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 Deployment Picking Up Speed

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-ipv4-for-you dept.

Networking 158

An anonymous reader writes "The Internet's addressing authority (IANA) ran out of IPv4 Internet addresses in early 2011. The IPv6 protocol (now 15 years old) was designed exactly for this scenario, as it provides many more addresses than our foreseeable addressing needs. However, IPv6 deployment has so far been dismal, accounting for 1% of total traffic (the high-end of estimates). A recent paper by researchers at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data analysis (CAIDA) indicates that IPv6 deployment may be picking up at last. The paper, published at the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) shows that the IPv6 network shows signs of maturing, with its properties starting to resemble the deployed IPv4 network. Deployment appears to be non-uniform, however; while the 'core' of the network appears to be ready, networks at the 'edges' are lacking. There are geographical differences too — Europe and the Asia Pacific region are ahead of North America."

cancel ×

158 comments

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

Stop the Presses! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42116707)

North America fails to take up an International Standard.

That's NEVER happen. Except with everything.

Re:Stop the Presses! (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117699)

I fail to see how this is offtopic...

Re:Stop the Presses! (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42120183)

Here in Canada, the main ISP's all seem so proud of their progress which is....

Their home page is accessible via IPv6.

Hell, the router/modem combo we got early this year isn't IPv6 capable.

Obviously, they have a long-term plan for transitioning to IPv6 and they are still on the first step "When Should We Start Switching To IPv6".

Re:Stop the Presses! (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118605)

North America doesn't have a shortage yet so nobody is acting. It's just human nature. I know most major ISPs in Canada still have plenty of blocks to keep going for a while.

Re:Stop the Presses! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118623)

Except of course, North America HAS taken up the international standard.
Not taking up the standard would be the US deciding on an alternate standard. This is one of those instances where the United States IS taking up the same standard.

IPv6 has always been driven by need. For historical reasons the United States has owned a disproportionate portion of the IPv4 address space. This means that in the United States, the NEED for IPv6 has not been quite as desperate as in other portions of the globe. The US is not shirking a standard, it's just not migrating as fast. There's a huge difference.

PS - How dare you toss our Canadian and Mexican neighbors into this. If you're going to rip on the US, make sure you leave them out of it.

Re:Stop the Presses! (3, Insightful)

Creepy (93888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118747)

To be fair, America has adopted standards, but hasn't always standardized on them, and sometimes invents a standard that is outdated by the time the rest of the world adopts it.

For instance, metric is used in hospitals, at NASA, in many sciences, etc. It was even taught in school until Ronald Reagan in his infinite wisdom and reverence decided America was too f**king stupid to learn it (sorry about the sarcasm injection - it was a REALLY bad time for me to switch, as I was half way into learning metric when it happened and we all of a sudden had to learn these nonsensical English units - I'm still all for switching to metric).

CDMA predates GSM, and some providers bet big on it early in America. Nothing America can really do about it except wait for it to age and be replaced, hopefully with an international standard. Data already has been merged with LTE.

Almost all cable providers use DOCSYS international standard.

IPv6 is supported by some ISPs and CLECs, but many that supported PPPoE like mine bought IPv4 only hardware. The former owner of this hardware, Qwest, said they would never implement IPv6. Their current owner, CenturyLink, is rolling out IPv6 support, but only currently in areas that were not formerly Qwest. Meanwhile, my IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are registered and just waiting for IPv6 to be supported to go live (I hacked the router to get its IPv6 address just in case this is a server only issue - the underlying hardware supports it, just not the PPPoE connection).

Non-sensical customary units of fail (3, Interesting)

Artemis3 (85734) | about a year and a half ago | (#42120119)

I learned under metric, for me those "customary" units of height are very hard to grasp.

In metric, everything is in tens, you add or subtract zeros, thats it.

A meter contains 10 decimeters (rarely used), a decimeter contains 10 centimeters, a centimeter contains 10 milliliters, etc.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html [nist.gov]

Customary/Imperial units are a mess, and to make matters worse, you don't use a single unit but TWO different ones for measuring things (feet AND inches?). What the hell is an inch? half a feet? quarter? decimal? no... its freaking 1/12. OF COURSE you don't fit 12 feet in a yard, that would be too easy, its 3... AND you also don't fit 12 pica in an inch, but 6...

To make sense of your nonsense, we have to convert to a single unit first (eg. inches), and THEN move to metric, that is not a trivial mental operation for many.

Another American annoyance is paper sheet sizes. But there are many more areas for frustration in those outdated customs.

Let them sink in their isolation, is what we say here.

Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42116721)

Thats what I want to know, IPv6 is old hat! Any respectable IP _must_ have functionality equal to TOR built right into the specs!

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42116853)

You sound just like Obama did when discussing going to Metric or "creating a new, better standard" (that the US would then not take up)

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Cyphase (907627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42116997)

Can you post a source for that quote?

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117941)

Definitely. Here you are [slashdot.org]

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (2)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119601)

Excellent! I'll add that as citation for the Wikipedia article and then you can cite that article as proof.

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118665)

It's not a good comparasion. Changing measure systems doesn't stop people from measuring. On the other hand, more IP blocks can be a show stopper.

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42116879)

closest thing I know of: https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns/

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

Cyberia (70947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117177)

Wow, seriously? An anonymous first post, and you blow it with this? *Facepalm*

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42120453)

Not everyone gets massive erections because they get a first post. Who gives a shit?

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117263)

IPv6 ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Where the heck is IPv7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42119453)

How can we model every atom in the universe if we can't assign an IPv6 address to it, huh?
And don't forget the quarks!

2013 could be... (5, Funny)

Bradmont (513167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42116757)

The year of IPv6 on the desktop!

Re:2013 could be... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117037)

If we make it past December 21st...

Re:2013 could be... (1)

Creepy (93888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118891)

Already pretty much debunked [csmonitor.com] because an older, longer calendar exists, but you can always give me all your earthly belongings, just in case.

Re:2013 could be... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117395)

Why do you have a networking protocol on your desktop?

Re:2013 could be... (4, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117591)

It looks cool.

Re:2013 could be... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117711)

Nope. People have IPv6 enabled browsers so they can connect to IPv6 enabled websites, but how many have some sort of legacy software that doesn't in any way understand or support IPv6 - perhaps there's not even an input field for an IPv6 address. Of course people will now chime "dual stack" but it has practically all of the annoyances while not solving the problem since it means pairing every IPv6 address with an IPv4 address. And by annoyance I mean like some stupid software, I don't remember what would prefer the IPv6 address over the IPv4 address then leading to a delay before it would connect via IPv4. I couldn't be arsed to find some other solution, so IPv6 is completely disabled on my machine. And so far I've had zero reason to change that. The only people feeling the hurt are those not getting an IPv4 address.

Re:2013 could be... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118743)

And by annoyance I mean like some stupid software, I don't remember what would prefer the IPv6 address over the IPv4 address then leading to a delay before it would connect via IPv4. I couldn't be arsed to find some other solution, so IPv6 is completely disabled on my machine. And so far I've had zero reason to change that. The only people feeling the hurt are those not getting an IPv4 address.

That would probably be your resolver, since most programs use getaddrinfo() to do a DNS lookup (which returns a linked list of addrinfo structures containing the addresses (in very convenient sockaddr format, so no more pesky casting of sockaddr_in/sockaddr_in6/sockaddr_whatever to sockaddr anymore). It's protocol independent and gets you IPv6 support "for free" (getaddrinfo()/getnameinfo() were created to extend gethostbyname and the like for IPv6). Of course, it doesn't help as DNS records are often returned by IPv4 only so IPv6 connectivity cannot be verified even though that DNS query returned IPv6 records.

I suppose the biggest issue I have with IPv6 is having to have the network renumbered whenever my ISP decides it's time to renumber the network (roughly annually), and since the ISP gives you your prefix, it means every host has to get a new address. Sure IPv6 gives you the ability to add more addresses (like the private address space) per host, but you lose out in the convenience of being able to ping the router and know you can get traffic through it (because you'll ping the router's private address (or worse yet, link-local) without realizing some software somewhere screwed up and either handed out bad internet-accessible DHCPv6 addresses, or a rogue device is sending bad router solicitations. So no connectivity with connectivity.

It's one of the niceties of NAT - that your inner network is isolated from the outer network so the whims of the outer network provider don't impact your inner network (or minimally - reboot the damn router).

Yes I know IPv6 is better, but I'm sure a lot of people don't really care to have end-to-end connectivity (and more will APPEAR to have it, but it doesn't work because of firewalls and such), and just want a simple box that they can plug in and replace their existing Linksys router with and not worry about a thing - router hands out DHCPv6/router solicitations, hosts configure themselves, and router NATs the inner network from the outer. If you can ping the router, you can get connectivity and not have to figure out if it's because you're using the link-local or private or the actual internet-routable address. (Try explaining that concept to your parents).

Re:2013 could be... (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117969)

The year of IPv6 on the desktop!

It should be branded iPadV6 and then sold in clean stores all over the world. I bet it would be commonplace in no time, especially when the Chinese try to copy it.

Re:2013 could be... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118547)

According to the summary, the Chinese are *ahead* of us!

Come on slashdot ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42116957)

This [ipv6-test.com] is not what I expected from you when facebook and google enabled it long ago ...

Re:Come on slashdot ... (5, Informative)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117183)

The problem I have faced is that none of my server ISPs will even let me get an IPv6 address even if I know they have it and I beg. That goes for major service providers too. I'm looking at you Amazon Cloud and RackSpace. Amazon kinda has it, but only if you use one of their load balancers.

Re:Come on slashdot ... (2)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117213)

I use linode.com. They have IPv6 (and have for quite some time). Now if only voip.ms (and oh, say, /.) would support it...

Re:Come on slashdot ... (2)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117513)

The problem I have faced is that none of my server ISPs will even let me get an IPv6 address even if I know they have it and I beg.

They'll come round once they start having problems getting more IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers, at which point it will start to hit their bottom line (as they need to have all their cloud instances individually direct-routable for configuration and management purposes). We're getting close to that, but aren't there yet.

I wouldn't base any long term plans on them staying IPv4 only...

Re:Come on slashdot ... (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117803)

They'll come round once they start having problems getting more IPv4 addresses from their upstream providers

They won't, they'll just put everybody behind a NAT, with the added bonus of breaking bittorrent, VoIP, or any other protocol that actualy uses bandwidth.

IPv6 will only come later, and just for the places that have any competition between ISPs.

Re:Come on slashdot ... (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117885)

Note that Slashdot is in no way exceptional here:

http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=apple.com [ipv6-test.com]
http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=microsoft.com [ipv6-test.com]
http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=yahoo.com [ipv6-test.com]
http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=oracle.com [ipv6-test.com]
http://ipv6-test.com/validate.php?url=twitter.com [ipv6-test.com]

In light of the above bad examples, I was actually surprised that Internic, ICANN and the White House were IPv6-ready...

Re:Come on slashdot ... (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118705)

The US government has a mandate to support IPv6, which is why most .gov sites can be reached over IPv6. Otherwise they would be in the same boat as everybody else.

What we really need is for Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc... to enable IPv6 on their networks. Almost nobody is going to set up a tunnel broker for their home connection, it's way to esoteric and most home routers are crap anyway.

Re:Come on slashdot ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118663)

Step 1 - Pony theme (check)
Step 2 - Unicode support
Step 3 - IPv6 support
Step 4 - ?
Step 5 - Profit?

Hyped as much as y2k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117021)

The transitional techs have been there the entire time. Fags.

New Rule: (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117025)

New Rule:

Websites are only allowed to try to garner page-views on IPv6 when all the websites that article is posted on are available over IPv6.

Re:New Rule: (1)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117281)

Good luck with that. :)

Re:New Rule: (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117605)

Maybe get a Congressman from California to pass that as a new law.

Re:New Rule: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118783)

sorry we are all busy driving up to washington

Slow news day (1)

AltF4ToWin (1976486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117063)

This is one.

IPv6 was no big deal (3, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117101)

I've been on native IPv6 for a couple of years on my home DSL connection. It works very well - only thing I had to do was check the 'enable IPv6' option in my modem/router and everything 'just worked'. It is rather nice not having to deal with NAT and port forwarding etc.

I'm in Australia (so within the Asia-Pacific/APNIC region, which as the summary mentions, is a bit ahead of the curve when it comes to IPv6 adoption. Most of the major sites are fully IPv6 now too (e.g. all the Google sites, Facebook, etc. etc.) But the point is, done properly, it should be a completely seamless transition to enable dual-stack (and eventually to turn off IPv4, though I'm sure that won't happen for decades!). Hell I usually forget I'm even on IPv6, unless I happen to do a ping/tracert to an IPv6 host and see all those long-ass IPs :)

C:\>tracert www.google.com

Tracing route to www.google.com [2404:6800:4006:800::1014] over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms gateway [2001:44b8:(snip!)]
    2 7 ms 7 ms 7 ms loop0.lns20.cbr1.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010::5]
    3 7 ms * 7 ms gi0-0-2.cor3.cbr1.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010:14::1]
    4 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms te6-0-0.bdr1.syd4.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:9010:e::2]
    5 11 ms * 11 ms te0-0-0.bdr1.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b070:1::11]
    6 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms gi1-2-121.cor2.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b060:121::2]
    7 11 ms * 12 ms gi6-0-0-101.bdr1.syd7.internode.on.net [2001:44b8:b070:104::1]
    8 12 ms 11 ms 12 ms 2001:4860:1:1:0:1283:0:4
    9 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms 2001:4860:0:1::1fb
  10 13 ms 12 ms 11 ms 2404:6800:4006:800::1014

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117203)

Yes your home DSL network is completely and thoroughly analogous to an enterprise implementation.

Just check some stuff off in the UI and run a dual stack...

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117253)

I've been on native IPv6 for a couple of years on my home DSL connection. It works very well - only thing I had to do was check the 'enable IPv6' option in my modem/router and everything 'just worked'. It is rather nice not having to deal with NAT and port forwarding etc.

I've been on native IPv4 for ages on my home DSL connection. Only thing I had to do was tick the "NAT" and "UPnP" checkboxes and it just worked. Provided me also with a simple firewall as a nice side effect. ;)

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117451)

So are you suggesting that, because you don't mind having NAT on your home network, the rest of us should give up on trying to move the Internet forward to a more sustainable scheme?

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119271)

Naah! I just like to flip things around. I have nothing against IPv6 adoption in general.

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117455)

> Provided me also with a simple firewall as a nice side effect. ;)

I rather suspect you're a troll given how often and exhaustively this has been refuted previously on this site, but oh well.

NAT is not a firewall. The stateful firewall in your home router is a firewall. NAT isn't . There are plenty of technologies to punch holes into NAT, usually developed because NAT is such a fucking pain to deal with for many protocols.

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117515)

Well any decent router that offers NAT will also have an actual firewall as well. Which will continue to work on IPv6 ... so it's not like you're unprotected or anything. I'm not one of those rabid "NAT is an awful hack" people, but it's just another tool in the box that ceases to really have a purpose in the IPv6 world.

Anyway, if your point is that you don't NEED IPv6 (yet), then you're absolutely right. I was merely offering my experience of IPv6 adoption as an end user. And that it was pretty painless (both for me personally, but also for the ISP - they ran quite a few blog articles about the migration and since it was done in a steady, staged manner in the course of the normal business of replacing hardware and reconfiguring networks, it didn't really cost them too much extra time or money).

The reason I did this is that it seems to me that some organisations are very stuck in the mud about IPv6 - they dig their heels in and take the attitude that it's preferable to use workarounds to make the existing IPv4 space last longer, than just bite the bullet and get IPv6 up and running. Note that I don't mean people that simply have a "what I have now works fine, so why bother" opinion - that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Or those that have a real reason they can't do it (legacy hardware/software, in enterprises particularly). But there are also those that actively try to reject IPv6 for no reason other than that they seemingly don't like the idea of it. They aren't just ambivalent about it - they go out of their way to find reasons not to use it. The reluctance they have for implementing IPv6 is not commensurate with the actual difficulty of doing so. Hell I was bit like that myself, but my ISP did things well and it was so brain-dead easy that I kinda feel silly for having been like that.

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117547)

I just tried my luck on hacking your gateway at 2001:44b8:(snip!). It worked as well as self-castration.

Re:IPv6 was no big deal (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117637)

Haha. Am reasonably confident my router's firewall is up to the task, but because the IPv6 /64 assigned to my router (and the /56 prefix assigned to my network) is static, figured I'd better remove it, just in case :)

A new apocalypse. (2)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117117)

Dear Media,

Every week, there's a new apocalypse in the news.

AIDS. Global Warming. Copyright violations. Vodka enemas. Terrorism. ???. Prophet. (I mean... profit.)

The IPv6 lolocaust is not going to impress us unless there are concrete figures about exactly when and how it's going to devastate us.

Then, we can plan for it.

Until then, it reeks of hype.

Love,
The consumers

Re:A new apocalypse. (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117437)

This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers. Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.

Insightful, but missing the point of the article. (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117893)

Ideally, a consumer should never even encounter an IP address, be it IPv4 or IPv6.

This is insightful and I agree for the most part. However, a consumer facing a "black box" is helpless. It's better to make the box simpler and more accessible so they can fix minor problems when they arise, since they arise with every technology we have on a regular basis.

This is an information for the experts who deal with ip address assignments everyday. It's news for nerds, not news for consumers.

Here I disagree.

This a species of fear-inducing news articles designed to panic the consumers and induce them to put pressure on vendors, legislators and service providers.

Hence my original comment.

What about Slashdot? (1)

quarkoid (26884) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117135)

It would be nice if Slashdot itself was available on IPv6... After all, you would have thought that a site reporting on the latest and greatest in tech would have managed to adopt a technology fifteen years old by now!

Re:What about Slashdot? (2)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117363)

You mean like an edit button?

Re:What about Slashdot? (1)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117705)

An edit button would drive trolling levels off the scale here.. though it would be nice to correct those moments where you click submit and notice an incredibly stupid typo. I use preview when I remember, but sometimes things just slip by..

Re:What about Slashdot? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118615)

An edit button that only works for 10 seconds would solve SO many problems and give trolls very little leverage to play with.

Provider slowness. (5, Insightful)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117171)

IPv6 Capable operating systems: check.
IPv6 Capable router: check.
IPv6 Capable cable modem: check.
IPv6 Capable internet service: .........

Maybe one of these years the cable company will get this figured out, sigh.

Re:Provider slowness. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117343)

Some people still have legacy hardward and/or legacy software, hence one of the problems. Although, while my machines aren't necessarily IPv6 friendly, such as my Linksys CIT400 iPhone (it's a Skype phone, sharing the same trademark as Apple's iPhone), I would suggest as many devices as possible be IPv6 as default to help move things along. We're going to have to use both IPv4 and IPv6 during a long transition period, in my opinion, but eventually it will happen.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117709)

Yeah it'll be dual stack for a long, long time. Though must say, I currently have 11 devices connected to my internal home network, and 9 of them have a globally addressable IPv6 address. The Nintendo Wii and the WDTV Live are the only non-IPv6-capable devices in the house, apparently. The rest are all fine and grabbed a v6 address with no additional config needed.

(2 Windows machines, 1 Mac OS X, 2 Linux, 2 iPhones, 1 iPad and a D-link NAS, presumably running some embedded Linux).

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117371)

Unfortunately, the next step:

IPv6 Capable end-points:

is also missing. The website you are reading is IPv4-only and hasn't bothered to publish an AAAA record in all the time it's been posting IPv6 articles.

And how long does it take to IPv6 enable a website nowadays, even if only in a basic "testing" mode before you try to redo all your blacklist scripts, etc.? About ten minutes.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117587)

I don't know who hosts slashdot, but I bet they are the ones that are slagging.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118643)

Oh, I'd add more then a few IPv6 end points to the net if the cable company would provide IPv6 to the business fibre service here. For now we stack services on ip addresses via NAT. Fun to scan an IP and see Windows and Linux services living at the same address.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

mrvan (973822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117501)

xs4all (Netherlands) does provide ipv6 and I find it quite useful to have direct links between computer that would otherwise be difficult to reach (e.g. between my computer at home (ipv4 NAT by the ADSL router) and a virtual server at work for which I didn't get an ipv4 address and hence only has pulic ipv6.

Also, it is useful to be able to connect directly to my home box from outside, and there are multiple ssh enabled machines on my LAN. Of course, I could give them all different ports and forward them using the router, but that is just so much more hassle...

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117645)

Just curious, but do you see lots of hack/hit attempts on those now exposed boxes like you do if you put an IPv4 box on the internet with ssh open?

Re:Provider slowness. (2)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118059)

Network scanning is much, MUCH harder to do with IPv6. Assuming a reasonably random assignment of v6 addresses, your local subnet has 2^64 possible addresses, in other words twice as many bits as the entirety of the world's IPv4 address space. But remember twice as many bits doesn't mean merely twice the effort, it actually means it would take 4 billion times as long to scan a *single* IPv6 subnet as it would to scan the *entire* IPv4 internet.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118079)

Even for a couple of servers that do not have an external firewall filtering packets for my IPv6, there is basically zero packets besides those going to applications hosted on my servers, and they have published DNS records for web and DNS. Some basic PCs I have online see zero packets from random internet hosts on IPv6.

The IPv6 address space is literally too large to crawl within any useful amount of time. If you figure an average LAN will have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses (a /64 block). Let's say you scanned 1000 IP addresses per second (very optimistic for a single PC) it would take you 584,942,417 years to complete scanning just a single LAN. Then are so many /64 LAN blocks that it is very likely you're scanning an network block that does not have any hosts to begin with.

There will have to be other means to gather active/in-use IP address such as looking at server logs that clients connect to, email headers, DNS records, soliciting traffic from the client machines via some application/trojan/virus, network traffic sniffing, etc. All of these means already exist for IPv4 so there is nothing new there.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118147)

Thanks. Makes sense given the size.

I see the next round of software like netcat being much faster/parallel to deal with these huge sizes.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118793)

Not at all practical even then. You'd need some way other than scanning. Maybe a set of broadcasts designed to provoke a response in some way from common servers, tricking them into revealing their presence. Or passive monitoring.

Re:Slashdot slowness. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117611)

If you have an IPv6-only host, you can't reach slashdot.org

You can get google.com and facebook.com.

Also missing: amazon.com, microsoft.com, hotmail.com, nytimes.com, kernel.org, github.org, lwn.net etc etc.

Your IPv6 experience is going to be pretty poor.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117659)

Cable companies have it somewhat easy. DOCSIS 3 requires hardware to support IPv6.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117887)

Does DOCSIS 3 require that the ISP actually route IPv6 packets? Because if it does not, they will not.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119429)

No, but it requires the hardware to support it, making it considerably easier to convince then to start routing.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118143)

Blame Cisco.

The major ISPs are generally ready, but they can't do anything until Cisco actually rolls out IPv6 capable head-end gear. Among other things, Cisco has already all but missed their 2012 deadline for having IPv6 working on their CMTSes.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

sp332 (781207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118155)

Setting up an IPv6 tunnel is not hard to do. A couple minutes and you'll have IPv6 internet access. tunnelbroker.net (just for example) walks you through it, then you can install 6orNot in your browser to show off :)

Re:Provider slowness. (0)

imlepid (214300) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118407)

You might be surprised to find out how many people fail in one, if not multiple of the points you mentioned. Take, for example, me:

IPv6 Capable operating systems: Not really. I run Mac OS X 10.6, which, wile "IPv6 capable" does not have support for a critical IPv6 component DHCPv6 [ipv6int.net] .
IPv6 Capable router: Not really. My router does not support IPv6 without some serious hacks. Plus it doesn't support DHCP-PD at all.
IPv6 Capable cable modem: Yes, but only because I just (two months ago) bought a new modem.
IPv6 Capable internet service: Yes, and it's been available from my ISP for a long time.

The major problem with the majority of devices is not the "first level" IPv6 support (e.g. ability to get an IPv6 address via SLAAC) but second level and beyond (DHCPv6, etc). IPv6 is a protocol which is still very young and not "fully" supported by most software/hardware, mostly because it is still changing. It will be a long while before IPv6 has the maturity of IPv4. I just laugh when I read marketing drivel with statements like "IPv6 supported!" because until they provide more details, I just assume that it means it can self-assign a link local address and that's all.

Re:Provider slowness. (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119327)

You can always set up a tunnel broker [tunnelbroker.net] if you want to play around with IPv6. It's ugly and messy, but it gets you on the network. I've been using this very service for over two years now and have never had a problem with it. As far as supported devices, I have an original 2G iPhone, a Nintendo Wii, an ancient Sharp Zarius, and a pair of TiVos that don't support IPv6, but everything else was able to autoconfigure an address and use it right away.

Also, it is entirely possible to run a pure IPv6 network today though a combination of DNS and packet translation. Basically, your IPv6 only hosts do a name lookup for a host using the local DNS server. The server queries but only finds a A record, which it then translates into a AAAA record by appending a well known prefix and returns that to the host. That host then opens a socket to the IPv6 address specified and sends the packet through a static NAT setup on your gateway to translate the packets back to IPv4, and also translate return packets to IPv6. It sounds esoteric, but this setup works (I use it in an IPv6 only test environment) and isn't hard to configure at all if you're using a Linux gateway. I've been using the Trick or Treat Daemon [dillema.net] for DNS conversions and Tayga [litech.org] for the IP packet translation.

rest of that headline (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117499)

...and I'm already sick of typing that many extra digits to ping something.

Re:rest of that headline (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118597)

What is DNS?

Just using it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42117641)

Using aaisp.net.uk and it all just works,

Facebook, google, youtube, world of warcraft... all work perfectly on ipv6. More than half my data now goes over it without me doing *anything* to make it work :)

the real game changer: 4G (3, Interesting)

anarcat (306985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117649)

The game changer here is that US cell phone companies have finally figured out that 4 layers of NAT isn't exactly a great way to manage a growing network, and are switching to IPv6 for their 4G networks. That is millions of customers right there, using IPv6 without even knowing about it.

Pieces are falling into place, it's just a matter of time now. And if you lobby your ISP instead of complaining about it, you may get it native too soon enough.

BTW: for those worried about the switch, let me just mention that both ipv6.google.com and www.kame.net (common test IPv6 addresses) are reachable in *less* latency and *less* hops than their ipv4 counterparts. IPv6 rocks.

Re:the real game changer: 4G (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118585)

T-Mobile USA has IPv6 available on all accounts on all Samsung phones, turn it on https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch

CPE equipment from ZyXEL (1)

fredan (54788) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117713)

ZyXEL's hardware sucks for CPE since they cannot do IPv6.

Re:CPE equipment from ZyXEL (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118119)

Many ZyXEL CPEs can do IPv6. Check out their NBG4615, which is your typical home wifi/router appliance that supports IPv6. I think all or most of their current ADSL/VDSL CPEs all support IPv6 out of the box too.

Re:CPE equipment from ZyXEL (1)

fredan (54788) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119329)

Model P-660HN-F1Z does not support IPv6.
Model P-2612HNU-F1 does not support IPv6.

Re:CPE equipment from ZyXEL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118215)

Depends on the model, all newer ones should have it now. Look at the 26xxHNU series.

Why don't US companies implement IPv6? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42117717)

Inertia.

I work for a large company that's had a domain since the Elder Days of domain registration, and there's just no way that it'll migrate over to IPv6. Too many computers and routers (including many legacy) and there's no actual need to do it: 10.*.*.* and 196.168.*.* networks abound and work just fine.

Ran out of IPv4? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118103)

I've provisioned several thousand servers in the past month or so spread widely over the world and had no problems with availability of IPv4 addresses. Where's the problem? Is seems there's plenty of addresses for servers and clients can use NAT if there's a squeeze. No need for IPv6.

Linux wasn't ready for IPv6 when I tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118117)

I have IPv6 at home, but had to disable it: a bug in NetworkManager caused it to misbehave when it encountered a IPv6 DHCP on wifi. Long story short, I had a kernel panic every 30 minutes (+/- 10 min). Windows 7 via wifi? No problem. Linux via ethernet cable? No problem. Will have to check if it was patched since I last tried it.

Re:Linux wasn't ready for IPv6 when I tried it (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118797)

I have IPv6 at home, but had to disable it: a bug in NetworkManager caused it to misbehave when it encountered a IPv6 DHCP on wifi. Long story short, I had a kernel panic every 30 minutes (+/- 10 min). Windows 7 via wifi? No problem. Linux via ethernet cable? No problem. Will have to check if it was patched since I last tried it.

That sounds like neither a bug in networkmanager nor with DHCPv6. Neither of those would cause a kernel panic. That's a bad wireless network card driver. Network manager did have issues with DHCPv6, but it's more on the lines of not setting the routing correctly

I got the very last IPv4 address! Score! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118295)

Suck on it, all you losers!

This must be some new definition of "resemble"... (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118305)

> its properties starting to resemble the deployed IPv4 network

Oh, so you mean there are a number of popular services, which are so well known as to be basically household names, that are only available via this protocol and no other, right? And the number of people who use the network both at work and at home rivals that of any other network, including the phone network? Right?

No?

Because that is what it would mean for the deployed IPv6 network to resemble the deployed IPv4 network.

Holding my breath I am not.

North American not behind in IPv6 (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about a year and a half ago | (#42118659)

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/092412-ipv6-side-262674.html [networkworld.com]

US has the most IPv6 users, North America has the most IPv6 traffic.

Sure, it's still small in absolute magnitude, but it's a start.

Re:North American not behind in IPv6 (1)

dave420 (699308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119089)

Of course, as the US has over 300m people. Compare it to the EU, for example, which is a more comparable size, and you realise that the US is not ahead.

IPV6 and the **AA folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42118831)

Doesn't switching to IPV6 virutually guarantee the **AA spies would be able to tell exactly which computer was used to download supposed infringing files?

Re:IPV6 and the **AA folks (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119165)

No

Hah! (3, Informative)

Shaman (1148) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119061)

Companies are still shipping network gear that is IPv4 only. Find me a fixed-wireless device that supports IPv6! Sure they're layer 2 devices, but the units themselves don't have IPv6 addressability.

IPv6 will take a long, long time. Maybe 10 years for major crossover. The fanbois and the advocates get shriller every day, but moving to IPv6 - even dual-stack - from an existing network is currently *hard*.

Not the end of the world (1)

Holliday (2528608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119075)

What if the Mayans predicted the day we'd run out of IPv4 addresses?

Most servers still only ipv4 (1)

kvnslash (2292742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42119409)

I've been on ipv6 for 6 months or so using hurricane electric to tap into the ipv6 world. When I browse around the net, the only ipv6 sites I really come across are google and facebook..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>