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!

Worldwide IPv6 Adoption: Where Do We Stand Today?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the very-slightly-ahead-of-where-we-stood-several-years-ago dept.

The Internet 327

skade88 writes "IPv4 is much like a limited natural resource; it can't last forever. The well of new IPv4 addresses is already running dry in many parts of the world. The solution to this problem, which was presented decades ago, is to switch to IPv6. With peak IPv4 far behind us, why do we still see limited IPv6 adoption? Ars takes a good look at where we are and where we are going with the future of IP addresses, the internet and you. Quoting: 'As with all technology, IPv6 gets better and cheaper over time. And just like with houses, people prefer waiting rather than buying when prices are dropping. To make matters worse, if you're the only one adopting IPv6, this buys you very little. You can only use the new protocol once the people you communicate with have upgraded as well. Worse still, you can't get rid of IPv4 until everyone you communicate with has adopted IPv6. And the pain of the shrinking IPv4 supplies versus the pain of having to upgrade equipment and software varies for different groups of Internet users. So some people want to move to IPv6 and leave IPv4 behind sooner rather than later, but others plan on sticking with IPv4 until the bitter end. As a result, we have a nasty Nash equilibrium: nobody can improve their own situation by unilaterally adopting IPv6.'"

cancel ×

327 comments

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

That's easy. (-1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479367)

Governments don't like IP6 because it makes tracking people more difficult than IP4.

Re:That's easy. (2)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479405)

Not really, you just track them by their IPv6 subnet prefix instead of their full IPv4 address

Re:That's easy. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479425)

I'm not taking any chances... I've moved our network to IPv8

Re:That's easy. (4, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480431)

They can still find it.

Try IPv9¾

Re:That's easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42481049)

Harry Potter references

Re:That's easy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479441)

...what? It makes it EASIER to track people.
Considerably easier, in fact.

Re:That's easy. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479459)

How so? Many (if not most) end system addresses have the MAC address embedded in the v6 host address, so you get more information out of a v6 address than you do out of a v4 address (including the ability to trace the same device even if it changes layer-3 networks).

Since most vendors aren't supporting RFC 3972, tracking is probably going to be easier, not harder.

Re:That's easy. (5, Informative)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479613)

>Many (if not most) end system addresses have the MAC address embedded in the v6 host address,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Privacy [wikipedia.org]

Privacy extensions are enabled by default in Windows, Mac OS X (since 10.7), and iOS (since version 4.3).[39] Some Linux distributions have enabled privacy extensions as well.[40]

Re:That's easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479749)

Good to know. Thanks. I had v6 working in Windows, then an update broke it, and the Linux distros I have played with don't have it by default.

Re:That's easy. (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480965)

How so? Many (if not most) end system addresses have the MAC address embedded in the v6 host address, so you get more information out of a v6 address than you do out of a v4 address (including the ability to trace the same device even if it changes layer-3 networks).

Since most vendors aren't supporting RFC 3972, tracking is probably going to be easier, not harder.

I think you might be thinking about privacy addresses enabled by default on Windows and configurable on MAC and Linux.

Re:That's easy. (2)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479487)

Governements do. ISPs don't.

Without it, they can sell IPs for nice amounts without paying for it themselves. For ISPs it would even be nice to just give everybody a 10.x.x.x address (as they do with phones) so you can not run any server, or with very much work.

It is much better and easier to control on many levels of control.

So why would they go to IPv6, which will cost money, while sticking with IPv4 will bring in money.

Re:That's easy. (4, Insightful)

MajroMax (112652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479697)

That won't work in the long-term. The problem with carrier-grade NAT is that the ISPs have to... maintain carrier-grade NAT.

Network Address Translation is a stateful protocol, and it's orders of magnitude more expensive to maintain connection tracking on a per-connection basis for your customers than it is to simply route packets between networks. Even ISPs that use Deep Packet Inspection have the luxury of looking at selected traffic flows; carrier-grade NAT has to cover everything or it doesn't work.

Re:That's easy. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479887)

So why would they go to IPv6, which will cost money, while sticking with IPv4 will bring in money.

Yes, and I'm certain a similar business model sat on the desk of RIM Executives...and we see just how far their "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality has taken them.

If ISP's want to take this mentality, fine. Just don't expect to be in business past the next decade.

Re:That's easy. (4, Interesting)

MajroMax (112652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479925)

ISPs don't want to do carrier-grade NAT, because then they have to maintain carrier-grade NAT.

CGN is a stateful protocol, meaning that each of their implementing-boxes needs to maintain and process state for each data flow to or from your devices. That's no big deal for a single home, but it's a problem for a carrier. If the boxes are too far towards the customer-end of their network, they will be small but they will also be numerous, making maintenance more frequent. If the boxes are too far towards the core of their network, an ISP will only need a few, but the hardware requirements are much heftier to provide acceptable performance. (Already, bittorrent can saturate some of the cheaper home routers).

Simply routing packets is technically far, far easier than running network address translation. Even ISPs that use deep-packet inspection have the option of turning it off if things go wrong -- the network fails open. Carrier grade NAT doesn't have that option.

Re:That's easy. (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42481359)

Without it, they can sell IPs for nice amounts without paying for it themselves. For ISPs it would even be nice to just give everybody a 10.x.x.x address (as they do with phones) so you can not run any server, or with very much work.

It is much better and easier to control on many levels of control.

So why would they go to IPv6, which will cost money, while sticking with IPv4 will bring in money.

Given scale of traffic large ISPs are dealing with today it is expensive enough just for the gear to look up L3 addresses in IP header and make routing decisions in hardware associative memory.

ISPs benefit today by deploying IPv6. When they do a huge slice of their traffic (youtube, google, facebook, netflix) no longer has to go thru more expensive and headache causing carrier NAT where headers must be inspected, mangled and where state must be allocated for every transaction.

There are other benefits to the customer in overall reduced latency, issues with P2P, games and hosting servers/content without dealing with NAT barriers and assorted headaches. These benefits translate into happy customers and less support overhead for the ISP.

There are also regulatory headaches stemming from lack of ability to associate an IP with a subscriber where multiple are behind NAT for CALELA. If you think this is a good thing the workarounds are far worse.

Re:That's easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479805)

On the contrary, IPv6 would make it MUCH easier, since every device has it's own unique identifier IP address. IPv4 address on the other hand have NAT'd addresses and those on the outside never can be sure which device is using X address at any time, all they have is the outbound gateway address.

The reason why is (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479409)

With peak IPv4 far behind us, why do we still see limited IPv6 adoption?

The reason why is simple: because we haven't run out of IPv4 addresses yet.

Re:The reason why is (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479909)

This. You can't stick with IPv4 if you have no IPv4 address to use.

Re:The reason why is (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480809)

With peak IPv4 far behind us, why do we still see limited IPv6 adoption?

The reason why is simple: because we haven't run out of IPv4 addresses yet.

Close: because for the time being the costs of the transition are higher than those of maintaining the status quo.

IPv6 Internet is "here" for some of us (5, Informative)

insecuritiez (606865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479413)

I have a native, public, non-tunneled IPv6 address at home through my non-business Comcast cable Internet service. My computer and phone automatically use IPv6 whenever available.

I can use IPv6 at work too.

It's already here and adoption seems to be accelerating.

Re:IPv6 Internet is "here" for some of us (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479621)

Must be nice. My ISP's DSL side is on IPv6, their cable side isn't because the company that they buy their headend connection through(rogers) still hasn't finished upgrading everything. My modem is good to go, and has been for over three years.

Re:IPv6 Internet is "here" for some of us (4, Informative)

insecuritiez (606865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479867)

It's very nice. I was in the process of setting up a tunnel between my home gateway and a Linode machine (Linode provides native v6) and making Linode my publicly visible exit point to the Internet. A few weeks into the project Comcast implimented v6 making my tunneling efforts redundant.

Comcast currently allocates a /64 to each customer but they say they'll hand out shorter prefixes later.

I currently use "privacy addressing" with my Linux machine which I do with:
# IPv6 privacy stuff
echo 209600 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/wlan0/temp_valid_lft
echo 10800 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/wlan0/temp_prefered_lft
echo 128 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/wlan0/max_addresses
echo 2 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/wlan0/use_tempaddr

This is mostly so that I'm trying out the most extreme end of IPv6 where I'm going through addresses quickly and have up to 128 at a time.

Re:IPv6 Internet is "here" for some of us (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479795)

Same. Though I turn it off sometimes because the latency is a little worse right now. Presumably IPv6 traffic doesn't always get the best/fastest paths yet.

NAT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479467)

with NAT, the ability for millions of machines to share a single IP, the immediate need for new available IPs has somewhat been averted.

End to end (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479517)

How should a machine on the public Internet connect to one of the millions of machines behind a single IP?

Re:End to end (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479709)

How should a machine on the public Internet connect to one of the millions of machines behind a single IP?

You and I like this facility. For everyone else "the cloud" works fine

Re:End to end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479767)

That's what a proxy is for.

Anyone sane who has tons of machines behind a single public IP is running a dedicated proxy server anyway.

Re:End to end (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480099)

Don't call us, we'll call you. I actually had an Internet connection like that years back, entire campus hidden behind a single IP and no incoming ports. It was rather crippled but as long as the other half of the connection had a normal connection I could always connect to their servers and up/download. On modern IM services it'll even negotiate so that other people can send you files because under the hood you connect out instead. Worst case if you're both stuck behind such solutions you can always pass files via some third party file host. It's not pretty but it's not useless either, I bet enough people just browse and check their mail to not even notice.

Re:End to end (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480849)

VPN.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480033)

How do you have millions of machines when there are only 65536 ports?

Re:NAT (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480497)

65535. 0 is reserved.

IP6 addresses are a pain (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479477)

We have so many test VMs appearing and disappearing on our network that we don't bother putting them in DNS, we just give out the IP4 192.168... address for the testers and devs. I dread to think what would happen if we had to give them the line noise that is an IP6 address. Whatever other merits IP6 has, the designers REALLY didn't think it through at the manual address entry level.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (3, Insightful)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479559)

the designers REALLY didn't think it through at the manual address entry level.

Yeah, they did, and they decided that the only servers that need a manual address are DNS servers and DHCP servers (if you choose to run DHCP).
Outside of those, the only other things that need manual addresses are routers.

Everything else should use Dynamic DNS.

Give me a good reason why someone shouldn't be using DNS instead of direct IP address, other than lazy programmers.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479745)

Easy, to get around DNS-based censorship and blocking.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

MartinG (52587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479807)

You can do that with your hosts file instead. Or use an alternate DNS server. Or run your own. (etc.)

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (5, Insightful)

gclef (96311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479755)

One good reason why *servers* shouldn't be using DynamicDNS? I'll give you two.

First scenario: your server isn't responding. How do you tell the difference between a failure of the server itself and a Dynamic DNS registration failure? If you don't know it's IPv6 address, how can you tell if its fine, just not registering in DNS properly? Heck, if it's not registering properly, how do you find it at all?

Or, more fun: the server reboots & ends up with a different dynamic IPv6 address....even if it registers the new address to its name properly, clients don't always honor DNS cache times, and will keep trying the old address for a while. You've now created an outage for no good reason.

If you said that desktops don't need static DNS, I'd agree with you completely. But making server infrastructure totally reliant on a middle layer is asking for trouble...things'll work fine until you have a problem & need to troubleshoot. Then your reliance on an external system will bite you in the ass.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

Denis Lemire (27713) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479913)

Multicast DNS for the win.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

gclef (96311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480619)

Multicast DNS for the win.

...Added complexity for the lose.

That's the entire point: adding another layer of complexity makes troubleshooting and management harder and more likely to fail in new and surprising ways. Making that new layer different (multicast DNS rather than unicast) does not solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. This is not better.

I have no problem with servers *using* multcast DNS, dynamic DNS, etc. I have a problem with *relying* on DNS as the only way to connect to a server. DNS fails. So does multicast DNS, and dynamic DNS. In each of those cases I should still be able to connect to my servers.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480811)

I was going to say. My $30 network printer and Linux firewall can resolve local devices based on some standard broadcast name resolution. My firewall lists by device name+IP+MAC. If the local broadcast domain is working, name resolution should be working.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42481315)

So hand them static addresses. The 7th bit of any EUI-64 generated IPv6 address is always 1, quick rule for local ips is beginning the host part with "00" will avoid those clashes. Only problem would be privacy addresses which also sets the same bit to 0, but you probably wish to disable those in such controlled networks. You would still need to remember the subnet but that is longer because we sorta tried to solve a problem here.

As noted below, for internal access only, site unique addresses are possible in fd00::/8, so those special hosts could be given fd00::1, fd00::2 etc and if another subnet was necessary simply add fd01::XX. Clients only need to have their global addresses if proper routing is setup.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (2)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479783)

"Give me a good reason why someone shouldn't be using DNS instead of direct IP address, other than lazy programmers."

I'll give you a number of good reasons - manpower , deadlines, simplicity. When you get a proper job instead of playing around at college you might understand.

Oh , and programmers generally don't set up DNS. Just FYI.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479927)

Great logic. The solution which requires the least man-power automatically wins. Let's see where that would get us in all other areas... Or no, let's not.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479983)

int ip = resolve(hostname); //int ip = 192.168.0.1; connect(ip); That's really going to fuck with your deadlines?

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480659)

There is nothing accurate in your post. You should be ashamed. I know I am ashamed of you for providing such an answer. Its wrong, wrong, wrong. DNS should be used whenever possible. Only incompetent programmers would avoid DNS with very domain specific reasons.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (4, Informative)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479981)

Give me a good reason why someone shouldn't be using DNS instead of direct IP address

Here's 4. Not trying to be a wiseass, but there are times when bypassing DNS is preferable.

1) When you cannot trust your DNS source
2) DNS is not working or too slow
3) You didn't want to/need to spend $$ registering a domain
4) Your IP changes but DNS hasn't updated yet

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480433)

3) You didn't want to/need to spend $$ registering a domain

You only need to register a domain if you want it in the public DNS space.

For something completely in-house, you can set your DNS server to be authoritative for any domain. The only caveat is that if it is a domain in the public DNS space, you won't know it. You would use this to do split DNS, so hosts resolve to the private IP address for internal clients, while the outside world sees the public IPs. Throw in some sub-domains that are only available inside (*.dev.example.com, *.stage.example.com, etc.), and things just work.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480193)

Outside of those, the only other things that need manual addresses are routers.

And not even all routers, if you use DHCPv6-PD.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480291)

Give me a good reason why someone shouldn't be using DNS instead of direct IP address, other than lazy programmers.

Not every address needs to be in DNS, or should be. DNS has no security safeguards -- it's meant to be public. Putting records in DNS can allow additional information to leak about your network, for example, the IP address of the management interfaces for your managed switches. These typically have very little in the way of access controls -- you can brute the password without audit alarms triggering in some cases. So giving everything a DNS record means every device on your network is now recorded for a potential intruder, by design.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480737)

> These typically have very little in the way of access controls

I'm not sure why it's DNS' fault you bought shitty hardware.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480833)

I don't want my servers to rely on another service to get their IP addresses, so I use fixed IPs and host files for internal stuff that doesn't see the internet.
Less complexity, fewer headaches, and no amount of beratement for being lazy is going to change those facts.

I rely on DHCP + DNS when I'm *actually* feeling lazy.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479591)

I'm not sure what else you could do for a 128-bit address. The format isn't inherently any more complex, just longer: instead of four 8-bit numbers separated by dots, it's eight 16-bit numbers separated by colons.

If you have some kind of regularity in the addresses, there are also alternate formats you can use, if you find it more convenient, to try to make them shorter and easier to type. For example, you can omit segments that are 0, and collapse consecutive such segments, which is why you can write the loopback address as ::1.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479841)

For example, you can omit segments that are 0, and collapse consecutive such segments, which is why you can write the loopback address as ::1.

To be fair, you can do that with IPv4 too. Using 127.1 for the loopback address or 192.168.1 for a typical NAT gw address works just fine.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480085)

Prey tell how you decide if that is...

192.168.1.0
192.168.0.1
192.0.168.1
0.192.168.1

Admitted, one of these is not a valid IPv4 addresses. But neither are yours...

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (4, Informative)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480933)

The right-most octet in the abbreviated address substitutes for the right-most octets of the full address.

e.g.:
127.1 -> 127.0.0.1
192.168.1 -> 192.168.0.1
192.168.257 -> 192.168.1.1
10.65536 -> 10.1.0.0

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480317)

real men use 0x7f.1

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

tatman (1076111) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479593)

Agreed. IP4 was simple to read. just a set of number groups. And likewise, it was simple to communicate. IP6 is hex values or something (not sure whats the % is in "Reply from fe80::f9ee:eb6f:8c74:52f5%16: time1ms"). When I ping something I always turn on the IP4 switch.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (2)

MajroMax (112652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479847)

It's probably the index of your machine's IP that received the echo reply. An IPv6-connected host will have many addresses of different scope, so some implementations use the "%" to distinguish which of your addresses has handled a connection.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (4, Informative)

Fred Foobar (756957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479941)

That address is a link-local address. The number following the percent sign is the zone index, which specifies which network interface the address is on. If it were not there, the address may be ambiguous with multiple interfaces (imagine if two hosts on two different network segments had the same IP address; neither host can talk to the other but the machine you're on can talk to both through separate interfaces). I don't think IPv4 handles this case at all. Indeed, RFC 3927 discusses address ambiguity but provides no real solution for it. IPv6 provides a solution in the form of zone indices.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479943)

I know. I run a Macintosh website - why are there letters?!

If anything, the new IP addresses should be shorter.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479661)

Your routing prefix is unlikely to change (first 48 bits)
Your subnet id says the same per 'net' and only varys if you have more then one addressable network (16 bits)
the last 64 bits are the easy part...
type :: to compress out the 12 zeros you don't need to type then start at 1 and go up to ffff

Just avoid automatic addressing for systems that you are going to access like servers. Everything else should use a automatic dns registration system when getting an IPv6

ANY 128 bit address is going to have 'human' issues at the entry level because people don't handle that many bits well.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

MajroMax (112652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479819)

If DNS/DHCP is so difficult, then you can do exactly the same address assignment with ipv6 that you do with ipv4: give out a static /64 to each group-of-VMs, and let the testers/devs themselves pick individual machine numbers from that prefix.

If you want to be really short, then generate an unique local prefix [wikipedia.org] (/48) for your test networks, and subdivide from there according to whatever scheme you want, like fd8a:db80:db80:building:floor::[machine]

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (3, Interesting)

maz2331 (1104901) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479869)

Seriously, it sounds like SOMEONE can't convert between decimal and hex.

The addresses are easy once you get even slightly used to them, and once you memorize your /48 or /64 prefix is no more difficult than v4. 2001:123:45:67::2E/64 isn't hard. [2001:0123:0045:0067:0000:0000:0000:002E]. I have memorized our /48 and our usual scheme is to split it into /64s that then match the 3rd octet of our 192.168.x.x private range...so for example, I'd set up a host that is on 192.168.16.5 as 2001:123:45:10::5/64.

Or even better... just let the router on the subnet autoconfigure the hosts, or setup DHCPv6 on a server.

(Ocourse the 2001:123:45 addresses are totally made-up and fictitious... no need to give my real-world v6 netblocks on here!)

Just assign $PREFIX::$N (1)

ebiederm (614622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480443)

Manually assigned ipv6 is quite doable. It is really just a matter of assigning $PREFIX::$small_memorable_number.

There should only be one prefix you have to worry about and if you forget it you can look at any other computer on the network. Then just assign your servers each a small number.

For your case with VMs coming and going it would not be at all hard (and would probably result in better testing) to go the ISP route and assign a unique name to every address and then just report that name to your testers and devs. Reusing the name is exactly the same as reusing the ip address. Then you just have a series of machine names. testvm1, testvm2, testvm3, ... etc.

Really none of this is very hard, confusing or cumbersome. It just takes someone asking: "How do I make this work?" instead of thinking "Oh no! that is going to be horrible." and looking for excuses not to make it work.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480569)

Umm... Seems you haven't understood how IPv6 addresses work. Everything starting with fd is private. So you could assign the addresses
fd00::1
fd00::2 ...
to your private VMs. Quite a bit shorter than then IPv4 192.168... madness.

Re:IP6 addresses are a pain (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480759)

We have so many test VMs appearing and disappearing on our network that we don't bother putting them in DNS, we just give out the IP4 192.168... address for the testers and devs. I dread to think what would happen if we had to give them the line noise that is an IP6 address.

Whatever other merits IP6 has, the designers REALLY didn't think it through at the manual address entry level.

I know...take for example the IPv6 address of sprints public web site... It's huge...sorry I mean smaller than any possible IPv4 address.."2600::"

I think you have a choice. You can go for large unwieldy autogenerated messes of address from SLAAC or you can manually (or via DHCP) configure easy to use IPv6 address especially if it is for an internal network.

I do not think it is fair to assert both the idea manual configuration is required and IPv6 addresses are impossible to work with concurrently.

If you are manually configuring then intentionally handing out an impossible to type IPv6 address especially on an internal network does not make much sense.

Also keep in mind nobody is saying you have to dump IPv4 on an internal network EVER. Only your public facing resources EVER have to change.

Vendor support sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479501)

I'm involved with a lot of IT procurements (for an .edu, so we're ahead of most when it comes to pushing IPv6). Vendors still look at us like we have lobsters crawling out of our ears. I often got the response - "well, its a new protocol." My response IPv6 was first standardized in 1998 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460), so if you are that far behind the standards, we probably don't want your product.

Re:Vendor support sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479601)

I'm involved with a lot of IT procurements (for an .edu, so we're ahead of most when it comes to pushing IPv6). Vendors still look at us like we have lobsters crawling out of our ears. I often got the response - "well, its a new protocol." My response IPv6 was first standardized in 1998 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460), so if you are that far behind the standards, we probably don't want your product.

Well, I work for one of those vendors (hence posting AC). In my company, a fortune 500 telco vendor, IPv6 only started to gain traction in 2011. Not because engineering didn't want to implement, but because management saw no business case. If customer's don't ask, it will not be implemented by a company where mgmt rules the product, that's the short story.

As long IPv6 wastes more data per hearder, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479511)

we have zero reasons to use it.

Re:As long IPv6 wastes more data per hearder, (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480001)

A con does not make the number of pros zero. Learn to count.

Re:As long IPv6 wastes more data per hearder, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480345)

Managing IPv6 addresses is also significantly harder than IPv4.

Using it at work, really useful (1)

jnelson4765 (845296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479529)

I just rebuilt our monitoring system on Munin 2.0, which can deal with IPv6. Made life a lot easier, since punching holes in NAT routers and screwball port mappings went away.

Google and Facebook are both running ipv6, and both our office and a chunk of our datacenter are on ipv6 through a he.net tunnel. Wish native ipv6 was available, but Amazon hasn't enabled it for AWS, and the Comcast ipv6 rollout is to consumers, not to business clients.

What about the big ones (e.g. verizon, AT&T) (1)

sohmc (595388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479647)

My FiOS ISP does not have an IPv6 address. I support it internally on my router. I imagine that the hold up is that the big guys aren't there yet. This makes sense since they have the most equipment to replace/reprogram.

I'd actually be interested in where these guys are at. I'm sure they figured it out for businesses but I'd like an IPv6 address for my house.

Re:What about the big ones (e.g. verizon, AT&T (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479809)

Last I heard on FiOS was sometime Q1/Q2 of 2013 for IPv6 support. They have already started upgrading the firmware on their newer routers to support it but they are not assigning addresses as of yet.

Re:What about the big ones (e.g. verizon, AT&T (2)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480321)

I'd actually be interested in where these guys are at.

I have AT&T's cheapest (read: slowest) residential DSL offering at home (it's all we need to check email and watch a little Netflix). They turned on IPv6 sometime between March (when I bought a new router) and December of 2012. No hiccups whatsoever—the only reason I even happened to notice was that I was fiddling with router's web interface because I was bored one day.

Still not working... (5, Insightful)

bartjan (197895) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479655)

bartjan@ix:~$ ping6 slashdot.org
unknown host
bartjan@ix:~$

Maybe about time to update this story from 2003 [slashdot.org] ??

Re:Still not working... (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479765)

arstechnica.com doesn't have Native IPv6 either.

So... what is preventing slashdot and arstechnica.com from going IPv6?

Re:Still not working... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479987)

No-one at Slashdot knows very much about this technology stuff. It's more about maintaining a nerd image by wearing weird glasses.

Re:Still not working... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480367)

At least Slashdot is very conservative what comes to technological improvements.

Re:Still not working... (3, Informative)

alanw (1822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480435)

I run the Firefox plugin SixOrNot [mozilla.org] . Google - a green 6. Youtube and Facebook ditto. Slashdot, a red 4. There are major sites out there running IPv6.

I have a free tunnel [tunnelbroker.net] from Hurricane Electric [he.net] . The only issue is that Google thinks I'm in the USA, which can't be a bad thing.

Now that there are no more IPv4 addresses available in Europe, it's in the interests of the established players to suppress IPv6 and lock out disruptive new startups: e.g. ISP's or Co-Lo's.

Re:Still not working... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480749)

This is indeed ridiculous. No IPv6 (took me half a day to get my servers running on) and no Unicode (two days to write and test a good UTF-8 parser). And slashdot is unable to pull it off. How sad.

Better yet.. (2)

micber (2778079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479657)

maybe we should just say "the Internet is full!" and call it a day...there's already too much crap floating around anyway!

older modems / routers are a isses as well and who (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42479677)

older modems / routers are a issue as well and who knows what bugs are in them that will only show up with higher IPV6 use.

How meany people are useing say the modems from there ISP that may be a few years old that does not have IPV6.

Re:older modems / routers are a isses as well and (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479945)

older modems / routers are a issue as well and who knows what bugs are in them that will only show up with higher IPV6 use.

How meany people are useing say the modems from there ISP that may be a few years old that does not have IPV6.

Considering that IPv6 adoption from a software standpoint has literally been around for years now, I would consider this actually less of an issue, not more.

In other words, if you are still running hardware such as modems and routers that have issues with IPv6 adoption that cannot be overcome, then it's time to replace your shit, because it's as old as the IPv4 mentality keeping it there.

Re:older modems / routers are a isses as well and (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480401)

Then we replace the modems.

IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479855)

Ain't nobody got time for that!

Maybe because Cisco still teaches IPv4? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42479969)

I'm taking classes to obtain my CCNA. The class still revolves around IPv4. If the admins don't know IPv6, they'll stick to what they know until they have no choice to buy a book on ipv6, learn the differences, and upgrade. In addition, most business won't want to upgrade until they have to as it is an additional expense.

IPv6 is coming. But it's not something that will be everywhere tomorrow. It will take time... As old equipment fails and is replaced with IPv6 capable hardware, slowly the internet will change over.

It will get to a point where whoever is left on IPv4 will switch over within a short time period - within a few years - but that's only after most of the equipment has already been replaced, and the networking staff have been required to read a book or take classes on the technical differences between the two so they can configure the hardware properly.

Updating Cisco CCNA to revolve mainly on IPv6 wouldn't be such a bad idea either.

Incentive tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480137)

And just like with houses, people prefer waiting rather than buying when prices are dropping

Easy solution then... announce an incentive tax on IPv6 that'll be brought in in 2 years time but waived if you can demonstrate working existing IPv6 functionality before the tax comes into effect. Everyone'll rush to get IPv6 before then so to minimise they adoption costs after. Write into the tax code that it's abolished after 10 years (ie long enough so companies/people aren't willing to wait that long), by which time adoption rates'll be high enough that it'll no longer be required.

But yes it's very naive... would be unfair on new companies afterwards and waiving it for them would just encourage companies to create new legal entities afterwards to evade it, and would be hard to get a good definition of functionality for all cases that doesn't just mean a single printer in the corner of a room.

The Mayans predicted this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480187)

The Mayan's predicted that IPv4 addresses will be exhausted on Dec 21 2013!!!

Re:The Mayans predicted this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480845)

Back in 1992, everyone predicted that !Pv4 addresses would be exhausted by 1994.

IPv6 isn't the solution (0, Redundant)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480273)

The solution to this problem, which was presented decades ago, is to switch to IPv6.

If IPv6 were the solution we would have already switched to it. IPv6 was stillborn, pretty much starting from the moment it wasn't backward compatible with IPv4. It would have been trivial to keep the current IPv4 address space and dedicate some of the multicast or reserved address space (class D and E) and a dedicated port (say the unassigned port 6) to IPv6.

A message destined to an IPv6 128 bit destination could be sent to the 32 bit prefix port 6 or up stream encapsulated to a 236.*.*.*-246.*.*.* destination.

Each node along the way is then allowed to open the encapsulated IPv4 packet to extract the IPv6 headers, if IPv6 capable, or treat it like an IPv4 packet and pass it along to its IPv4 destination which is always an IPv6 capable node.

This node then must open the encapsulated package and further process it as needed.

Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (4, Insightful)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480481)

You've pretty much just described 6to4. We have it already.

Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (3, Informative)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480747)

6to4 is an extension which is optional as opposed to an intrinsic part of the protocol. This distinction is important.

Moreover the fact that 6to4 was developed at all, after IPv6 was proposed, proves my point and shows that my criticisms of IPv6 were/are shared by many.

Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480795)

Just admit you're wrong.

Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42481415)

Again, 6to4 is a patch, not a properly designed transition interface. E.g. from wikipedia:

6to4 does not facilitate interoperation between IPv4-only hosts and IPv6-only hosts. 6to4 is simply a transparent mechanism used as a transport layer between IPv6 nodes.

Due to the high levels of misconfigured hosts and poor performance observed, an advisory about how 6to4 should be deployed was published in August 2011.

Moreover, 6to4 encapsulates IPv4 addresses in IPv6 2002: addresses, which is the reverse of what I'm suggesting.

I've been telling everyone since before the protocol was formalized that it would take a long time to be adopted the way it was designed. Then, just like now people gave silly arguments why I was wrong. Well here we are 16 or so years after I first raised these objections and IPv6 is still less than 1% of the net.

Re:IPv6 isn't the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480873)

Even if the full range of IPv4 addresses would be usable, we are still at 2^32 =~ 4,200,000,000 IPs compared to a current world pop of 7,000,000,000.

Not counting Servers
Not counting mobile devices
Not counting entertainment or educational areas

IPv6 has 2^64 Prefixes; as a bonus you get 2^64 IPs per prefix as well; but that's not what IPv6 is about. This is just needed to get stuff like SLAAC working.
So now we can have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 "locations" with 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs.*each*.

The only reason it wasn't immediately adopted is the same as with firewalls or IPS systems: It will cost money and it will not immediately create revenue. Or that's what the companies think.
Why, I ask, why does google and facebook already /have/ IPv6 then?
Think about that. For maybe 10 seconds. If you don't get a solution at that time, consider to shoot yourself. (Darwin, helping hand, you know....)

IPV6 and Debian... (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about a year and a half ago | (#42480423)

I recently signed up for a Xen Linux vps thru a vendor to run a mail server on, I provisioned it with Debian/squeeze, and while installing everything, I happened to notice that the apt-get sessions were talking to the Debian repos via ipv6. Was kinda startled, as I'm not used to seeing those humongous ipv6 addresses.. The vps vendor gives you at no extra charge two v4 addresses and three v6 addresses. Although I see in their blog, they are dropping the v4s to one per vps without a significant extra charge starting this month. If anybody's looking for a 512mb Xen vps at a truly awesome price, check out Virpus Networks. In the past I'd always gone with OpenVZ slices as they were the cheapest as my "projects" requiring a vps are personal, and have a VERY low budget. But I wanted to get away from some problems that my last OpenVZ vendor had, and I found Virpus offering a 512mb Xen vps for less than I'd been paying for the 512mb OpenVZ slice.. Anyway, have nothing to do with Virpus other than being a satisfied customer...

Multicast? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42480565)

I've been waiting for the IPV6 killer application to show its head. Until then I don’t think Joe public will know or care what IPV6 is and why they should use it.

So I mention this here in the hopes that it will light somebodies bulb and somebody will probably correct me on this, but I always thought IPV6 included global multicast, which would make lots of new application possible. Imagine being able to stream content from your home to any number of people without the need for a costly connection. Kinda makes bit torrent look so last century.

killer app? (2)

DECula (6113) | about a year and a half ago | (#42481343)

Unless we come up with a viable DNS RBL for ipv6, the killer app for ipv6 is going to be spam. Hey mister, wanna buy a Rolex?
I hope someone is working on services like this. I can also imagine one heckofa bot net once we get all those soda machines and
refrigerators online.
 

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>