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!

UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the proxy-banned-from-posting dept.

The Internet 445

judgecorp writes "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network address translation CG-NAT, where potentially all the ISP's customers could be sharing one IP address, through a gateway. The move is controversial as it could make some Internet services fail, but PlusNet says it is inevitable, and only a test at this stage." Regarding the failure of IPv6, these graphs imply otherwise.

cancel ×

445 comments

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

I recall MxStream (3, Interesting)

MathFox (686808) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603583)

KPN tried "carrier grade" IP4-NAT in the Netherlands a decade ago... Unfortunately the router software was too buggy and made the routers trash and crash. And how can the customers of the ISP run servers on their computers? NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

Re:I recall MxStream (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603673)

This may be a feature and not a bug to these ISPs.

The business has changed. They are probably fine with screwing up incoming services. They can charge to fix what they screwed up by using NAT.

Re:I recall MxStream (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603699)

Consumer grade network connections do not run servers.

A far bigger problem is that a lot of internet services these days use IP-based blocks as the final "brute force" version of "you are abusing the service, go away". It would really suck to be under an ISP that shows every customer coming from a single IP. You'd find yourself banned from all kinds of random places as soon as someone using the same ISP decides to be an idiot.

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603827)

That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.

Re:I recall MxStream (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604131)

That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.

Do you really think any ISPs are going to take on these kinds of responsibilities? You're expecting them to basically be moderators for every forum on the Internet. Aside from the fact that they *shouldn't* be doing this (they should be dumb pipes), they also don't *want* to do this because it's logistically impossible and would open them up to potential legal liability.

Re:I recall MxStream (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604497)

If you make your users indistinguishable from the outside, you are basicly acting on behalf of your users. So yes, put to the extreme, it would mean that you are responsible for all the stuff your users do. Normal "dumb pipes" don't hide the identity of their users. They are just a means to an end, a tool the user wield to reach a goal.

Re:I recall MxStream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604439)

I don't know about you but I have a few hobbies where I'm pretty sure that there are less than ten people from my country that frequent the dedicated forums.
No ISP is going to bother.

Re:I recall MxStream (3, Interesting)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604727)

> That will be a problem of the ISP then

What a wonderfully-naive view of the internet. As we all know, consumers in Britain and America have bountiful high-speed low-latency broadband choices within a healthy, competitive marketplace. We have cable OR dsl... maybe cable AND dsl if we're incredibly lucky, and... er...um...

Ok, right then. We're fucked.

Cellular data has low caps and rapidly gets expensive if you're allowed to exceed them without getting throttled to sub-dialup speeds. Satellite data has insane latency, and *insidious* caps whose throttling kicks in at thresholds that aren't necessarily transparent or obvious from the marketing literature. Fiber to the home barely exists, and with the exception of Google in Kansas City, is still the exclusive fiefdom of basically one incumbent large corporation with its own agenda that's vehemently opposed to network neutrality. And those incumbent carriers have all done their best to bribe/buy/bully state officials into passing laws making it illegal for communities (or even existing neighborhoods) to take matters into their own hands, leapfrog over those incumbent carriers, and lay their own open-access fiber *anyway*.

Re:I recall MxStream (5, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603957)

Yes they do, pretty regularly. Ever played a multiplayer game?

Same-screen or LAN multiplayer (-1, Troll)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604275)

Ever played a multiplayer game?

Yes I have, by plugging more than one controller into a single PC or console, or by connecting PCs or Nintendo DS systems into a local area network. Multiplayer games need not be played across the Internet.

Re:Same-screen or LAN multiplayer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604697)

You're missing the point. Internet multiplayer games are quite popular these days.

Re:Same-screen or LAN multiplayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604775)

Or, you could take turns and pass around the controller. It'd be just like in the 80s! YAY!

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604599)

Or even some single player games nowadays.
Ever streamed video or audio through Skype?
Ever instant messaged anyone online on most IM platforms?
Ever setup a home security system with remote access?
Ever wanted a home based cloud service or fileshare?
Ever plan on having any type of smart home?
Ever SSHed into a home computer?

X-Forwarded-For: (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604251)

A far bigger problem is that a lot of internet services these days use IP-based blocks as the final "brute force" version of "you are abusing the service, go away". It would really suck to be under an ISP that shows every customer coming from a single IP.

That's what X-Forwarded-For: [wikipedia.org] and agreements with ISPs are for. See, for example, Wikimedia's implementation of X-Forwarded-For: [wikimedia.org] .

Re:X-Forwarded-For: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604667)

That's an http header. What about the rest of the Internet- email, chat, gaming etc...

Re:I recall MxStream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604533)

Consumer grade network connections do not run servers.

Only because the ISPs do everything they can to stop them. I run a personal website off my personal connection. Every month or so I have to change it's port (DNS redirects to the correct place) as the ISP eventually blocks whichever one I'm using. Half the businesses I apply to can't view my projects because all consumer IPs are blocked by default by their "porn and hacking" filters. I had to turn off encrypted connections because people kept complaining that Firefox wouldn't load my page when I was using a self-signed certificate.

Why should I have to pay other people to do things I can do myself? I don't need 99.99% uptime. Anything better than 50% is good enough for me and I do much better than that. How else can I have complete control over my site and get to tinker with my custom server software? I get 2-3 non-bot hits per day. There's not a single reason why I need a business grade connection for my website.

All this is free to me. Free DNS service through DynDNS, free net access (bundled into rent), free electricity (bundled into rent), free computer (older computer I had no use for).

Consumer grade network connections are perfectly fine for servers assuming the ISP isn't fucking with your connections. You're paying for INTERNET ACCESS. If you want to send data to other people through your access point so be it. I hate people trying to move the internet to big content producers only and you're one of those people.

Re:I recall MxStream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604647)

Consumer grade network connections do not run servers.

Citation needed.

Re:I recall MxStream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604763)

You'd find yourself banned from all kinds of random places as soon as someone using the same ISP decides to be an idiot.

We're already there. When I got cable early last year I found upon a random visit to 4chan I was banned. It's really nice to get a new service and have the IP address associated with posting CP on the interwebs.

On a side note I sent an e-mail a few weeks back asking about their IPv6 implementation, basically told me not to hold my breath.

Re:I recall MxStream (4, Interesting)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603775)

NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

For a lot of organizations, that's a bonus. If you don't trust the outside network, you certainly don't want to peer arbitrarily with them, and certainly not at any outside machine's initiative. With NAT, an outside system can't initiate connectivity with any machine inside the NAT boundary without some kind of prior arrangement, so no open-ended network scanning.

If you treat the Internet as a big happy cloud of egalitarian peers collaborating at will, NAT sucks. If you treat the Internet as a bad neighborhood, which you have no way of avoiding between your house and the mall, NAT is the gated neighborhood you live in to keep the unsavory inhabitants of that bad neighborhood away from your pristine lawn and Lexus in the driveway. And people choose gated neighborhoods, and NAT, for that precise reason: separation and protection from the riff-raff, the panhandlers, the burglars and the car thieves, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mostly the JWs, I think.

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603963)

Thats what a Firewall is for.

Re:I recall MxStream (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604015)

NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

For a lot of organizations, that's a bonus. If you don't trust the outside network, you certainly don't want to peer arbitrarily with them, and certainly not at any outside machine's initiative. With NAT, an outside system can't initiate connectivity with any machine inside the NAT boundary without some kind of prior arrangement, so no open-ended network scanning.

That's what firewalls are for, not NAT. Please stop confusing the two.

Three birds with one stone (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604425)

That's what firewalls are for, not NAT. Please stop confusing the two.

But they're not entirely orthogonal, as NAT imposes a firewall by default. It takes down three birds with one stone, namely delaying the effects of IPv4 depletion until an IPv6 rollout can be afforded, firewalling out those assumed to be unsavory, and upselling business class connections to home-based businesses. How would NAT be implemented without a firewall?

Re:Three birds with one stone (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604505)

How would NAT be implemented without a firewall?

We should probably stop using the term "firewall" for anything that is not a filtering appliance. It means less and less all the time. We know what IP filters are, let's call them that. Anything with ACLs is a firewall, most firewalls are also lots of other things these days, minimally including VPN appliances...

NAT thus requires a router, with NAT capabilities. You don't have to actually do any deliberate filtering. And yet, as you say, you do gain some of the benefits of firewalls for those clients on the NAT segment.

Re:Three birds with one stone (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604741)

This is actually not true. Most NATs can be penetrated from the outside; they have to be able to be penetrated, or things like Skype don't work. Pretty much any UDP-based protocol requires that the NAT open holes. So the notion that NAT == Firewall is utterly incorrect, and in fact the feeling of security that you apparently have based on this misconception is likely to cause you harm in the future.

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604305)

It's also a bonus for me if my pristine Lexus doesn't have wheels because nobody's going to steal it by driving it away...

NAT is poor security. It doesn't prevent bad stuff getting in to the network, it merely prevents one type of access, and it has a habit of lulling admins into a false sense of security as a result. What's needed is proper fine grained network security on a workstation by workstation and connection by connection basis. That's something IPv6, through its mandatory support of IPSec, is very good at (at least, from the point of view of creating the essential infrastructure necessary for such security to work.

NAT breaks things. It makes things appear OK that aren't. With hindsight, we should have never used it to begin with. I suspect the foot dragging we saw with IPv6 would never have happened if the fact we had run out of IPv4 addresses had been noticed in the late nineties. (Yes, we ran out then. The NAT thing kinda hid the problem, but not without consequences.)

To invite someone who's not quite unsavory (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604381)

NAT is the gated neighborhood you live in to keep the unsavory inhabitants of that bad neighborhood away from your pristine lawn and Lexus in the driveway.

So how should a resident invite someone who's not quite unsavory? For example, to use your example of Jehovah's Witnesses, I study the Bible weekly with one of them. If my neighborhood were to adopt a firewall with a "JWs keep out" policy, I'd be pretty disappointed.

Re:I recall MxStream (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603859)

KPN tried "carrier grade" IP4-NAT in the Netherlands a decade ago... Unfortunately the router software was too buggy and made the routers trash and crash.

And how can the customers of the ISP run servers on their computers? NAT has implications for the peer-to-peer nature of the Internet.

Unfortunately nowadays you can build a cluster of Linux box and process at least 20 gig per server (I ve seen this working inside some cloud provider with a big deploiment in IAD )... so, easy to get NAT at carrier scale for a dime.
The Linux network stack works.
So that's a possible the way to build a british great firewall ...

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

Alarash (746254) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604443)

Just for the record, routers don't NAT. Firewalls do. To do NAT you have to be stateful (TCP or UDP aware), and routers aren't. If a router does NAT, that means it's got firewall features. Note that firewalls can route too (if only based on IP, if not on OSPF or even BGP) so maybe you just used too broad a term.

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604773)

No. Firewall != Router != Network Address Translater. But often all three functions sit in the same box.

Re:I recall MxStream (1)

172pilot (913197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604569)

All of what you say is true, but it ignores the reality that well over 99% of the customers are residential customers, or even small businesses who will NEVER run a server on location. Switching customers to NAT is not only easier than moving to IPv6 (read: cheaper), but also provides the carrier an opportunity to introduce a tiered "premium" service at an additional cost, where a customer could get a real IP address if they really need one. Personally, I think this is the inevitable future. 20 years from now, we'll look at IPv6 as a good protocol that never really caught on, because in the end, nobody really needed it.

Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603593)

Dual-stack deployment with NAT'd IPv4 alongside with IPv6 is the only viable short-term option for consumer ISPs. You can't just cut off people from the IPv4 internet, you'd leave them with a pretty much useless internet connection.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603923)

That is true, however the ISP can provide 6to4 services so that you can get to IPv4 only sites and services. Although that would have the same problem as carrier grade NAT in that sites that ban bad actors based on IPv4 addresses would be banning large blocks of users (perhaps without realizing it).

Although on the IPv6 side - I doubt the ISPs will have a whole lot of luck getting their customers to all upgrade their home routers. Not many of the installed base of home routers support IPv6. In fact, a good chunk of the ones being sold now still don't. I have one I bought about a year ago specifically because it supposedly supports IPv6. The support doesn't work correctly and I had to turn it off.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604641)

I doubt the ISPs will have a whole lot of luck getting their customers to all upgrade their home routers.

Considering that many areas only have one ISP, if people were told they have 1 year to buy an IPv6 enabled router or they will lose access to the internet, they will buy a new router. It might be the only good thing that comes out of ISP monopolies. Besides, don't a lot of non-techie people just rent a router from the ISP? Most techies will be full willing to replace their routers with IPv6 enabled ones even without coercion.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604003)

You can also cut them off on ipv4 with cg nat (did you know the marketing name changed from c-nat to cgnat not because there's anything wrong with "carrier nat" as a name, but everyone was calling it "crappy nat" instead?)

Then the end users can all connect to ipv6 providers. Free tunnels from he.net, or maybe their game company. I think it would be interesting if every windows machine connected to steam lit up a ipv6 tunnel for game server purposes.

In the long run I agree it would be nice to provide ipv6 direct support in parallel.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604575)

(did you know the marketing name changed from c-nat to cgnat not because there's anything wrong with "carrier nat" as a name, but everyone was calling it "crappy nat" instead?)

Crappy gnat sounds even better than crappy nat to me!

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (2)

FridayBob (619244) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604089)

... You can't just cut off people from the IPv4 internet, you'd leave them with a pretty much useless internet connection.

Luckily, IPv6-only connections are becoming less useless every day.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604227)

Dual-stack deployment with NAT'd IPv4 alongside with IPv6 is the only viable short-term option for consumer ISPs.

NAT'd IPv4 alone is also a "viable" option :(.

From a quick search it seems plusnet have run an IPv6 trial in the past but are not currently offering any IPv6 service :/ Hopefully they fix that before they start rolling out ISP level NAT for real.

Re:Not "instead of", but "in addition to" (4, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604447)

You are right.

I never really understood why we didn't just map all the IPv4 addresses to a IPv6 subset and provide a very simple rule to translate, say by adding all zeros or some other number to the IPv4 address to get its IPv6 one. Then start forcing the adoption of IPv6 by not accepting v4 traffic from the top down though the domain registration authorities and hosting providers. Get legal agreements from them to not route IPv4 traffic in exchange for IPv6 address assignments and allowing new domain registrations, force top level domain authorities to only support IPv6 going forward.

You want to keep your website available? You want your customers to see new domains? You need a IPv6 assignment because we won't route v4 traffic and DNS is going to give you an IPv6 address. ISP's would then be free to provide IPv4 connections, but only if they did the translation to IPv6 internally themselves, which would end up costing IPv4 customers more money and limiting what they can see.

Eventually, there would be enough pressure for the ISP's to push IPv6 down the food chain to the end user who will either pay more for IPv4 service, or upgrade to IPv6. Eventually there will be a tipping point and IPv6 will see universal acceptance.

The problem here is that nobody really has the necessary power to force IPv6 on the world.... So we will keep bumping along trying more and more incremental patches to IPv4. Eventually, you could be behind 20 NATs wondering why your SIPP/VOIP device won't make any calls...

Hey, how about we just put all of the adult content on IPv6 only addresses.... You know THAT would set a fire under things....

inevitable? (1)

Nossie (753694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603597)

why in the world is it inevitable? Inevitable because they want to keep holding off on newer technology? If I was with Plusnet I'd use this as a good reason to start looking elsewhere.

Re:inevitable? (1)

rogueippacket (1977626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603785)

This is largely inevitable due to the cost of replacing customer modems/routers with those which truly support IPv6. Any decent core routing equipment can do both IPv6 and CG-NAT - the difference being CG-NAT does not require you to mail out a couple hundred/hundred-thousand/million IPv6-cable boxes to your customers.
I suspect we will see virtually all ISP's converting to CG-NAT in the coming years, with an upgrade to an IPv6-capable circuit becoming an option shortly thereafter. Any customers who simply use their Internet service for requesting data will be fine with CG-NAT - it will really only be those who run servers or programs which fail behind a double-NAT (admittedly, most do) who would request IPv6.

Re:inevitable? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604043)

I can't speak to the customer owned routers, but for the modems, given how often my cablemodem dies on the RF side from lightning or "whatever" and how very long its been illegal to install anything but docsis 3.0 ipv6 compatible modems, I'm unimpressed. That was a pretty good argument in '03 but its '13 now.

I also can't speak for the DSL users. Maybe they're stuck in the stone age, maybe they've also all been ipv6 compatible since the 00s.

Re:inevitable? (1)

Nossie (753694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604087)

right, so give customers the option to upgrade to something else - I never use a service that bundles a modem anyway. I'm currently using IPv4 as it's one of the 10 IPs my ISP assigned when I joined them.. I'm in no hurry to go the IPv6 route but it would not be a big issue to reassign another set of IPs and I would just migrate over. The netgear I bought in 2002 supported IPv6 (which I subsequently bricked with custom firmware *cough*) and yes it was a premium router at the time but if they are selling IPv4 only consumer routers then THAT is the problem.

Give us the option to migrate and when someone signs up by default put them on IPv6 and slowly phase out IPv4. Slowly do the same for customers renewing their contract and send tickles to the remainder with the benefits/reasoning of IPv6.

Not rocket science really - build out your fucking IPv6 network before start butchering the current one! I realise I'm in the minority because I'm fully aware/care about the issue however that does not mean they have to relegate their current system first.

Re:inevitable? (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604589)

why the hell would they have to mail them out? just have the customer go exchange them?? or upgrade the god damn bios on the router.. oh bull crap

Re:inevitable? (1)

Nossie (753694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604675)

there is nothing stopping them keeping the current users on ipv4 and just adding an IPv6 layer... customer wouldn't need to exchange them

However, I had to laugh when you said upgrade the firmware on the router ... router manufacturers are kinda like cell phone providers when it comes to software updates.

They would much rather you bought a new product than fix/upgrade an older one

Re:inevitable? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604389)

Because everyone sat on their hands for too long.

Afaict the plan was that everyone would get dual stack, then once IPv4 only hosts/services became negligable v6 only hosts and services could be introduced. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. There was little immediate value in having IPv6 and as such most companies did not work on deploying it. As a result IPv4 addresses have pretty much run out while many services (including the website we are discussing this on) are still V4 only.

Therefore any growing ISP will have no choice but to deploy a mechanism to allow access to services on the IPv4 internet while using less than one IPv4 address per customer. That mechanism may be conventional IPv4 NAT, NAT64, DS-LITE, port based IP sharing or some other mechanism but whatever it is it will be needed and it will have implications on what users can do with their internet service. They may or may not choose to also provide access to the IPv6 internet.

Am I reading that graph wrong? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603599)

Am I reading that graph wrong?

What I see is less than 11% of the thousand most popular sites has adopted IPv6

Either that or we seem to be using different definitions for the word "failure".

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (2)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603761)

What I see is less than 11% of the thousand most popular sites has adopted IPv6

I'd imagine the hundred most popular sites account for the vast majority of internet traffic. So it really depends where in the list of 1,000 sites that 11% is. I wonder if folk would feel differently if the ISP in question were to offer an unrestricted ipv6 connection or NAT based ipv4 at the customer's choice?

If a country the size of the UK were to set a switchover date and move to ipv6, the vast majority of English language sites would be running ipv6 by the switchover date for fear of losing that audience. It might take regulation though, as no ISP wants to be first for fear of losing customers.

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (4, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603885)

Google reports about 1% of their traffic is IPv6. That's probably a better estimate of IPv6 deployment.

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (0)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603897)

What happens is that IPv6 has been such a dismal failure so far that its supporters now cheer wildly every time it looks like it isn't dead yet. The technological version of "it moved, I swear, I saw it move, don't unplug the machines just yet!"

Just recently an IPv6 proponent sent me a chart showing IPv6 traffic growing from 0.25% to 1% of the Internet in a year as proof of its "impending success" and "rapid adoption".

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604081)

Just recently an IPv6 proponent sent me a chart showing IPv6 traffic growing from 0.25% to 1% of the Internet in a year as proof of its "impending success" and "rapid adoption".

In the unlikely even that 400% annual growth continues, get back to us in four years when ipv6 is 256% of the internet.

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604157)

Just recently an IPv6 proponent sent me a chart showing IPv6 traffic growing from 0.25% to 1% of the Internet in a year as proof of its "impending success" and "rapid adoption".

Let's invent IPv8 and setup a single server and client; the rate of adoption will be 1.#INF within it's first year!

Re:Am I reading that graph wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604351)

I connect to my server in the clouds, Google, Facebook, and more just fine over IPv6. IPv6 is working great for me. I'm glad that my home computer, file server, roommate's computer, roommate's tablet, and my tablet now have unique public IPv6 addresses. If I'm worried that I've somehow accidentallyed xinetd on to any of those computers, I'm more than capable of setting up a firewall. Except none of these computers have any services that have been accidentallyed on to them. The roommate has MSTSC open to the world, but that's his choice. We're running GNU/Linux, GNU/Android/Linux (both the roommate and I have installed GNU systems on top of our Android/Linux tablets), and Windows 7 and loving it.

I don't get the idea that we need to be up to over 9000% adoption in less than a year from world IPv6 launch day otherwise it's a dismal failure and all this progress needs to be rolled back. False dichotomy.

Nothing to do with IPv6 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603605)

This is probably more about forcing all connections through one choke point to make it easier to implement government mandated content filtering.

The UK needs to go away, and take their paedophile BBC heroes and police state with them.

AMS-IX (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603613)

At 8 gbps of lolcats over ipv6 already, the world is saved!

Has it really come to this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603615)

...a split in how ISPs will implement IPs

hope it doesn't become standard practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603621)

easier surveillance, easier p2p blocking, easier content filtration, what could go wrong. Oh wait I have a knock at the door, be right ba......
[loss of carrier...]

Really instead of ? (2, Insightful)

pumpkin2146 (317171) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603637)

I highly doubt it makes sense for plusnet to do this "instead" of IPv6, but it does make sense to do this "as well" as IPv6.

I see the transition involving something like these 5 steps.

1.) Everyone needs IPv4, IPv6 is useless (no content).
2.) Everyone needs IPv4, IPv6 reduces the amount of IPv4 traffic you use.
3.) Most people still need IPv4, but IPv6 is most of the traffic.
4.) IPv4 is a niche requirement. Most normal users won't notice if they don't have it.
5.) IPv4 is Cobol and I come back and get a fat paycheque because I still remember how it works.

I think we are at (2) right now. I think CGN *IS* inevitable (even if it sucks) as part of a transition strategy. If we had started transitioning seriously a few years ago, we might have avoided this, but we didn't.

Re:Really instead of ? (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603837)

If we had started transitioning seriously a few years ago

Some of us did. All the computers and network equipment at my house has been ready for IPv6 for years. I am just waiting for my ISP to get with the program.

ISPs are the problem here. But with government-granted monopolies without regulation, they have no incentive to support IPv6.

Re:Really instead of ? (3, Informative)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604049)

ISPs are the problem here.

Actually Windows 7 is also part of the problem and a step backwards. You see it has a buggy Teredo implementation leading to a ton of Teredo Ethernet adapters hanging on to their entries in the ipconfig tables. Some people report up to thousands of adapters. This has lead to various organizations disabling the IPv6 stack in their Windows network configuration.

Re:Really instead of ? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604393)

ISPs could support IPv6 and let users disable it at the modem.

Re:Really instead of ? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604127)

All the computers and network equipment at my house has been ready for IPv6 for years. I am just waiting for my ISP to get with the program.

Get a free ipv6 tunnel, like I did... more than a decade ago.

Once it works, its actually pretty boring. It has gotten easier over the past decade or two.

Re:Really instead of ? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604031)

5.) IPv4 is Cobol and I come back and get a fat paycheque because I still remember how it works.

Step 5 is that IPv4 is one of the most common IP versions in business environments and plenty of people will still be trained to use it?

Re:Really instead of ? (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604247)

5.) IPv4 is Cobol and I come back and get a fat paycheque because I still remember how it works.

Step 5 is that IPv4 is one of the most common IP versions in business environments and plenty of people will still be trained to use it?

Yeah like SNA/SDLC. My VTAM skills are not exactly in demand and are pretty rusty anyway. Or DECTALK. How bout Novell IPX/SPX? Classic Appletalk? Or my first home LAN tech, that being ye olde Arcnet? Although you could run ip over arcnet and that was my plan using early linux. I would imagine recent linux kernels no longer support the arcnet card (there was only like one implementation for arcnet as I recall) A pity I threw out all the weird arcnet coax a decade or so ago, I believe it was something weird like 93 ohm impedance.

Stock tip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603663)

Short this company

Fastweb Italian Provider (2)

paulatz (744216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603685)

The Italian provider Fastweb (pioneer of optical fiber connections in Italy) has been doing it for ages, technically since the very beginning of its business.

The main drawback for it's customers has been with P2P programs, as direct peer-to-peer connections do not work well with NAT. As the Fastweb customers are not NATed with respect to each other, some of them even developed a special version of aMule (the most common P2P network at that time) called "adunanza" that would work inside the ISP-level network. Bittorrent is somehow less sensitive to the NAT problem, hence an "adunanza" torrent client was never developed.

I suspect this may actually be a strong motive behind such a silly ISP choice: reduce the exposition of P2Ping customers to the outside world. If the aim is to reduce P2P or just to hide it from the mayor's private police, it's hard to tell.

Re:Fastweb Italian Provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604109)

AFAIK they haven't been doing that for a few years already (at least from 2 years ago, they always gave me a public address). Anyone knows why?

Re:Fastweb Italian Provider (2)

pmontra (738736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604205)

Fastweb is opening up its network. Residential customers with new routers have a public IPv4 address and can open ports on the router (but not port 5000).

Too bad the new routers are not very good. Other customers and I are experiencing weak WiFi signal and lot of lag over WiFi between devices inside the home network (wire is fast). That's ok for browsing with a phone but I'm also experiencing problems handling concurrent connections: even a 2 Mb/s data stream (video streaming, a backup, etc) seems to affect significantly the responsiveness of the other connections (it's a 10 Mb/s symmetric fiber optic line). The old router was much better, but had no WiFi: the now discontinued Fasteweb's TV set top box could get a 4 Mb/s MPEG2 stream and the other computers in my home could access the internet at 6 Mb/s without any problem. I wonder if they messed up the home router or their network.

This is just the beginning (5, Informative)

alphaminus (1809974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603697)

Rather than doing this correctly, it will go like this. All "home" users will get CG-NAT. "Business" users will be allowed public IPs at a steep premium, and only when that possibility is completely exhausted, will IPv6 truly begin to be implemented. Hell, people might just use duct tape code and NAT subterfuge to drag this out another decade or two.

Re:This is just the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604101)

buh-bye BitTorrent

My Rant.... (5, Informative)

ZiakII (829432) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603763)

How the hell does slashdot.org not support IPV6, I thought this was a tech website?

Re:My Rant.... (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603945)

You must be new here. It doesn't even support "edit" which is breakthrough technology from the 1980s.

It's like a flashback to Unix ca. 1980 when you couldn't edit the command line if you made a mistake while typing a command.

Re:My Rant.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604433)

You must be new here. It doesn't even support "edit" which is breakthrough technology from the 1980s.

That's a feature, not a bug.

GP has a valid point. Why am I using Facebook over IPv6, but not Slashdot? My piddly little Linode instance has had native IPv6 for years now.

Re:My Rant.... (1)

jittles (1613415) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604617)

You must be new here. It doesn't even support "edit" which is breakthrough technology from the 1980s.

It's like a flashback to Unix ca. 1980 when you couldn't edit the command line if you made a mistake while typing a command.

I think the lack of an edit feature is due to the way that moderation works. They don't want someone to get modded up, then edit their post to something a bit more trollish. While it would be nice to be able to fix typos, that is a handy feature. Though they could of course allow you to view the revision history.

Re:My Rant.... (1)

Alomex (148003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604799)

Though they could of course allow you to view the revision history.... and severely punish your userid and IP if you ever replaced a +5 Insightful with spam.

Re:My Rant.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603947)

I thought this was a tech website?

It's just another commercial forum/aggregator site, and has been for years now. You'll get over it.

Re:My Rant.... (5, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604067)

How the hell does slashdot.org not support IPV6, I thought this was a tech website?

Forget IPV6 ... it doesn't have valid HTML [w3.org] , valid CSS [w3.org] and looks terrible on mobile devices [fourteenminutes.com] .

Re:My Rant.... (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604399)

Doesn't properly support Unicode either. That's why you will regularly see garbage if you copy and paste content that contains characters like a British pound symbol.

Re:My Rant.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604769)

looks terrible on desktop, too.

Re:My Rant.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604069)

Slashdot is owned by the same guys that own dice.com.

Do you *really* expect those folks to be tech-savvy?

Worst rant ever (3, Funny)

saveferrousoxide (2566033) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604191)

There's no words in all caps, no fantastical assertions, not a single typo, and it's 15 words long!! I'll give you some charity style points for using 100% improper punctuation, but really: 2/10. Hell, this rant about your rant was nearly 3x longer!! You should be ashamed.

Re:My Rant.... (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604331)

How the hell does slashdot.org not support IPV6, I thought this was a tech website?

IPV6 is great in theory, but it's solving a problem that does not exist. When the internet was started, the idea was that every workstation would be on the internet. Once security became a concern, all those workstations ended up behind firewalls. With firewalls, there is no reason to not NAT. Since only the firewalls need be internet facing, the number of IPs drops drastically. Multiple web servers and web sites can share a single IP. There are people that think that they still need an internet facing IP on every workstation, but the reasons are more personal than practical.

Re:My Rant.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604709)

SSL requires unique IP addresses on webservers. More sites use SSL.

IPv6 is needed because there IS a real shortage of IP addresses. You forget about tablets and phones with IP stacks now. There are a lot of devices and NAT does not scale.

NAT is not security, that's what firewalls are for. People like you are the problem.

ipv6 (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603817)

failure if IPV6 = We don't want to spend money helping our customer.

This is an easy fix for ISP's.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603855)

Stop bending over and putting your ass up to your shareholders, and start investing in your company's infrastructure.

Good Plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603857)

This way when one customer violates an AUP the entire ISP can be null routed in a single line.

As fastweb in italy (1)

gabrygenoa (854128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603911)

Fastweb in Italy is using this method since a decade. And it works quite well. They offer fiber or ADSL depending from the user location. Almost every internet service I used (IP blacklist, megaupload-like services...) know that behind a single fastweb IP there may be a million of users.

Re:As fastweb in italy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604629)

That's why in Italy there is censorship and I left for Ireland.

So they're lazy to convert to IPv6 (1)

nhat11 (1608159) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603917)

*Smash head against desk*

wtf (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42603919)

seems like a colossal waste of money -- they'll eventually come around to ipv6 and just throw this out... right?

Let's not forget.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603975)

The UK's greatest hero, knighted by the queen and adored by millions, was also probably the worlds most prolific paedophile.

The BBC aided and abetted him for decades. They are a government funded institution.

Remember when the guy from the Who got caught with kiddie porn? He said he was "researching a book". Where is this fucking book? Do you think *you* could pull a hokey excuse like that out of your ass? Hell, they probably knighted him too.

This is how the British approach telecommunications. Do you think the internet is any different?

God save the Queen.

IP v6 was not well thought out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42603999)

This would not be an issue if IPv6 was not such a pain in the ass to implement.

1.During it's design, way too much effort was put in to solving problems that were not important. Many design decisions seem to satisfy only academic concerns and the egos of those who hold said concerns.

2. Furthermore, due to the simple march of progress (Faster, cheaper computers. More bandwith. Better hardware), many of the above concerns are now moot. Many of IPv6's built in mechanisms will not be implemented today but replaced by "six-afied" versions of their ipv4 counterparts.

3. Back to point one again, it seems like someone's ego prevented any kind of transition plan or backward compatibility. The all-or-nothing attitude has prevented rollout that should have happened a decade ago. Even inevitable address space exhaustion has not proven incentive enough.

Sorry to say, but v6 should have been scrapped a long time ago. A simple extension to v4 to expand the address space should have been adopted (Perhaps with some extensions/modifications to help alleviate some of the other issues. Goodness knows TCP could use some tweaks)

I'm surprised it has not happened already. Usually someone pragmatic comes up with a brilliant, but hackish compromise that everyone informally adopts by sheer necessity.. Then becomes formalized after the fact when standards bodies realize everyone's using it anyway.

IP Theft from IP... (5, Interesting)

KitFox (712780) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604057)

So what happens when the "copyright enforcement agencies" decide that somebody on that NAT IP has downloaded a movie and three strikes or something similar gets kicked in for the IP? (I know it's perfectly possible given port, IP, and Time to back-track a connection through a properly-logged NAT.Just an amusing side effect if somebody is dumb, and dumb happens a lot these days.)

Re:IP Theft from IP... (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604515)

Just backtrace it and report it to the cyber police.

IP Geolocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604255)

I wonder how well this will work with IP Geolocation based services; I already visit stores online that show me New Brunswick brick&mortar store inventories. These kinfs of failures are quite irritating for end-users.

I hope, for their sake, that they are a small ISP (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604293)

Because otherwise, they will just end up running out of ports when they have a larger number of people simultaneously using their services.

Quite quickly too.

This plan is so colossally doomed to fail that I have no words for it.

Where can I buy the popcorn? This is gonna be funny as hell to watch.

Re:I hope, for their sake, that they are a small I (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604809)

plusnet are crap. They were biggish about 13 years ago, before UK's broadband got a decent roll-out, a time when people would jump ship on dial-up every few months because services invariable were massively oversold. They're just a crappy BT reseller these days, offering awful packages, but rather cheap. There are hundreds of similar ISPs like them.

IPV6 is a classic engineering failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42604297)

IPV6 is a classic engineering failure. They made this nice new protocol with absolutely no way to transition from IPV4. Say what you will about managers, but any average manager could have spotted this problem from a mile away. Nobody reading ./ today will live long enough to see the end of IPV4. The engineers can claim victory all they want to but IPV6 is the biggest failure in networking history.

failure? (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604329)

Failure to properly plan and fund and implement IPv6 for your own company is not what I would call a failure of IPv6.

And again our weekly: IPv6 is great article (1)

someones (2687911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604367)

Ang again the same arguments are brought, why ipv6 is *not* the solution to a problem that does *not* exist.

Carrier Grade NAT.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42604501)

Its that like Military grade NAT and Combat ready NAT?

The NAT I use is the SAME NAT that they use. There is no such thing as "Carrier Grade" NAT.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?