Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Switzerland Tops IPv6 Adoption Charts; US Lags At 4th

timothy posted about a year ago | from the this-isn't-actually-a-race-you-realize dept.

Networking 155

hypnosec writes "According to recent statistics, Switzerland has topped the IPv6 adoption charts by leapfrogging Romania, which led the charts for nearly a year. According to Google, Switzerland's adoption stands at 10.11 percent — the highest for any country. Romania, on the other hand, has an adoption rate of 9.02 percent, followed by France at 5.08 percent. Switzerland took the top position near the end of May and the primary reason seems to be Swisscom and its drive to adopt the next IP version. The U.S. stands at fourth place with just 2.76 percent adoption."

cancel ×

155 comments

Switzerland's population (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888217)

Just because Swiss population in a few millions, probably smaller than a regular city in the United States.

Re:Switzerland's population (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888349)

Fine, show me a similarly sized city in the USA with higher IPv6 adaption.

Re:Switzerland's population (4, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year ago | (#43888355)

You know there are these neat things called "google" and "wikipedia".

Switzerlands population is 8million.

There is only one city in the US with a larger population - New York. There are only 9 cities with a population of over 1 million.

So what is a "regular" city?

And what is the IPv6 penetration in this city? (I.E. your argument is not just wrong but also ridiculous).

Re:Switzerland's population (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#43889681)

Whohoo! Canada is roughly tied with the UK at 0.2%.

I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated, as it equals 1.4 computers.

And they're on IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889791)

You know there are these neat things called "google" and "wikipedia".

They are indeed neat, in so many ways. Not the least of which is that they are not in IPv6 denial , and so they provide their services both on the current version of IP (which is officially IPv6 since June 2012) as well as on IPv4.

Re:Switzerland's population (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43888525)

Irrelevant. US is 4th on the list, and if one looks at all countries, there are countries both bigger and smaller than the US that are way behind. All countries have a long way to go before they can be actively using IPv6

Re:Switzerland's population (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43888961)

Someone should do the per capita stats.

Lags? (5, Insightful)

jo7hs2 (884069) | about a year ago | (#43888241)

I'd say the largest economy in the world is probably not lagging by being fourth, considering the shear amount of equipment in use, and that the three preceding countries are considerably more compact. Big ships make wide turns.

Re:Lags? (3, Funny)

jo7hs2 (884069) | about a year ago | (#43888257)

Sorry. That isn't a car analogy. Big trucks make wide...darn still not a car... A Lincoln Town Car doesn't maneuver like a Honda Fit. There.

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888285)

Yes, yes, you are the bestest and we all admire you.

*pats back*

Re:Lags? (2)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43888973)

As you should. If not then someone in power may decide they need to export some freedom to your country.

Re:Lags? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888287)

Shear equipment? Baaah!

No kidding (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#43888299)

This seems to be a way to try and take a case where the US is doing decent and instead make it bad and hate on the US. So the US is 4th, out of 196 nations, some of which have very little infrastructure? Sounds like it is doing s decent job to me. Particularly since the US has a ton of infrastructure, some of it older (given that the Internet started in the US) and that the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it.

The US doesn't have to be first in everything, it isn't a case of "anything other than first is a failure."

IPv6 adoption is going to be a slow process. There's a lot to doing it right. In particular you find plenty of equipment either flat out doesn't support IPv6, or doesn't support it in hardware, meaning that it can't do much of it without falling over.

Re:No kidding (2)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#43888359)

the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it

Just reposting this for emphasis. Nobody's wife or mom is complaining about IPv4 block shortage; just like anything else in life, that's really all that matters.

SSL without SNI (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43888837)

Perhaps they're complaining about not being able to access a particular web site because Internet Explorer for Windows XP and Android Browser for Android 2.x can see only the first SSL certificate on port 443 of a given IP address. These browsers don't support Server Name Indication, which is required for name-based virtual hosting with HTTPS. For example, https://pineight.com/ [pineight.com] works on most browsers but gives a certificate error on IE/XP and Android 2 because pineight.com shares an IPv4 address with other customers of the same hosting company. So either they have to log in insecurely or the site has to put up a paywall or other source of revenue in order to be able to afford a dedicated IPv4 address for use with pre-SNI SSL stacks. IPv6 would make name-based virtual hosting (and thus Server Name Indication) less critical.

Re:No kidding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888475)

The US used to be the first (I'm talking about the Internet in general). Not anymore. It's not not just about IPv6, it's also about speed and access. The same is true for cellphone and probably a lot of other technologies. The US is technologically falling behind. That's the point.

And actually the US is not fourth out of 196 country, it is fourth out of some arbitrarily chosen countries. I looked up a few countries and, while the US is at 2.78%, Japan is at 3.13% and Germany is at 2.81%. So it's in sixth place at best.

Re:No kidding (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year ago | (#43888497)

Compared with Europe, and especially Asia (notable by its absence in the table of top adopters of IPv6), US has a much larger pool of IPv4 addresses left, so there is less urgency to adopt IPv6. And yet there it is, up in fourth place. The only region with less urgency is Africa.

Re:No kidding (3, Funny)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43889001)

Most of Africa could probably be switched by just buying a new home router at Amazon.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888613)

The US doesn't have to be first in everything

Yes we do, you pinko commie terrorist!

YOO ESS EH! YOO ESS EH! NUMBER ONE! In your face!

Re:No kidding (3, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43889183)

At this point, it's not the infrastructure that needs to be updated. The backbone of the Internet has been IPv6 for almost a decade now and almost all DSL/Cable hardware is IPv6 native. The only real stuff that needs to get updated is ISPs actually configuring their hardware and end-users having IPv6 capable NAT/Routers.

Re: No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889335)

Stop with your logic!

Seriously, it seems like just another excuse to bash the U.S.

Re:No kidding (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#43889993)

the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it.

Having an IPv4 address does not help, if the party you want to communicate with does not have one. Does ARIN have enough IPv4 addresses to hand them out not only to users in the ARIN region, but also to everybody those users want to communicate with in the rest of the world?

Re:Lags? (5, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | about a year ago | (#43888385)

The linked article seems more than a little odd; I just checked Japan at the same place they link to, and it has an adoption rate of 3.13%, ahead of the US. So it seems the comparison is only among a restricted set of countries (the linked page has only five countries displayed), and not really relevant to much of anything.

Re:Lags? (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43888559)

Germany, Japan, Luxemburg and Belgium are above 3%. So that means the US is at least 7th or lower, because I didn't check all countries.

Re:Lags? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#43888785)

The article, and the /. submission has but one purpose. To bash the US.
It even says that right in the /. headline "US Lags at 4th".

Take some small subset of the data, and you can show that any country 'lags'. Why isn't this titled - "South Korea, probably the most connected country on the planet, comes in at dead last with 0% IPv6 adoption" ?

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889111)

Protip: Stop making excuses. Stop claiming that everybody is out to get you. Stop pointing at others who are in even worse shape. It's a very unattractive and childish way to behave and in the long run it will mean that you are only falling behind even worse. So pull up your socks, get your finger out and don't be such a crybaby.

Re:Lags? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43889199)

USA made the Internet, USA brags about being the "best". Anything less than 1st is "lagging".

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889885)

If it was bashing the US it would point out that the US was way lower than the 4th.

Stop having the astonishing arrogance to think that any article that mentions the US and doesn't say it's the best at absolutely everything is "bashing".

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888469)

I don't know how exactly this calculation was done, but it simply looks wrong.

I added 1 country to the list (Belgium), and now the US is in 5th position: http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/compare.php?metric=p&countries=ch,ro,fr,us,gb,be

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888539)

What's that obsession with always being NUMBER ONE anyway?

I, for one, find general true happiness (as opposed to delusional/schizophrenic/religious/pill-induced "happiness") to be vastly more important.

Mainly because happiness *is* the natural indicator for success and a good life. That's the whole point of the feeling.

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888555)

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Re:Lags? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888557)

The largest economy in the world is the EU, not the US.

And I'm pretty tired of this argument that its okay for the US to be lagging in so many things because they are big. The US has gobs of resources and a very high GDP per capita. As someone previously pointed out, why can't you find a city or small state with higher IPv6 adoption than Switzerland? It's not like New York is somehow being held back because Los Angeles exists.

It's like that same tired argument that size is why bullet trains are impossible in the US. The east coast is just as densely populated as Europe, if not more, yet there is no decent high speed link between Boston/NYC/Philadelphia/Washington. That's shorter than the French TGV line. People hate the TSA, the population density is there to support high speed rail, but the political will is not.

PS: I think the real reason IPv6 adoption in the US is low is simply because they have so the lion's share of IPv4 blocks already...

Re:Lags? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888983)

The whole "we're big" thing is kinda misleading. It's not as if all the equipment is owned by the government or any single organization. This is thousands of ISPs Comcast doesn't have their monopoly yet. To use the "we're big" argument you'd have to show that all those small parts are being held up by something big and unifying. I don't see it.

Re:Lags? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43889109)

I don't have much of a point really but you should Google "TSA train stations" (sans quotes). Well, maybe you'd rather not know... *sighs* I didn't do it, don't blame me. I vote third party.

Re: Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889361)

We do have higher speed rail on the east coast....

Re:Lags? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43890083)

The largest economy in the world is the EU, not the US.

Actually the country with the largest economy is the US, followed by China. Oh, you're considering economies in terms of monetary units? That's as arbitrary as choosing to look at the issue in terms of country borders, so let's just say you're both right.

And I'm pretty tired of this argument that its okay for the US to be lagging in so many things because they are big.

Well, looking at percentages isn't the only way to analyze adoption rate. Let's look at it in terms of raw numbers. 2.76% of the population of the US is bigger than the entire population of Switzerland. Oh, you thought that the argument was only about the size of the land. That's a factor, but population is a bigger one. More users means more equipment that needs to be upgraded, and it's also a good possibility (since the Internet started in the US) that some equipment there is older than the equipment is Switzerland. I guess the IPv6 adoption rate (analyzed using different but completely valid viewpoints) is starting to look pretty good, once more relevant information is considered.

As someone previously pointed out, why can't you find a city or small state with higher IPv6 adoption than Switzerland?

Who says you can't?

Regardless, this whole discussion is completely pointless because the numbers are so small that it's difficult to infer anything from them. Which is probably why the article/summary is being used as another excuse to rant against the US, because that's obviously much more interesting.

Re:Lags? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43889917)

Actually they are fourth in the small selection of a few countries. I've for pure interest added Germany, and it happened that in the last data point it overtook the U.S. (although only slightly), making the U.S. at best fifth. Given that there's a large number of other countries you might add, I have no idea where the U.S. really are.

IPv6 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888247)

IPv6 is doomed. Just give up. It was an overbuilt technology.

IPv6 is working fine, better than IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888345)

You personally are still living in the IP dark ages, and you seem to want to project your personal failure onto others or to blame the technology. Well sorry to have to inform you otherwise, but the technology is excellent and those around you are adopting it at an ever faster pace.

Meanwhile, it is you who are doomed to seeing an ever decreasing portion of the total net through your IPv6 denial.

Re:IPv6 is working fine, better than IPv4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888717)

In a way you also represent a form of "personal failure" as you were an early adopter to IPv6 but it hasn't brought much value to you, and thus you are spouting off comments like that while desperately hoping the IPv6 adoption to gather some wind.

Re:IPv6 is working fine, better than IPv4 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888975)

Quite the opposite, I am seeing an ever-widening Internet as the pacific rim regions that have run out of IPv4 addresses allocate only on IPv6, while you don't see any of it. The value is obvious, being able to see the whole net versus being able to see only a part of it.

But it's your choice to be smalltown and to willfully narrow your net horizons, I can't help you there.

Re:IPv6 is working fine, better than IPv4 (2)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43889125)

And sometimes I wonder if you ACs are actually all just one guy talking to himself. It's actually more comfortable imagining that you are.

Re:IPv6 (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43890005)

You got it wrong. IPv4 is the one doomed because is used far beyond the scale it was meant for. Probably big part of the blame should go to the industry behind, that still now is making hardware that only supports ipv4, or doing mass installations using that kind of hardware (afaik Uruguay is doing a countrywide fiber optic installation, and what is being installed in every home right now don't support ipv6)

Fourth? Awesome! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888253)

The U.S. isn't much of a leader anymore.

Our rankings in quality of health care, percentage of population in prisons, upward mobility, broadband, children in poverty, military spending, are embarrassing for a developed nation.

Fourth place is probably something we should celebrate, considering.

Re:Fourth? Awesome! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888303)

The U.S. isn't much of a leader anymore. ....Our rankings in quality of health care,

I've heard that the health care rankings may be skewed because doctors in the US system are willing to try in cases where the patient would not be treated in other countries. For example, US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people, where in some other countries they are not considered for medical care and are not counted in health care stats. (This can become a major ethical question, in some cases...)

Has anyone seen any more detailed numbers that could make this distinction in the data?

Re:Fourth? Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888513)

The U.S. isn't much of a leader anymore. ....Our rankings in quality of health care,

I've heard that the health care rankings may be skewed because doctors in the US system are willing to try in cases where the patient would not be treated in other countries. For example, US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people, where in some other countries they are not considered for medical care and are not counted in health care stats.

Complete fiction. The US is ranked 34th in infant mortality. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Fourth? Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889463)

For example, US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants ...

Complete fiction. The US is ranked 34th in infant mortality. [wikipedia.org]

Well, "trying very hard to.." isn't the same as "succeed in...".

Re:Fourth? Awesome! (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43889381)

US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,

Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.

Gee (0)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43888261)

I'm still working on IP5

Re:Gee (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43888535)

Yeah, let me know which of your software works well with the Streaming Internet Protocol, which is what IPv5 is.

Re:Gee (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43888597)

it was never known as IPv5

Re:Gee (1)

rvw (755107) | about a year ago | (#43888567)

I'm still working on IP5

Yeah you should do that before upgrading to IE6.

Romania! (5, Funny)

zappa88 (2938615) | about a year ago | (#43888289)

We are in news that's not about horse meat. HELL YEAH!

Re:Romania! (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year ago | (#43888313)

You just had to bring it up after we'd forgotten about it...

No more burgers for me in the next weeks...

Re:Romania! (2)

nschubach (922175) | about a year ago | (#43888473)

Just curious... what is it about a horse vs a cow that makes the meat wrong?

Re:Romania! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888585)

In my case: Iron content. Because of a genetic blood disease, eating iron-rich foods would cause iron poisoning much much more quickly than in normal people.

Re:Romania! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888607)

Just curious... what is it about a horse vs a cow that makes the meat wrong?

Wrong? Not much. Undesirable? Plenty. They just don't make a good meat animal from a logistical point of view, they're far more valuable as a working animal. Which means that usually when you encounter horse meat, it's old and nasty. You'd have to raise them on a different diet and slaughter them young, and the same amount of feed, pasture, effort, etc. given to a cow would produce more meat which tastes better.

But fundamentally wrong? Nothing. As for the story alluded to above, what was Wrong was that the meat being sold to consumers as "Beef" was not, in fact, all beef.

Re:Romania! (2)

Sesostris III (730910) | about a year ago | (#43888655)

Just curious... what is it about a horse vs a cow that makes the meat wrong?

Nothing, as long as horse meat is labelled as "horse meat", and the paperwork trail can be traced. The problem is when horse meat is labelled as "beef", and their isn't a full paperwork trail.

The paperwork trail is important to show that it is "fit for human consumption". How the animal dies is important - was it put down using a barbiturate for instance. If it was, it shouldn't get into the human food chain.

(As a vegetarian I take a neutral view as to the relative merits of horse meat vs beef - I eat neither!)

Re:Romania! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889151)

I personally don't want anything to do with horse meat coming from race horses. I am what I eat and I don't want to change my catch phrase about pissing like a race horse. That and some of the roids they dope race horses with can make my already small nads even worse!

Re:Romania! (1)

remi2402 (816874) | about a year ago | (#43889297)

Nothing wrong with horse meat. Pretty tasty too (IMHO). However, misinformation, no scratch that, lies about the product is what people are upset about. If businesses are lying about that, what else are they hiding? Can they be at all trusted?

Re:Romania! (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#43888615)

what about that other thing, how are the vampires in Transylvania doing?

Re:Romania! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889549)

what about that other thing, how are the vampires in Transylvania doing?

No idea. They [transylvania.ro] are not reachable using IPv6.

The MX-record doesn't have an IPv6-address either (or IPv4?!) so we can't even send an email to vampires@transylvania.ro and ask.

Re:Romania! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889617)

Nobody expected the Romanian IPv6 adoption.

What's the matter ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888311)

Switzerland has plenty of money and a good president : Switzerland President [youtube.com]

Re:What's the matter ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888337)

good president

Impressed... I thought that was an oxymoron.

TO TOP IT ALL OFF !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888415)

We love the Swiss !! Renowned for its chocolate AND cheese !! And now, to top if all off !!

IPV6

Find me a router that REALLY works with IPV6 for all your elec-devs for the cost of some of that Swiss cheese and I will show you my unsanitary cheese hole goat.cz style !!

Re: TO TOP IT ALL OFF !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888601)

Apple Airport Extreme works just fine with native IPv6 here.

Re: TO TOP IT ALL OFF !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889383)

And swindling holocaust property.

What's the point of IP6 vs NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888427)

With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.

IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.

Anyone care to explain what I actually gain? I currently get 20mbps into the US and 40mbps to Japan so speed isn't one of them. What is?

Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (3, Insightful)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43888569)

Despite NAT, you still have all those complaints about your e-mail being read, your data access being known and so on. NAT is not and has never been a security mechanism on its own. There is no anonymity, since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor, not just to the NAT boxes in between.

Actually, NAT is not the direct issue here. The issue is IPv4 address depletion - it's already happened at the level of the RIRs, and will next happen at the level of national registries. As that shortage hits downstream, that's when people will find IPv4 addresses being rationed, and connections being at a premium. And this is where the preparedness will make a difference: countries that are ready for it can switch relatively painlessly, as opposed to those that ain't.

Honestly, I don't get why entities that are capable of IPv6 support, be it companies, ISPs and so on - that have all the IPv6 compatible equipment - don't start switching now. There is nothing to be gained by waiting, and the first step is in any case going to be a transition to dual-stack, not IPv6-only. So do that, and over time - maybe decades, IPv4 can start getting deprecated.

Isn't it routed by some session id? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888659)

" since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor"

Isn't that some session id in the packet put there by the NAT server? The NAT server knows how to route them, but that's my ISP's NAT. Your point about email is noted though, but linking the IP I use to login to my email doesn't help if its the same as lots of Spartacus people out there.

"The issue is IPv4 address depletion"
I thought that was the whole point of these Super NATs, I don't get a unique IP, there's something extra in the packet that is used to route and that's only per session. So we use fewer IP4 addresses. Potentially the whole ISP could have only 1 IP4 address, and protect the privacy (partially admittedly) of all their customers.

Re:Isn't it routed by some session id? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43889863)

Yeah, but how many levels of NAT do you want, or does a system support? A network has one routable address NATed into, say, several Class C domains, and finds that it still ain't enough. What then? Does it then NAT those NATed addresses even further? How deep does that work?

The main 'security feature', that incidentally comes along w/ NAT, is a firewall. In IPv6, one would still have that, and the same permission rules, implemented properly, would demarcate blacklisted and whitelisted addresses.

Re:Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (2)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43888667)

Someone doesn't understand what NAT does. The T part means translation. It's not needed in IPv6 anymore, but can be used for obfuscation. The NAT box keeps track of the translation so that traffic handles won't know where the real origin is. With a limited address space like you get in IPv4, which is usually just ONE address, then NAT translates everything to that address. With IPv6 NAT can translate the internal network structure into random IPv6 addresses in the standard /64 minimal assignment. So it doesn't need port numbers to keep things separate. And this can all be controlled by policy configuration.

Re:Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43888787)

NAT is not and has never been a security mechanism on its own.

While NAT has not been designed to be a security mechanism, it blocks incoming connections, so it can be seen to increase security regarding network attacks against the machine.

There is no anonymity, since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor, not just to the NAT boxes in between.

In that scenario there is more anonymity than exposing your real IP address. That route-back information changes for every TCP connection established, so while tracking you might still be possible, it's a bit tougher.

Re:Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43889257)

While NAT has not been designed to be a security mechanism, it blocks incoming connections, so it can be seen to increase security regarding network attacks against the machine.

Actually it doesn't block incoming connections, the stateful-firewall does. NAT is implemented however the implementer wants to, as it is not a standard. It is a hack that has no security guarantees and only needs to work good enough to sell devices. There is nothing saying that NAT has to work a specific way or needs to cover certain cases. Many implementations of "NAT" have security holes, even on high end enterprise equipment. Why? Because there is no wrong way to implement it.

Re:Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43889385)

Many, many things in IT which we use daily are not standardized.

How would it route them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889403)

"Actually it doesn't block incoming connections, the stateful-firewall does."

I don't see how it can probe behind the NAT unless it knows current session ids the NAT will route. Otherwise there's simply no way for the NAT to route that packet. So the mechanism of routing gives you that protection. There's simply no way for an attacker to probe the computers behind the network, they'd have to guess the session ids currently in use.

I like the Super NAT, I haven't had problems with it yet, and I hope my holiday home ISP does the same.

Re:How would it route them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889777)

You might want to read up on TCP hole punching [wikipedia.org] and NAT traversal [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why wait for IPv4 depletion? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43889781)

I don't get why entities that are capable of IPv6 support, be it companies, ISPs and so on - that have all the IPv6 compatible equipment - don't start switching now.

Because it's work and if you don't get any real benefit, why do it? That principle governs a lot of my decisions at work.

Re:What's the point of IP6 vs NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888709)

With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.

IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.

Anyone care to explain what I actually gain? I currently get 20mbps into the US and 40mbps to Japan so speed isn't one of them. What is?

NAT doesn't give you any anonymity. They log which ports are in use for which client just like they log who was given which IP via DHCP.

Re:What's the point of IP6 vs NAT (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43889187)

I understand that IPv4 will be present for a long time. We will still have the old addresses and things will still be using them. I suspect that one can configure a router to dish out IPv4 addresses and handle IPv6 traffic at the same time. It seems trivial enough though I'm not an expert. I'm *fairly* well read on the IPv6 configurations, methods, and whatnot but I'm not employed in the field (I'm retired) so I don't have any deep knowledge but it seems fairly trivial to still accomplish what you're looking for.

Correct, gradual adoption, not replacement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43890067)

Your suppositions are correct. IPv6 works completely transparently alongside IPv4, and IPv6 is not intended to "replace" IPv4 except in the limited sense that IPv6 usage is increasing (exponentially) while IPv4 usage will dwindle over time.

I expect IPv4 to be with us for another 20-30 years or more, until old IPv4-only devices die of old age. However, ISPs may well pull the plug on IPv4 earlier than that, because at some point it won't be profitable to support a minority population of IPv4-only users. When that happens, IPv4 will still continue to exist, but only within private sites to support legacy equipment.

Conclusions are misleading (2)

The Ribena Kid (140177) | about a year ago | (#43888455)

If you RTFA you find that the 10.11% figure they are reporting is for hits Google has had from web browsers using IPv6. What's more, the article only compares a small number of countries. If you add Japan into the mix it pushes USA to 5th place.

If you look at some of the other charts, you can see that USA is top with the most IPv6 alive prefixes, announced prefixes, allocated prefixes and web servers.

So this is about household adoption of IPv6, not overall adoption. Without businesses providing services from servers via IPv6 the end user adoption would be pretty pointless.

Even the article points out that using another statistics gathering method, employed by Cisco, you get different results (still showing a similar ordering of adoption in different countries, but adoption percentages are completely different). So I'd be a bit wary of trusting the statistics here.

It is interesting to see from the charts that there's been a big push in Switzerland in the last month and how much ISPs pushing IPv6 can therefore help adoption... and that should be message to all the other ISPs out there, get on with pushing IPv6 to your customers.

Re:Conclusions are misleading (1)

Keruo (771880) | about a year ago | (#43888553)

Is this native allocations or users through tunnelbrokers?
Your IPv6 location might vary based on the country where your tunnelbroker is hosted.

My IPv6 network at home through HE places me as US user from googles view point, and it's annoying that they keep suggesting me to use google.com rather than the localized one.
Native IPv6 at work on the other hand works just fine since the subnet links to our real location.

Re:Conclusions are misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889865)

Yep, all of HEs tunnel prefixes get counted as US.

Re:Conclusions are misleading (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43888581)

This is what I noticed - I looked at the charts, and it had varying numbers based on the prefixes that have been allocated, live and so on. I thought that this metric would be based on the actual traffic that is IPv6. Instead, it's based on allocations, that really says squat. The only other thing it has - web browsers vs web servers, but that's by no means the only traffic on the internet.

But does the US care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888575)

No really, since we have most ( at least that is what i heard ) of the v4 blocks, and plenty to spare, why do we even need to worry about it? Only those that are running out of v4 will "need" to adopt v6.

Re:But does the US care? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43888737)

... because all the porn, music, movie, and warez sites are moving to IPv6 to hide.

US should care about total net access (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889341)

The fact that you're not running out of IPv4 addresses in US is actually somewhat dangerous to your own universality of net access, unless you are happy with being restricted to only one part of the Internet. Those who use only IPv4 will probably see a rise in the proportion of US websites on the net, since there is no pressure on new US sites to gain IPv6 addresses domestically. While US take-up of IPv6 remains small, US end users won't see any of the ever-expanding Internet that uses the newer protocol, so their view of the net will become preferentially domestic.

It's slightly akin to China's blocking sections of the Internet, except that you're doing it voluntarily to yourselves. The motivation is of course entirely different, but the end result is the same, restricting domestic access to less than the whole Internet.

US at 5th? (0)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about a year ago | (#43888627)

When I add Japan it is showing it above the US, making the US at least 5th.

Come on USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43888637)

Don't you realize that you can never run out of addresses like 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334?

Re:Come on USA! (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43888775)

There's only ONE exactly like that, but the network allocation of 2001:0db8 has 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,333 of them (not counting a few needed to manage the space). Too bad it's all reserved, so not even you can have one like that.

Re:Come on USA! (2)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about a year ago | (#43889057)

Hey! That's the combination to my luggage!

The university i work for is pushing for IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889045)

They set a date for all public facing servers to be IPv6 (which has just past) yet there's a ton of department run servers that aren't compliant. Not sure if its due to older equipment, lazy admins who don't care or what.

Our section of ITS though has been full IPv6 for over a year (load balancers and all)... Except one service and that's because the proprietary software doesn't support IPv6 and we've been trying to work with the vender to get it implemented.

They also have a set date for all internal services to be IPv6 by sometime next year (forget the date) and again, while we're already there I bet there will be a lot of systems that won't hit the target date because of older equipment or lazy admins.

Carrier Grade NAT is the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889181)

The future of the internet is where one only consumes DRM'ed content on their smartphone/tablet devices. The creation of content or any form of media sharing threatens the media industry. IPV4 exhaustion is the perfect opportunity to lock down the internet so only preapproved protocols will make it through NAT. No more Bittorrent, nobody will have an open port range. Want to do video/audio chat, forget about running mumble you'd better use an approved client like Skype or Google Hangouts. Cable companies don't like 3rd party SIP providers siphoning off customers from their overpriced VOIP service, so carrier NAT will conveniently make that service unreliable. Forget about tunneling to get yourself a working IPV6 address. Carrier grade NAT will break that too. Carrier grade NAT will put the genie of the internet back into it's bottle and will be their attempt at keeping their old business models alive for the next few decades.

Re:Carrier Grade NAT is the future (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43889301)

No more Bittorrent, nobody will have an open port range.

I'm curious to see how piracy will be impacted if CG-NAT really gets implemented widely. Most of warezing happens in P2P manner and, unable to accept incoming connections means a big hit for that kind of systems. Some MAFIAA representative must already be rubbing hands together and laughing maniacally there somewhere. I wonder if some Pirate Party would then try launching its own ISP where the selling point is to have a real IP address.

US not fourth place (1)

Geheimagent (679949) | about a year ago | (#43889447)

If you add other countries, the US is not fourth place any more, so the chart is totally misleading.

What are we missing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43889577)

Until there is some content people can't get via IPv4 or until IPv6 offers some other desirable benefit, there won't be any switch to IPv6. I have IPv6 capable equipment but I stay with IPv4 because everything works. Why change?

Another "crisis" that isn't. (0)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#43889905)

Sure, eventually we'll need to move to IPv6.

But if you look at the IP utilization there are GIANT blocks of IP addresses that are locked behind allocations determined by technology's 'big players' in what, 1981? 1990?

The facts are that:
1) IP addresses are not actually 'running out' anytime soon
2) it's going to be far easier to simply re-allocate blocks that are currently unused than to force everyone to buy new hardware.
3) in most cases today, people aren't consuming new IP's, in fact, I suspect that most organizations are fronting with fewer IPs, and translating that internally. So the demand curve is slowing anyway.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...