anybody who runs a big corporation will tell you that the corporation that doesn't keep a finger to the political winds has already seen its best days.)

IMEI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39693849)

I suppose Apple could do a software update for the Airport to support V6. I wonder if Apple is going to AUID and IMEI rather than IP so they have an intermediate mapping server to funnel through?

JJ

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...