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!

After Launch Day: Taking Stock of IPv6 Adoption

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the perhaps-romania-loves-broccoli-too dept.

Networking 244

darthcamaro writes "So how did World IPv6 Launch go? Surprisingly well, according to participants at the event. Google said it has seen 150% growth in IPv6 traffic, Facebook now has 27 million IPv6 users and Akamai is serving 100x more IPv6 traffic. But it's still a 'brocolli' technology. 'I've said in the past that IPv6 is a 'broccoli' technology,' Leslie Daigle, CTO of the Internet Society said. 'I still think it is a tech everybody knows it would be good if we ate more of it but nobody wants to eat it without the cheese sauce.'" Reader SmartAboutThings adds a few data points: "According to Google statistics, Romania leads the way with a 6.55% adoption rate, followed by France with 4.67%. Japan is on the third place so far with 1.57% but it seems here 'users still experience significant reliability or latency issues connecting to IPv6-enabled websites.' In the U.S. and China the users have noticed infrequent issues connecting to the new protocol, but still the adoption rate is 0.93% and 0.58%, respectively."

cancel ×

244 comments

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

IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247417)

What a terrible metaphor. Everyone knows that IPv6 is closer to a Brussels Sprout.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247429)

no, IPv6 is more like spinach without the salad dressing.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247483)

More like Kale without.... Can't really think of anything to make that better. Damned CSA Kale with every delivery.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (2)

ThurstonMoore (605470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247667)

Vinegar, try vinegar on your kale. That metaphor is for the younger generation that grew up eating pizza and chicken nuggets. I have always liked broccoli, brussell sprouts and kale.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247759)

To be fair, broccoli is good if it's fresh and is in the "goldilocks zone" - not too crisp, not too soggy. Brussels sprouts are similar: Obviously don't give them to me raw, but I'd prefer to not eat a soggy bitter mass of plant pulp.

Can't say I've ever had kale. I enjoy collard greens, does that count?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Billhead (842510) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248293)

While we're at it, raw cauliflower dipped in ranch dressing is wonderful.
Cauliflower has always reminded me of broccoli.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248533)

Can't say I've ever had kale. I enjoy collard greens, does that count?

Kale and collard greens are similar enough that the same people usually like both. But many people don't know how to cook collard greens. You need to bring them to a boil, drain the water, add cold water, and bring them to a boil a second time.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247827)

Olive oil + garlic + red pepper flakes + kale in large pan. Wilt the kale, cook the garlic a bit. Add chicken stock. Braise until tender. Serve with a poached egg on top.

How to eat Kale (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248477)

In one pot, put some kale, some olive oil, water, a little salt and pepper, and let simmer on low heat. In another pan, brown up some ground beef, with some chopped onions, green peppers. Add in a can of salsa or crushed tomatos. If desired, some hot sauce or jalapenos can be added. While that's cooking, do up some Kraft Dinner according to the directions on the box. When the KD is ready, add in the ground beef mix, and serve. Throw out the kale.

Note: This recipe works well for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, spinach, and many others.

Re:How to eat Kale (1)

Resol (950137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248527)

Ah if only I had some mod points left to mod this up!

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247507)

That was true when people only used it once a year.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247515)

What's with all this vegetable hate?

And why ruin a good piece of broccoli with cheese sauce? Just boil it for a few minutes, and serve it while it's got a slight crunch. If you must add butter, only use half a teaspoon. Cheese sauce? Sounds fatty.

IPv6 is more like a red double-decker bus.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247613)

Fat with your vegetables improves their nutritional content (fat soluble nutrients don't get absorbed without them). Cheese sauce sounds good. IPv6 sounds good too. What can I do to make time warner cable provide me with service?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247961)

Fat with your vegetables improves their nutritional content (fat soluble nutrients don't get absorbed without them).

This is an interesting claim. Do you have a reference for it? I'm imagining people being fed broccoli with and without fat, and then serum concentrations of vitamins being tested shortly after. Would be an interesting experiment.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248069)

Here is an example Carotenoid bioavailability is higher from salads ingested with full-fat than with fat-reduced salad dressings as measured with electrochemical detection [ajcn.org] . It is basically accepted lore in the field that fat is required to absorb fat-soluble nutrients (if there were no fats, all the hydrophobic molecules would cluster together into unabsorbabably large clumps; with fats they would dissolve into them, which can then be absorbed in the intestines).

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248375)

Head over to their local office. Find the boss. Pour molten cheese over his head.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

PlastikMissle (2498382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247689)

Boil it?! Heavens! Just steam it a bit. Boiling takes out too much flavor and nutrients. Steaming keeps all that and gives broccoli a really nice radiant green color and a good crunch to boot.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (4, Informative)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247727)

Blanch it, which is to say boil it for no longer three minutes. The general rule about steaming versus blanching is if it grows below the ground, steam it; if it grows above the ground, blanch or braise it. And no, boiling doesn't remove any more nutrients than steaming does. /off topic.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248033)

To maintain vibrant colour, dip the broccoli in ice cold water for a few seconds. Otherwise the brocolli will turn a grey-ish green.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248137)

Or add lemon juice

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248275)

Blanch it, which is to say boil it for no longer three minutes. The general rule about steaming versus blanching is if it grows below the ground, steam it; if it grows above the ground, blanch or braise it. And no, boiling doesn't remove any more nutrients than steaming does. /off topic.

Actually, thanks for the info! I love to cook, but hadn't heard that. I steam my corn on the cob, though, and it comes out perfect; saves having to boil a gallon of water.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248341)

Screw that, just slop it in a bowl and throw it in the microwave for a couple of minutes. Then put melted velveeta on it. Not all of us have a weight problem, and I imagine that few of us who actually LIKE brocooli and Brussels Sprouts have a weight problem. I mean, when was the last time you ordered brocolli at Burger King?

"Let's see, I'll have two Whoppers, a large... no, make that HUGE fries, half a gallon of Coke... oh, and a plate of brocolli!

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248537)

Hmm, most people I know with a weight problem don't eat regularly at fast food joints, and they do like vegetables. And I don't know about Burger King, but MacDonalds had Broccoli soup at least a few years ago.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248643)

I would, if they offered broccoli. Well, one double whopper with cheese and bacon, broccoli instead of fries, and a gallon of diet coke. hmmm. I think I see your point...

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247911)

Boil it and kill lots of the nutrients?! Nah, just wash it off and nom nom nom. The fiber-ish stalks are surprisingly filling. I used to hate broccoli even a few years back, now I love it.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248181)

What's surprising about fiber being filling?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248211)

And why ruin a good piece of broccoli with cheese sauce? [..] Sounds fatty.

It's true that broccoli tastes better when you're eating it with something saucy, but I've never heard of it being covered in cheese sauce in itself. Is someone confusing it with cauliflower and cauliflower cheese [slashdot.org] ? (Article says this is a British dish, so maybe the Yanks eat broccoli with cheese instead, but I've never heard of that, and its article doesn't mention cheese).

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248531)

Yeah, they even sell frozen broccoli with the cheese already in it. Throw the bag in the microwave, nuke it, pour it into a bowl and you're done. Cauliflower's good with cheese, too.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (2)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247543)

It's a great term actually. Linux & OSS could be called the "broccoli technology" of Slashdot.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247569)

George Bush said he hated broccoli, but I liked it even before that.

Do old routers need updates to support IPv6? Do those with community support work fine? Does IPv6 help with net constipation?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247683)

I don't think Brussels sprout goes well with cheese sauce, and broccoli (unless it is cooked very badly) tastes so good by itself that it is a waste to put sauce on. The best choice of vegetable for the metaphor would be cauliflower.

What were we talking about again?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247703)

But I LOVE pickled Brussels Sprouts... broccoli on the other hand is always just bad

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247787)

Broccoli and Brussels Sprouts are both cabbages anyway

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247965)

I love both steamed (or even raw in a salad for broccoli) without any dressings, who are the people complaining about these?

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247971)

"What a terrible metaphor. Everyone knows that IPv6 is closer to a Brussels Sprout."

Which is better with bacon instead of Cheese sauce.

Re:IPV6 is BROCCOLI!? (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248651)

All things are better with bacon. Well, all savory things. Some sweet things get dicey. But whipped cream will handle them.

Privacy Concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247501)

So I know marketers will love it if everyone gets out from behind their NAT and faces the world with a naked IPv6 address.

Why is that so great?

Re:Privacy Concerns (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247561)

NAT isn't a security feature, that was a consequence of it breaking things to try and patch a bandaid fix on the problem IPv6 solves.

Re:Privacy Concerns (0)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248257)

NAT isn't a security feature

No, but enterprise security features require NAT.

Re:Privacy Concerns (3, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248363)

Mostly because a lot of enterprise IT departments have serious issues with anything new and thus "scary" and "untested". Hell, I know places that still critical production systems on NT4 and think Subversion is too new and untested to be used as a production VCS so they just stick to CVS since "everyone knows it and it works".

On a similar note, these are the kind of places that mandate that all database queries be made as stored procedures (T-SQL, of course) since that's the only "safe" way of accessing a database. Bring up parameterized queries and they look at you like you're mad. In places like that they have working security put in place 10 - 15 years ago and they have no intention of changing anything until they absolutely have to. In their world security "needs" NAT (because that's what their equally old firewall appliance needs).

Re:Privacy Concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247615)

So I know marketers will love it if everyone gets out from behind their NAT and faces the world with a naked IPv6 address.

Why is that so great?

I suspect using cookies and or fingerprinting will still be more accurate. For starters windows users have ever changing privacy addresses enabled by default. There will always be people hiding behind NATs or proxies and content filters. With cookies and fingerprinting they get to tag and follow just about everyone.

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247673)

I don't know much about IPv6. Does it not allow private networks?

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248251)

It allows everything IPv4 did. People like the grandparent are just malfeasant temper-tantrum throwers screaming "I'll show you!"

Absolutely nothing forbids private networks (in fact, there's a massive fc00::/7 address space dedicated to roughly the same purpose as 10.*, 192.168.* etc with a bonus pseudorandom prefix to make VPN address collisions less likely).

Likewise, absolutely nothing forbids you from having a firewall that blocks incoming connections.

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

growse (928427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248271)

Just unplug your internet connection. Voila, a private network.

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

welshie (796807) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248389)

Sure, there's ways of addressing IPv6 with link-local style addresses, these tend to start fe80::, but if you want your packets to be routed out onto the big wide Internet and back, they'd better have proper addresses. IPv6 doesn't do NAT, but if you really need to renumber your network (say, if you've changed ISPs, and have got far too much statically configured kit, and don't know how to do a simple search and replace on some configs), you can do a network prefix translation thing, which is a bit of a bodge, in the same way that NAT is a bodge.

Re:Privacy Concerns (4, Interesting)

Jon Stone (1961380) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247879)

I've never understood this concern. With IPv6 I have, say, 2^64 addresses to use. I could use a different source IP address for each and every HTTP request I send out. Even at 1000 requests a second we'll all be long dead before you had to reuse a source address.

IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible.

Re:Privacy Concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247973)

At a billion requests per second, though, it's looking a bit shaky. What price your privacy now?

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248103)

1 bil 64byte packets per second is almost 500Gbit/s, and that doesn't include the HTTP payload or the hand-shakes. You won't really need to worry about your IP addresses getting scanned until the average person has a 1Tb/s internet connection, even then you're talking about 500+years.

To make an effective scan of the first half of a /64, one would need ~54.5Pb/s of dedicated bandwidth between the two networks.

Re:Privacy Concerns (2)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248401)

Not to mention that software-wise if you truly wanted to use your entire /64 (or /48) to stay somewhat anonymous it shouldn't be extremely hard to hack up an IPv6 stack that uses one address per remote host. So facebook.com sees one address, slashdot.org sees another, google.com sees a third. Doesn't even have to be sequential.

Re:Privacy Concerns (-1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248001)

if you think your ISP is going to give you 20,000 IP addresses, then you are a nutter.

Comcast will give you ONE, and you will still NAT.

Re:Privacy Concerns (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248165)

No, they won't. It would be more work for them to give out a single IPv6 address than to give out a block. The official recommendation for residential customers is a /56, in Comcasts trials so far they've been giving out /64s. That's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses for each home. I don't think you remotely understand the size of the IPv6 space. NAT will die.

Re:Privacy Concerns (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248063)

Not quite. Your ISP still assigns you a /64 (typically) so all your requests would have to come from within that - and the other end could easily recognize this. The only real privacy implication of ipv6 is that it'd be possible for a server to tell via IP address which computer in a household a request came from, rather than just the house - so it could make different profiles for the teenage daughter to see lots of clothes and music ads while the mother gets lots of furniture and household products advertising. But even without ipv6, this is trivial anyway - it just needs to be done by cookies, which is how every major profile-building ad network does it already.

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

imemyself (757318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248159)

It's actually even better than that. The official recommendation is a /48 per end-site. As far as I have been able to tell, I think ISP's are generally following that. I had heard something about using /56 per end site for residential users. That still gives people plenty of room to have multiple subnets though.

Re:Privacy Concerns (2)

Jon Stone (1961380) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248427)

Remember - we're comparing IPv4 with NAT against IPv6.

Yes the ISP allocates the IPv6 prefix, but then again with NAT every source packet has the same IPv4 address. The real difference is that with IPv6 every single request can be given a different source address. If the source addresses are picked randomly from the /64 pool then it should be impossible to identify individual hosts within the /64 based solely on IP address information. As you rightly point out there are other effective ways of doing this already, but that's not an argument against using IPv6.

Re:Privacy Concerns (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248387)

I've never understood this concern.

Me either.

IPv6 gives you loads of room to hide. This is my concern - address based blocklists will quickly become infeasible

It it won't be that much different with v6 and a slight change in mindset. Instead ofblocking an IP you go after the prefix instead.

For example an ISP customer is abusing my service and I want to block him. I don't go after his IPv6 IP I go after his entire /64, /48 prefix or whatever it is his ISP allocated to him. He can change his local bits all he wants he is still blocked.

There are other examples where it is difficult such as blocking some computers on the same /64 segment as others you want to allow however when we look at this problem today all we see most of the time is a NAT for the whole network with a single IP.

The address space is bigger and there is more room to hide yet allocation is still hierarchical and we still know what blocks are allocated to who via SWIP or working an ISPs abuse channels.

Re:Privacy Concerns (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248667)

What privacy concernts ?

In Windows XP (if IPv6 is enabled), Windows Vista, Windows 7, newer Mac OS X, newer iOS, Android, newer Ubuntu IPv6 privacy extensions are all enabled by default.

So it is pretty much the same privacy-wise as IPv4.

(Just checked and Fedora does NOT enable privacy extensions, not sure why)

Facebook.com AAAA records (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247503)

http://blogs.voxeo.com/speakingofstandards/2011/05/22/fun-with-ipv6-addresses-check-out-facebooks-aaaa-record-in-dns/

Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (4, Informative)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247523)

On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.

On the enterprise front gear has been labeled as IPv6 ready or compatible or even listed it as a feature for a long time. However if you work in security and have to implement policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows... At an enterprise level switching isn't easy without swamping out a lot of gear, or reducing expectations... IPv6 enabled deep inspection, and application layer inspection tools are only now becoming available, or only now becoming mature enough to roll out.

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (4, Informative)

imemyself (757318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247637)

I definitely agree with the concerns about IPv6 in the enterprise. Sure, almost everything has had some IPv6 support for years, but the feature parity with IPv4 was not there. (For example maybe something supports OSPF / BGP with IPv4 but only static routes with IPv6...or you can reference address groups from within a IPv4 ACL but not from IPv6). Even today some vendors (*cough* Juniper on their EX switches *cough*) see IPv6 routing as "extra" feature that isn't available on the basic license level. This is unacceptable, and shows a complete disconnect between vendors and enterprises / service providers with respect to what's actually needed for real world IPv6 deployments.

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (1)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247753)

I can forgive Juniper when compared to Cisco on the topic of licensing and complexity.

Despite advancements for support at the device level the next major hurdle for large enterprise is the management tools and monitoring tools not fully supporting IPv6.

It is really hard to manage a modern network without flow monitoring, snmp and syslog data from all systems. This is another area where you end up with a setback or compromise if you try and roll out right now.

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (2)

Melkman (82959) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247883)

I totally agree with the Juniper EX licensing issue. Why is there a difference between OSPF and OSPFv3 ? I could understand if an advanced license was needed for both or for none of them but the split is just awkward.

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247743)

The router provided to me by my ISP supports IPv6, but the ISP itself does not...

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247951)

XS4ALL will provide you with an IPv6 capable router. They even have a special offer for existing customers. Of course, not everyone can get an account with the world's most awesome ISP. (not a shill, just a very happy customer ;-) - except for the one time when they bought up demon internet :-P . dangit, I'd just moved away from demon!)

Also with enterprise gear (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248287)

There can be a real difference between "Can do IPv6" and "Can do IPv6 with realistic traffic." Most high end Cisco gear, even older stuff could be updated to support IPv6. However the problem is that it is all in software, all on the rather small CPU. So sure it'll work if you have only a couple IPv6 flows, however if everything went IPv6 it'd fall over. You need support in the ASICs for it, and that means buying new hardware.

Of course being high end it isn't so cheap. We upgraded all our stuff on campus to do IPv6 and it was millions to get all the hardware needed. Now we are large, but not compared to many ISPs. So it isn't so easy to just say "Oh buy a bunch of new equipment to replace the perfectly good stuff you already have."

IPv6 is coming, slowly, but it isn't going to be a fast process and anyone who things people, ISPs, etc should "Just do it," hasn't spent any real time looking at what is involved.

Re:Network gear features are still WAY behind v4 (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248301)

On the consumer front only just recently did home WiFi routers start shipping or start getting IPv6 support, even then finding an ISP that will provision you is next to impossible.

That's what custom firmware and 6 to 4 gateways are for.

policy control over content, you quickly see that the functionality is years behind when applied to IPv6 flows

That's a feature, not a bug.

nat routers... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247565)

How many ipv4 nat routers are out there? How many of the big ISP's turned it on (or will by 'end of the year')?

Take my ISP for example (a pretty big one). They are just talking about turning it on this year 'by the end of the year' (which is marketing speak for next year).

Then how many consumer grade routers out there can you buy that are still only ipv4 (a lot btw). You have to go out of your way to get something with IPv6 you need to know exactly which router to get. You even had one decent sized manufacture yank the feature out for all intents and purposes so be careful which firmware you are running... Sure you can flash the firmware on many to get it. But what a pain. I dont feel like playing root my wireless access point to get a feature which should ALREADY be included... In 2005 this was understandable. In 2012 not so much anymore...

Then we can talk about the devices themselves. There are thousands of embedded devices out there sold within the past 2 years that ONLY do IPv4. TV's being the worst of the offenders... Bought a network enabled bluray a couple of months ago. IPv4 only... And both of these devices are from major manufactures...

the tl;dr ver 'it will take time not enough devices that support it yet'.

Re:nat routers... (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248367)

I see this problem being solved by ISP by selling IPv6 access with old prices and declare IPv4 access "legacy" and charge extra. That would surge demand for end-user IPv6 capable devices, which, in it's turn would cause an increase in manufacture of such devices (if people want it, why not slap a new shiny sticker on it "Killer IPv6 feature" and sell them to all the users, that had once bought IPv4 devices.

Horrible Analogy (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247571)

Calling IPv6 broccoli is a horrible analogy. IPv6 is chocolate, vanilla, cake, topped in cheese sauce. The only reason it is not being widely used is that IPv4 is working for the vast majority of people and they are not willing to invest time or money on equipment in switching to IPv6. Hopefully, this will change.

The day my ISP and my home hardware (MacOSX, Roku, iPhone, Android) support IPv6, I am using it.

Re:Horrible Analogy (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247641)

Calling IPv6 broccoli is a horrible analogy. IPv6 is chocolate, vanilla, cake, topped in cheese sauce.

So, it sounds disgusting and nobody wants it? Cheese sauce on cake?

That would explain a lot.

Re:Horrible Analogy (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247837)

Maybe cheesecake with cheese sauce would be a better analogy. They're both cheese, right? So it's got to be good!

Re:Horrible Analogy (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248225)

Cream cheese frosting is delicious and fairly common. If you've never had it you're missing out.

Re:Horrible Analogy (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248635)

Cream cheese frosting is one thing.

Cheese sauce in the context of broccoli (which is how we got here) is an entirely different thing ... that's either Cheese Whiz, or a bechamel sauce with cheese melted into it.

On cake, cheese sauce sounds nasty.

Re:Horrible Analogy (2)

virgnarus (1949790) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248239)

I think he's implying that the cheese sauce is the effort needed to implement it. IPv6 sounds ever increasingly delicious, that is until you get to where you actually need to lift up a finger to add it to your network, in which case then that delectable chocolate vanilla cake has been soured by the cheddar of corporate laziness.

Re:Horrible Analogy (2)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248193)

All your Apple gear has supported IPv6 out of the box for a few years now. I think Windows supports it out of the box, and probably your Android phone too, though I'm less sure about that. Most likely the missing link is your NAT box (unless you have an Apple box, which as I said is IPv6 ready), and your ISP.

Quick Fix (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247769)

I wonder how a quick fix approach would have been accepted. Something simple like slapping another 32bits on an "extended" IPv4 address and assuming leading zeros on any packet with an old 32 bit address.

Re:Quick Fix (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247899)

I wonder how a quick fix approach would have been accepted. Something simple like slapping another 32bits on an "extended" IPv4 address and assuming leading zeros on any packet with an old 32 bit address.

Except of course everyone would still need to upgrade to versions which would work with that.

Which would be just as big as getting to them to upgrade to IPv6. Probably even bigger since nobody has ever written code to handle your solution.

I don't think there's anything "quick" about your solution.

Re:Quick Fix (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247949)

Yes, clearly either would need an upgrade, but IPv6 is a lot more than just an address extension so the work involved is much greater. Was the extra engineering and features worth the extra delay in adoption?

Re:Quick Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248343)

There was no delay in adoption. The engineering and specification writing were trivial compared to the abysmal delay we've had in getting the damn thing adopted. The organizations behind IPv6 could have run rings around vendors and ISPs with dozens of specifications in the time it has taken them to even notice IPv6 exists. It's not as if Comcast was calling them up and nagging them about the delays in finalizing the spec.

Re:Quick Fix (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248421)

There was no delay in adoption.

Did you even read the article? You know, the one with the adoption rate in the US of less than 1%?

Re:Quick Fix (3, Insightful)

doshell (757915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248021)

Routers and end systems would still need to be taught how to speak a new protocol; machines that only know how to construct and decode packets in IPv4 format would be unable to deal with your "extended addresses". What exactly would you gain?

Also, IPv6 is much more than just an extension of the addressing space. I won't bother listing all the niceties here since it has been done before (and you can find them easily). But to think that everything IPv6 has to offer is a lot more addresses is extremely narrow-minded.

Re:Quick Fix (1)

ongelovigehond (2522526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248119)

What you gain is simplicity. Extending an IPv4 stack to use 64 bit addressing is a trivial amount of work. The rest of the IPv6 features aren't really that important. We managed to do without them for years without a problem.

Re:Quick Fix (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248521)

still need to be taught how to speak a new protocol

Yes, I said so above though not in the original post. Nobody said anything about not needing an upgrade. You are arguing against a phantom.

IPv6 is much more than just an extension of the addressing space.

Yes, I said so above, again not explicitly in the original post because that was the point: the extra features slowed adoption.

Re:Quick Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248163)

That wouldn't be a quick fix. You'd still need to upgrade equipment to understand the newer packet format (routers, cable modems, computer operating systems...), user interfaces to accept the longer addresses, DNS servers to resolve names to the new addresses.....in the end you might as well just go to IPv6, which has a 20-year head start on all these issues.

I Tried (2)

bazald (886779) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247775)

I really tried. I tried versions of DD-WRT, OpenWRT, and Tomato on my WRT54GL. I tried using 6to4 using both anycast and tunnelbroker. The best I managed to achieve with either method was successfully pinging ipv6.google.com. I never succeeded in pulling it up in a browser on any of my computers. I thought I got radvd working, but it must not have been working well enough. Maybe next year.

Re:I Tried (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248215)

I had trouble getting radvd working properly on dd-wrt as well. In the end I just gave my computers static IPv6 addresses. The biggest problem i ran into was just the lack of support in the UI. Now I'm up and running just fine with tunnelbroker.net for my IPv6 access.

Last night I did a "netstat -an" on my notebook and was pleased to see that *all* my active connections (several dozen, mostly to Google and FB) where to IPv6 addresses. Performance-wise I didn't even notice the transition; if I hadn't thought to check I would never have known I was on IPv6.

I Tried Anyway... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40247777)

I bought a business connection from my local provider, asked my salesperson if they had IPv6, they said yes. Tried to set it up for World IPv6 day. Well, their tech support says no they do not have IPv6. So, that was my IPv6 day experience.

Re:I Tried Anyway... (2)

TeddyR (4176) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248237)

Front line tech support and supervisors have NO idea what ipv6 is or how to get it to you.

I have Charter cable, and "just for fun", called tech to ask about if they had native ipv6 availible, and if not, if they had better "regional" tunnels or 6rd gateways. Note that I already had the info from http://www.myaccount.charter.com/customers/Support.aspx?SupportArticleID=2665 [charter.com] working with my Linksys E4200v2; I just wanted to see if there was a closer 6rd tunnel gateway to my location. Over 45 mins and no help at all from the support or the supervisor. Neither had any idea about ipv6 even after I directed them to their own internal support article.

Re:I Tried Anyway... (3, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248467)

When I last worked in the ISP business, or more specifically for an open citynet which handled last-mile access for a number of ISPs, we would get the occasional request about IPv6, both from regular customers who couldn't get a clear answer from their ISP and from the ISPs using "our" network. From the number of requests and the tone of the requests from the ISPs there was clearly customer demand for IPv6.

After a very long time of us forwarding all of these requests to upper management the reply finally came through. The official stance of the citynet was that there had been no noticeable demand for IPv6 and thus there were currently no plans to make the network IPv6-capable. This was told to all tech support and customer service staff as well, any requests from ISPs (or customers calling us directly) was to be answered with some version of "well as far as I know you're the first to ask and we currently don't have any plans to make our network IPv6-capable in the foreseeable future.".

Yup, upper management thought the investment would be too big so they "decided" that there was no demand and ordered everyone else to play along with their little fantasy.

Re:I Tried Anyway... (1)

archen (447353) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248441)

That's been my experience with asking sales about anything.

Re:I Tried Anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248499)

Yeah, it would be nice to go IPv6 native, but there really is nothing wrong with the 6to4 tunneling. Instead of laying IPv6 over Ethernet, it lays it over IPv4. Perfectly valid. You get all the benefits right away.

Bing and yahoo (2)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247859)

I though tit was sad that bing.com and yahoo.com did not return a v6 address yesterday.

China??? (3, Interesting)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40247937)

I'd like to know who's the users in China with IPv6. There's no provider, ADSL or otherwise, that provides IPv6. The only place where you could find IPv6 would be universities. And what's funny with it, is that it shows that the Great Firewall of China doesn't cope with v6 at all. All sites that would normally be blocked are wide open. So until the GFW is "patched", I don't think IPv6 will come. That's quite a shame, because I've read multiple times that the big ISPs backbones are already IPv6 capable.

Re:China??? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248011)

Would it be possible to use a tunnel broker to hit ipv6 sites?

Re:China??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248289)

Yes, I use Hurricane Electric's service to do just that, among other things.

Re:China??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248229)

It's China. They'll just pirate IPv4.

Which ISPs support it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248423)

I checked with my ISP yesterday to see if they would support IPv6. The response I got was they would offer it as an option for business clients, but they didn't support consumer/home clients wanting IPv6. It looks like the move to IPv6 is still a ways off for many people.

We need a model for consumers (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248575)

Hey, cool, facebook now resolves to an IPv6 address by default :)

As for my point, how will regular consumers deal with firewalling? Modern OSes have to have good firewall protection, because people take laptops to all kinds of insecure networks. Stil, I'm not sure it's a good idea to make all devices directly accessible over the internet, it's kind of like begging for a wormpocalypse. On the other hand, we have UPnP for NAT-ed IPv4, allowing applications to specifically request incoming ports. This is crucial for many applications. What should we do for v6 then? (I run without a separate firewall, even for a windows laptop, but this may not be a great idea on a large scale)

Re:We need a model for consumers (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40248665)

Btw, one neat solution for TCP if we use stateless firewalls would be to have a third party mediate the initial connection setup, and bypass the SYN/SYN ACK bit. Two IPv6 peers would be able to send normal ACK packets back and forth, if the OS allowed one to create such connections without setup. Maybe UDP could be left wide open, or one could use a stateful firewall for that

What about /.? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40248661)

Why isn't slashdot accessible over IPv6?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>