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!

Accelerating IPv6 Adoption With Proxy Servers

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the wool-over-your-own-eyes dept.

The Internet 341

jgarzik writes "IPv6 presents a catch-22: the most popular web sites on the Internet don't have any incentive to switch to IPv6 until a large portion of their userbase is on IPv6, and their user base does not have a large incentive to switch to IPv6 until many of the popular Internet destinations support IPv6. My proposed solution is simple: Configure a proxy server that serves IPv6 requests, passing those requests through to underlying IPv4-only servers that not have yet been transitioned to IPv6. This article describes how to configure Apache's proxy server to fill this role, and suggests a few ideas for use."

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

yassar (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315011)

this is a first post for freedom

Poll Troll Toll (0, Offtopic)

PollTroll (764214) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315013)

What's better...

IPv4 [calcgames.org]
IPv6 [calcgames.org]
Sex with a mare [calcgames.org]

FIRST POST! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315019)

DEATH TO ANTI-SLASH!
Ackbar is a sad baby virgin!

Speed? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315020)

Will this help you to get first post faster?

Proxy server fun (3, Funny)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315023)

Make sure they're open to the public too. You don't want to be a stingy admin right? You should share your proxy server with the world.

Re:Proxy server fun (4, Insightful)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315036)

Yes. An open proxy server on a topic just mentioned by /.

I can't imagine that's abusable. I mean, nobody would embed ads in their IPv6 proxy if it became too popular, right?

Just a thought.

Re:Proxy server fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315088)

Whoever modded this informative is wrong. He was being funny. Derrrr

Re:Proxy server fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315452)

What about IPV5? That's better than V4 and V6 imo!

The opposite is already there.. (4, Informative)

tbaggy (151760) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315033)

This [sixxs.net] page/site already does it.

re: The opposite is already there (4, Informative)

zaxios (776027) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315156)

From there [sixxs.net] :"

Why does this service exist?


There appears to be a chicken and egg problem in deploying IPv6; ISP's serving endusers don't want to do it yet because there isn't any need for it from their clients, Hosting companies don't do it yet because there isn't any demand yet either from clients... Thus, we made this gateway, which allows users who do have IPv6 to get to all the content in the IPv4 world. If you don't have IPv6 connectivity (yet) you can of course try the SixXS Tunnel Broker.

This is essentially the same observation and the same solution except that it focuses on getting ISPs (clients) to support IPv6 rather than servers.

Colors (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315067)

Yikes, this is even worse than the IT section.

How strange (-1, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315068)

I saw a link to this on another thread. I'm only posting to see which article this is.

You know what? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315073)

Fuck IPv6, fuck Apache, and FUCK YOU.

Word of warning (4, Informative)

rimu guy (665008) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315087)

By having an open proxy anyone can send/receive data via your proxy server (duh). There are implications: e.g. I've seen someone's server bandwidth being used to serve images in a spam (pr0n) email.

If you don't want people hiving off your bandwidth and potentially using your server's bandwidth for puposes you wouldn't normally approve of, then consider controlling your proxy access [apache.org] .

--
Use your VPS proxy powers for the powers of good [rimuhosting.com]

Word of warning-Resource-right violation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315247)

"If you don't want people hiving off your bandwidth and potentially using your server's bandwidth for puposes you wouldn't normally approve of, then consider controlling your proxy access."

Not any different than the argument that if you release your works into the wild (intentional, or not), it's free for people to do whatever they wish with it (Including massive copying, or consuming server resources). The usual following argument when the above is pointed out, is. "If you don't want us to do what we please with it, you shouldn't expose us to it.(1)"

(1) The subtext is: We can't control ourselves.

But wait: (3, Interesting)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315092)

Is it just me? I can't see any AAAA records for ipv6.org itself. I would have thought they would be the FIRST to change.

Re:But wait: (1)

LogicX (8327) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315158)

> server hornyandconfused.com
Default Server: hornyandconfused.com
Address: 69.9.172.7

> set querytype=AAAA
> www.ipv6.org
Server: hornyandconfused.com
Address: 69.9.172.7

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: shake.stacken.kth.se
Address: 2001:6b0:1:ea:a00:20ff:fe8f:708f
Aliases: www.ipv6.org

Re:But wait: (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315173)

Right, yeah. I just noticed that they have them for www.ipv6.org. But I went to the site via ipv6.org... so... oh well. Guess I just wouldn't have got the AAAA records for that one even if I wanted to. :-)

Re:But wait: (4, Informative)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315160)

Okay, I'll answer my own question. They have them for www.ipv6.org, but not for ipv6.org itself.

Re:But wait: (3, Informative)

LogicX (8327) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315180)

there's also no A record for ipv6.org itself also -- so boo; its not like they singled out AAAA
its just another one of those loony sites thats www. only; and not just the domain name.

Re:But wait: (1)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315373)

that's probably mostly because the www. is a CNAME to a swedish(?) uni...
$ dig www.ipv6.org any shake.stacken.kth.se any

; <<>> DiG 9.2.1 <<>> www.ipv6.org any shake.stacken.kth.se any
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 63697
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.ipv6.org. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.ipv6.org. 3449 IN CNAME shake.stacken.kth.se.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
ipv6.org. 3444 IN NS ns2.hyp.net.
ipv6.org. 3444 IN NS ns3.hyp.net.
ipv6.org. 3444 IN NS ns1.hyp.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.hyp.net. 27610 IN A 194.63.248.53
ns2.hyp.net. 42329 IN A 67.17.159.182
ns3.hyp.net. 27610 IN A 207.44.178.49

;; Query time: 9 msec
;; SERVER: 130.194.1.99#53(130.194.1.99)
;; WHEN: Wed Sep 22 12:13:03 2004
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 173

;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 35095
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 4, ADDITIONAL: 3

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;shake.stacken.kth.se. IN ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
shake.stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN AAAA 2001:6b0:1:ea:a00:20ff:fe8f:708f
shake.stacken.kt h.se. 3464 IN A 130.237.234.41

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN NS ns.stacken.kth.se.
stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN NS foot.snowman.sunet.se.
stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN NS head.snowman.sunet.se.
stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN NS b.ns.kth.se.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns.stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN A 130.237.234.17
ns.stacken.kth.se. 3464 IN AAAA 2001:6b0:1:ea::100
head.snowman.sunet.se. 17025 IN AAAA 2001:6b0:8:1::53

;; Query time: 9 msec
;; SERVER: 130.194.1.99#53(130.194.1.99)
;; WHEN: Wed Sep 22 12:13:03 2004
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 242

extra hop (3, Funny)

pythro (728638) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315093)

An extra hop to go through on my web surfing adventure...NOT ON MY WATCH!

Most people don't care about IPv6 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315098)

IPv6 was primarily designed to solve a *problem*.

That problem was IPv4 address space exhaustion.

If the problem isn't hurting people on either side (client or server), then there is no reason for them to migrate to IPv6.

For people in certain heavy net using countries (such as Japan and S. Korea) which have received a smaller slice of the IPv4 pie, then there is more incentive to move; for the vast bulk of the world there is very little incentive to move to IPv6.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315130)

...That problem was IPv4 address space exhaustion.
The entire world (including the U.S.) is predicted to run out of IP addresses by next year.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (1)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315177)

A temporary solution (not for gamers or techies, but for mom and dad who just do e-mail) Have ISP's offer a less expensive internet service where they are on a local IP address (10. or 192.168. or whatever the reserved local ones are) and put thousands of people behind single IP addresses. Is that a possible thing that people will look in to if IPv6 isn't far enough along by the time IP addresses run out?

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315207)

The entire world (including the U.S.) is predicted to run out of IP addresses by next year.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that's unlikely to happen for another 35 years [potaroo.net] . Looks like there's plenty left [cymru.com] to me.

Nobody's running out of space (4, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315251)

Re:Nobody's running out of space (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315288)

Cool, I would like to get my Class C space that I own for my house, like I did back in the 80's.

What do you mean that I can not get one with IPv4? What do you mean that I have to pay somebody else and even then I do not own it? Hummmmm.

Irrelevant (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315462)

It is true that ARIN will not give you a really small (/24) block of portable space.

It is true that you cannot own IP addresses.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no address shortage (under a sane usage model).

Re:Irrelevant (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315476)

Yet, with IPv6, you can 'own' a block of ips that belong to you in the same manner that you own a phone number.

You mean... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315162)

...that if I adopt IPv6 I will have access to a larger collection o Asian pr0n?

I can clearly identify the killer application IPv6 needs.

Where do I sign up?

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (4, Insightful)

tokachu(k) (780007) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315175)

The problem exists just as much in the U.S. as it does anywhere else in the world. For example...
Do you use NAT (a home router)?
Blame your IPv4-based ISP for not having enough address space for you.
Do you run a web-hosting company?
You probably know how expensive address space is.
Neither Japan nor South Korea had to use IPv6. They could've stuck IPv4 and NAT (something that rural broadband companies in the U.S. do, by the way), but they didn't. They chose to solve the problem rather than ignore it.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315285)

No.. you are missing the point.

Your ISP doesn't give you only one or two addresses because they don't have space, they do it because there is no real market for it... only a few users would care.Anyone who actually has a valid reason for having more space can usually get it.

In some asian places now, that is not true. There simply isn't enough space.. it's running out, fast.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (5, Informative)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315323)

> Do you use NAT (a home router)?
> Blame your IPv4-based ISP for not having enough
> address space for you.

For most peopel NAT actually solves a problem instead of being one.

Yeah, for some people it would be nice to be able to have their toaster online and reachable through the internet as well, and lack of addresses can make that difficult, but most people do not have a big urge to do such things.

They do however have a problem with their computer and an unfiltered internet connection.

A router that does NAT happens to function as a pretty good ip filter with state-keeping that is extremely easy to configure.

> Do you run a web-hosting company?
> You probably know how expensive address space
> is.

Yep, sadly enough, IPv6 sounds more advanced, and thus will be more expensive. The people who market the stuff have absolute controll over the supply so can set a price as they like.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315371)

Oh yeah, NAT is really terrible, let's fuck shit up with a bunch of 6to4 and 4to6 proxies that will be online until the end of time. More bright thinkin from the IP6 crowd.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315463)

The flaw with that logic is that, in reality, NAT was designed to solve a completely different issue. Mainly, keeping private networks away from public networks, with connectivity only as specifically allowed on a specific ruleset. A firewall, in a sense, except it was never designed to "stop" or "drop" packets as one thinks of a firewall-- only deliver them from the outside, in. The firewall effect is a side benefit in and of itself.

With my ISP package, I get eight IPs. Eight! I'm only using five of them among my four boxes at home, but I'm quite seriously considering NAT'ing up a few of the lesser used boxes. At the moment, they're not configured to act as a private network, yet I'm considering it. The ones I don't monitor as frequently pose a security threat, and as such, NAT is the quick, cheap solution.

The extra "IP space" one benefits is just an added side benefit.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (1)

radish (98371) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315472)

I use NAT because I want to. I could get extra IPs for all my computers no problem, but I like them being on non-routable private addresses.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (4, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315271)

There are just a few other reasons to switch to IPv6...

http://www.ipv6forum.org/navbar/events/birmingham0 0/presentations/YanickPouffary/sld025.htm [ipv6forum.org]

Also, from another site:

*
A powerful addressing scheme that makes possible the allocation of public addresses to every device inside home networks

*
A protocol specification more powerful thanks to the extension headers

*
Restore the end-to-end of the Internet and facilitate the peer-to-peer communications

*
Simple: Plug and Play (thanks to stateless autoconfiguration)

*
A larger range of services to propose to customers

*
Security is natively defined in the protocol

*
IP mobility optimized

*
Multicast mode easier to deploy

*
(For the ISP, routing process more efficient)

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (1)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315275)

What happens when ISPs start running ethernet and fiber to people's homes? Verizon is already begun to roll out a fiber to the residence service in slelected areas. I can't imagine them stopping, or others not following. Your voice, data, and television transmissions will be carried across the same connection at the same time. Your cell phone will probably have built in WLAN VoIP capability. As a result, NAT will end up hurting us, and the only solution is a unique IP for every device. Have you ever tried to help an older relative setup port triggering and forwarding on their NAT enabled router? You can't seriously expect the population to know how to do this. All the average person wants to do is pull their new toy out of the box, plug it in, and for it to start working. The sooner we migrate the better. In a few more years, there is going to be much more hardware and software to test, validate, configurations to alter, and bugs to work out. Almost every piece of software and hardware produced in the last 5 or so years has some level of support. It's not going to be as painful as the IPv4 migration when the net was shutdown for about a day; it's just laziness. That's what happens when we let MBA's call the shots instead of the nerds and geeks.

Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (2, Informative)

ekhben (628371) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315397)

That problem was IPv4 addressing: not just address space exhaustion, which isn't an immediate problem anyway, but also global routing table sizes. IPv6 is intended from the start to be more aggregatable. If LargeISP1 has one hundred customers using IPv4, that probably means close to one hundred routing table entries. Under IPv6, it is hoped that will be more like one, though in practice it will probably be more. Smaller routing tables means cheaper and faster routers. (On top of that, some people are doing silly things with IPv6, like giving multiple addresses to a single mobile phone, which has no need to be globally addressable anyway.)

well... (1)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315101)

IPv4 has ben around for 20 some years what's the rush... I'lle switch over when i reinstall on my linux box. looks at kernel 1.1.0 on router...

That's not the solution. (4, Informative)

mind21_98 (18647) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315103)

The solution is more ISP support. This is where you vote with your wallet. If your ISP doesn't support IPv6, find another. Same goes if you're hosting a Web site. They will eventually catch on and begin offering IPv6 more widely.

Re:That's not the solution. (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315292)

I don't agree. Let's imagine that every Internet user demands that their ISP supports IPv6, and the ISPs do so. What have you accomplished? Google, Amazon, Slashdot, etc. still won't support IPv6.

Re:That's not the solution. (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315440)

Those companies have ISP's, as well. The problem is as the uncle comment to this one states: how many people actually have ISP's available that support IPv6? And how many people will really switch to a more expensive ISP just for IPv6 when they don't even know what it is? It simply won't convince any ISP's to do anything but raise their prices for IPv6 service.

Re:That's not the solution. (2, Insightful)

HoneyBunchesOfGoats (619017) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315420)

Not many people have the option to choose between ISPs. Where I am, it's either crap or crappier.

ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315129)

ISPs providing IPv6 at the same time than IPV4 addresses, at no extra cost, would help. But of course, they will want to give you one, not a group, and for a fee, if they ever use them soon (in some places you have to pay an absurd quantity for a fixed IP with cable or dsl... in the range of more than a small hosting that has an IP but includes the machine power & renting and a similar network monthly usage you could get with dsl always transfering). So I will not hold my breath.

Re:ISPs (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315147)

That's the cruel thing. ISPs will certainly try to get away with allocating only one address and charge for more, and since IPv6 addresses cost less than IPv4 addresses, they will take all the profit.

mod parent up (1)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315242)

I've laways been surpised that more people haven't seen this coming. It will take a lot of time before the majours ever do, and even then they'll reap the rewards.

What's the rush? (2, Insightful)

jobugeek (466084) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315138)

I don't understand the rush for so many here to move. Unless you do live in SE Asia, then IPv6 isn't really necessary. Yes NAT can be a pain in the ass, but it is serving its purpose fairly well.

IPv6 will take over just like anything else. When it reaches critical mass and demand forces it. Probably starting in SE Asia and moving westward.

Re:What's the rush? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315382)

You missed the point of the article. At the current rate of non-progress, IPv6 will never reach critical mass. IPv6 needs a jumpstart. (The Asia issue is a red herring since there is no address shortage in Asia [apnic.net] .)

Re:What's the rush? (1)

jobugeek (466084) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315427)

I believe I understood it completely. You believe that it will never reach critical mass and want to use artifical methods to induce it. I believe that demand will eventually push it.

OK, so if there isn't a problem in Asia, what's the rush?

Re:What's the rush? (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315470)

Yes NAT can be a pain in the ass, but it is serving its purpose fairly well.

Is there a purpose for NAT that IPv6 won't solve better? And be less of a pain in the ass?

Reverse proxy servers always open (4, Insightful)

jgarzik (11218) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315139)

Silly people.

A reverse proxy server (http accelerator) must be open to the public.

However, that does not mean the server is an "open proxy"... the proxy configuration only proxies for the specific web sites listed in the configuration file.

What about dhcp? (2, Interesting)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315152)

It seems to me that it would be really useful if the little off the shelf linksys/dlink/netgear/etc. routers did ipv6. I don't see it really being used until hardware starts using it.

On top of that it's my understanding that NAT should go away with ipv6. What is everyone with an internal network to do for IPs then? I've heard you can get free ipv6 blocks right now but they can be revoked once everything goes "live" but I don't want to deal with that.

Ultimately I guess I really want NAT ipv4 for inside my network until my hardware can hand out ipv6 addresses that I own forever.

Re:What about dhcp? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315308)

There is a NAT for IPv6, but it's frowned upon by the IPv6 people because it is a hack (and was one for IPv4). The goal of IPv6 is that every machine can be traced back to its owner and therefore can be positively identified as a particular user. Nice from a security standpoint, but pure evil from a privacy standpoint.

I'm from the other camp - NAT helps security and for that matter, increases privacy since you can't identify the machine behind the firewall (especially if they leave the DHCP connection and get a new IP every time they connect). Fun stuff when the feds want to know who's been downloading mp3s over your hotspot and you honestly can't tell them :)

Re:What about dhcp? (5, Informative)

kkane (179639) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315334)

The intention with IPv6 is that you won't have "unroutable" networks, like we do with private nets such as 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x. Everything will have a globally unique IPv6 address. There was in the original spec what were called a "site-local" addresses, which were private addresses not routed to the outside much like their IPv4 analogues, but those have been deprecated.

However, you'll have plenty of addresses because, in the current incarnation, you're not allocated a single address, but rather you are allocated a subnetwork, which is currently 2^64 addresses. So the first 64 bits are assigned to you by your ISP, and then the second 64 bits are yours to do with as you like.

So that addresses the question of NAT: there won't be any lack of IP addresses necessitating its use. I am only addressing the use of NAT as a way around limited address space, and not any of the other uses for which NAT has.

But what about DHCP? IPv6 comes with something more elementary, called "stateless autoconfiguration." Basically, the router constantly broadcasts your "prefix" to the subnetwork, which is the first 64 bit half of your 128 bit address your ISP assigns you. The machine then takes its subnetwork ID (the MAC address), and sets the second 64 bits to a function of that. In the case of Ethernet, it isn't the 48-bit Ethernet MAC address verbatim, but a published function of it. It's called stateless because it's always a function of whatever the network's prefix is plus some kind of subnet ID, and there's no concept of leases, or any of the state a DHCP server maintains.

There is not yet an equivalent mechanism for "stateful autoconfiguration," which is more what DHCP is, where you can automatically assign an arbitrary address to a client. You can of course statically configure an interface to have a specific address, but there is no automated mechanism to always assign a particular autoconfigured client a particular address you designate. There are proposed standards for an IPv6 version of DHCP, however, and I expect eventually such a beast will eventually come around.

Re:What about dhcp? (5, Interesting)

kkane (179639) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315351)

Oh, yeah, I forgot one more point:

Whether or not your "prefix" changes each time will be much the same as whether or not your single IPv4 address changes each time you connect. Either your ISP statically assigns you one (perhaps for an extra fee), or it doesn't. But that 64-bit prefix will be your global identifier that gives you an address space, much as the single IPv4 address is your global identifier now, except your address space is only 1 address.

Re:What about dhcp? (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315460)

Check with your router vendor's website. It is quite likely they have a flash upgrade which supports ipv6.

It would only make sense due to the fact that most of these devices are based on BSD code.

Users will never switch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315155)

Not until IPv4 addresses run out.

Users need a clear advantage to switch any technology (even trying to get them to switch to mozilla is painful).

What advantages do normal users see from IPv6? Other than being able to give their toaster net access, I see no benefits for them.

Users will switch when ISPs and Microsoft tell them too (and even then they will not know the difference). ISPs (and MS) have no incentive to switch since the lack of IPv4 doesnt seem to be a problem in reality.

Re:Users will never switch... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315314)

Actually users do not care one bit about the address space. They will switch when the underlieing software and networks switch to it.

Though, I do predict that once ppl realize that they can own their own IP's space, then we will see a rush to it similar to dns as well as phone numbers.

I can get a vanity ipv6 space? Cool

Not a Catch-22 (5, Interesting)

back_pages (600753) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315161)

IPv6 presents a catch-22: the most popular web sites on the Internet don't have any incentive to switch to IPv6 until a large portion of their userbase is on IPv6, and their user base does not have a large incentive to switch to IPv6 until many of the popular Internet destinations support IPv6.

Nice try, but that's not a Catch-22.

A Catch-22 is when the solution creates the problem. From the book (yes, there was a book) if the doctor diagnosed you as crazy, you didn't have to fly any more bombing missions. The catch was that you would have to be diagnosed crazy by a doctor to want to fly more bombing missions. Thus, by achieving the status of "unfit to fly", you were actually certifying yourself to fly.

What we have here with IPv6 is two parties with no immediate reward for an investment. If one of them stepped forward, the other would step forward, and the world would enjoy IPv6. There is nothing about this that is remotely close to a Catch-22.

Re:Not a Catch-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315325)

Well, that explains GWB. The man was a draft dodger and cheated like hell to avoid a stupid war. Now, he causes the same.

Re:Not a Catch-22 (4, Insightful)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315344)

I always thought that the way it worked was that if you were certified insane you couldn't fly, but the Catch-22 was that if you tried to get certified insane it proved that you didn't want to fly, which was an action of a sane man, therefore you had to fly. Nothing you could do would prevent you from flying.

Re:Not a Catch-22 (1)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315366)

Don't go confusing people's perceptions with actual references from the book :).

Re:Not a Catch-22 (3, Informative)

skraps (650379) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315364)

I don't think your explanation is very clear. For anyone who is really interested, here [hyperdictionary.com] is a good explanation of the term.

The part you missed is that the pilot can't be diagnosed by a doctor unless he asks to be seen; and since he fears for his own life enough to ask for a diagnosis, he is clearly not insane.

IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315167)

I do not see IPv6 being accelerated with proxy servers - IPv6 deployment is already going as fast as it can.

While IPv6 fixes many problems in IPv4, the developed world will not embrace IPv6 until many shortcomings in the protocol are addressed. As a Brown University grad student, the subject of IPv6 is what my disseration is upon. Allow me to include a few "talking-points" on what I've learned.

  1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
  2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Anonymiser Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
  3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
  4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before. While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
These points are not addressed by using proxy servers, and they must be addressed by the IPv6 community before it will be deployed outside of research networks. What better place is there than slashdot to address these points?

you're a troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315280)

Network Anonymiser Translation? I suggest you eat a dick.

Re:you're a troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315422)

Slashdot's "Slashcode" Open Source technology stops trolls dead in their tracks. You can't "troll" on Slashdot. No one has since 1998. It's been proven.

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315310)

I didn't really read all of your post, but in point 1 you say that Cisco routers use the CPU to process IPv6 packets. This seems nonsense to me, IPv6 has a fixed header length at 40 bytes, unlike IPv4 which uses a variable header length. A fixed header allows a router to process the packet in hardware, unlike IPv4.

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315342)

IPv6 has a fixed header length at 40 bytes, unlike IPv4 which uses a variable header length. A fixed header allows a router to process the packet in hardware, unlike IPv4.

But the routers have specialized hardware to parse IPv4 headers, and no such hardware for IPv6. A fixed-length header is easier to handle in hardware, but that's irrelevant in this case.

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315374)

that's not entirely true. ipv6 still has an options field that, while better
designed than that in ipv4, is complex to process.

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315406)

I'm sure your other points are quite valid, but I challenge this one:

"The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many"

Imagine a near future with 10 billion people inhabiting Earth. Each of those people might potentially have one or more personal computers, a cell phone/data assistant, a handheld wifi gaming platform, a network-aware TV and stereo equipment, and other devices that we haven't thought up yet. A person might have some of these things at the office as well.

If all these devices of the future are to be networked together, even 100 billion addresses might be insufficient.

Paul

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315428)

Sounds like you truly are a graduate of Brown University. I suggest however that you wipe your dick next time after spending time stuffing it up your own asshole!

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (3, Informative)

eamacnaghten (695001) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315456)

I believe you are incorrect in saying there are larger routing tables.

The IP numbering allocation in IPv6 is hierarchal, which they are not in IPv4. The first 16 bits are the FP and Top Level Address (allocated to "trunk" cos like MCI), the next is a 32 byt "Next Level Addres" allocated to ISPs, and finally "Sight Level Address"es allocated to people like you and me.

At the moment many routing tables on the trunks have thousands of entries, increasing as allocation of IPv4 becomes more and more fragmented, significantly slowing down the trunks. IPv6 will mean considerably fewer routing table entries there, increasing performance.

Although the raw IPv6 header is larger than the minimum IPv4 header, a system of, in effect, encapsulating parts of the headers in the data packet that are not needed in routing exists where it does not in IPv4 (such as those needed in TCP). The savings there should more than make up for the degregation in increasing the minimum size of 20 to a fixed size of 40.

It is a misconception that IPv4 produces 4 billion IP addresses for the world to use. By the time all the university's Class A addresses and all the wasted IP addresses of those who have networks with machines missing are considered, all the network and bradcast addresses and so on are also considered you will be lucky to see 3 billion. In fact I would not be surprised if the figure was nearer 2. This may be enough for the Western World but not for Asia as well.

IPv6 is also neccessary to adopt the up and coming internet technologies, such as those that use MultiCast (IPv4 implementation of this will NEVER get adopted). I agree with you that it is the routers that are holding this back - but once an area is enjoying the benefits of IPv6 then I believe it will rapidly spread.

My 2c worth....

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (1)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315477)

For your point (3), the routing table size could be smaller for IPv6 than for IPv4, due to a combination of starting off with a clean slate and the vast quantities of addresses represented by a /48 (the typical unit they are doled out in). The IPv4 routing table size is more than 150k networks, but from only about 30k autonomous systems. A lot of these people have many separate routing table entries in IPv4 for historical reasons only. This isn't to say it couldn't get big for other reasons later!

The overhead hit isn't quite as bad as you suggest for typical HTTP content. The packet size is typically >1300 bytes and IPv6+TCP is 60 bytes compared to IPv4+TCP at 40 bytes. I make that 1.5% for real data transfer

Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (1)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315489)

Cisco routers suck at IPv6. Many of cisco's routers use the router's CPU to process IPv6 packets instead of the fast-path. The reasons for this are explained in the next few points. While Juniper's routers are substantially better at IPv6 than cisco's, IT managers are often restrained by insane corporate policy that dictactes the use of cisco.
That's what happens when you let the MBA's dictate the path of technological development. I mean, why use the best solution when you can... forget using logic to justify that position.

There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Anonymiser Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Quit thinking so 2 dimensionally. IPv4 lasted about 2 decades. IPv6 should last us much longer and through more incarnations of the internet. Imagine nearly every device you own having its own unique IP. NAT is a duct tape solution that will end up causing more problems in the long run. No more going over to grandma's house to set up port triggering/forwarding on her router when she wants to try a new program.

IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
Is there any reason we can't convert an IPv6 address to base 36 so we humans can use alphanumeric strings? It should be a lot easier when we want to give someone the number to our new WAP enabled cell phone. And the memory problem... would have been a problem... if we were still paying $100/meg.

The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before. While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
It's already been demonstrated that the error checking and other transmission control routines of TCP/IP have entirely too much overhead for modern technology. I wish I could dig up the old article on /. where two teams transferred about a DVD worth of data over existing networks in just a couple of minutes by foregoing the unnecessary retransmission of data which was not corrupted in the first place. Anyway, you should have stated "up to 3.4%" because few people's machines have a 100% efficient TCP/IP stack in the first place. Under the absolute worst conditions, that's an extra 3.4 minutes on an otherwise 100 minute download.

other things to do (1)

dayton967 (647640) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315169)

I really wish that the w3c would also adopt for the client side of the http protocol support for the SRV records. (also wouldn't be a bad idea with MUA's) How many would like to see the ability to have your content on multiple locations without costly equipment, or lb'ed dns

IPv6 Needs a Killer App (5, Interesting)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315170)

That killer app may be VoIP. If everyone wants their own IPv6 phone number.

Or that killer app may be someone coming up with an awesome spam/virus/security solution that requires features found in IPv6.

But just wanting people to switch for no good reason will never work. Market forces...

Re:IPv6 Needs a Killer App (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315317)

Unfortunately for IPv6, Skype works fine with IPv4+NAT.

ThreeDegrees [threedegrees.com] requires IPv6, but it never really caught on. Maybe it would have had better luck if MS created a fake startup shell company to promote it, so then people would think it was some kind of revolution in the making instead of yet another tool of The Man's oppression.

Re:IPv6 Needs a Killer App (1)

tmbg37 (694325) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315486)

That killer app may be VoIP. If everyone wants their own IPv6 phone number.

Sometime in 2045, when IPv6 is deployed...

Hey, here's my new VoIP number! It's de56:234d:13b5:123b:1337:923a:be34:ab21!

Maybe we'd best start using RFC 1924 [faqs.org] ...

Wow (3, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315174)

A reverse proxy or http accelerator with IPv6 on one side and IPv4 on the other.

That is mightily impressive and you certainly are a genious of our time.

So what does Mac do? (1)

mojowantshappy (605815) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315198)

My 10.3 PowerBook seems to have both IPv4 and IPv6 running at the same time. Currently my Airport's IPv4 address is 10.0.1.25 and my airport's IPv6 address is fe80:0000:0000:0000:020d:93ff:fe88:f5c4. I can visit both http://ipv4gate.sixxs.net/ and http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net/. Does this mean my computer both has an IPv4 and IPv6 address, and I can visit both IPv4 and IPv6 websites? Maybe I am just missing the point of this news post.

Re:So what does Mac do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315327)

Mac OSX versions support IPv6 (how complete, I don't know).

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/compare.html
(or search Apple).

Re:So what does Mac do? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315403)

You have a totally useless link-local IPv6 address. To get a real IPv6 address you either need 6to4, Teredo, or an IPv6 ISP.

Re:So what does Mac do? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315419)

Both the addresses you specify have IPv4 addresses, and that is what your computer is using. To see how to set up a 6to4 tunnel follow this link [evanjones.ca] . www.kame.net is the site to try to connect to for testing. Typing 'ping6 www.kame.net' give you something back, other than 'ping6: UDP connect: No route to host'.

At the moment I can't get it working, so I'm trying to see what I have done wrong.

Re:So what does Mac do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315439)

My iMac with 10.3 also has an IPv6 address listed in the network settings. Is my broadband provider (Shaw) enabling IPv6 already, or did my Mac just make the address up?

Where can I sign up? (2, Interesting)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315209)

And get me some IPv6 addresses? Which, if any, ISPs/hosting companies support IPv6? Who do I talk to to reserve me a chunk of space so when my bacasswords ISP gets in line, I can get me some public IPs for my boxen at home?

VERY DISAPPOINTED (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315226)

I am very very disappointed with the performance of the trolls here at Slashdot these past two weeks. Around here we operate on GOALS and EXPECTATIONS and quite frankly, some of you (you know who you are) just aren't meeting them.

Look folks, it's really quite simple and I'm going to spell it out for you one more time and then hopefully we'll then be able to go about our day productively and without the need for more intervention:

A) More GNAA. I can't stress enough how important GNAA trolls are the to future success and robust presence of Slashdot in the negro homosexual market. I expect each and every one of you to give 110% or I will personally drop by your cube and rape you with a kumquat. Heh, kumquat. It's a fruit with a funny name, and you fruits better get with the program or it's going up your asses.

B) Natalie Portman references. She is a hot little filly. Did you know that she was born with a six digit? Neither did I, but it's going to feel like I've got six on my fist when I ram it up your backside if we don't see an improvement, pronto.

C) Absolutely anything to lighten the goddamn monotony around here. Seriously folks, if you're going to induce me and seduce me into clicking onto a comment link that says "**TROLL HERE**" in the hopes of perhaps having a little chuckle, then please don't waste my time with the same old weak shit we've been seeing around here lately. It's pathetic to the point of embarassment and frankly it's not anything that you'd like for your mothers to see. As an aside, I have a list of all your mothers sitting on my desk in front of me and am prepared to start going down it one by one, using directory assistance if need be.

Funny solution (2, Insightful)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315255)

Sounds like a funny solution to me. Why not just multi-home the webservers? No extra hardware, extra point of failure, simpler, less dependency, etc.

This has been mentioned before. It's still moot. (2, Informative)

soybean (1120) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315270)

The issue with ipv6 adoption is not an issue of servers or clients, it's an issue of routers.

ISP's need to adopt ipv6.

Tunnelling won't push adoption, but it might help YOU if you need to work with someone who is using ipv6.

The world doesn't need all that address space. (3, Funny)

acceleriter (231439) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315315)

Sure, China and Korea would like billions upon billions of addresses, but that's because they've spammed their IPv4 address space into every blacklist on Earth.

Ummm... (2, Informative)

Talez (468021) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315330)

Isn't this just 6to4 [6bone.net] which has been around for ages?

Dual-homed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315367)

Okay, maybe I'm ignorant, but can't websites just dual-home on an IP4 and an IP6 address until IP4 becomes obsolete?

Seems like a simple migration plan to me. Maybe I'll try it myself...

Are there any DSL providers in the US (1)

stox (131684) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315394)

which offer IPV6 service?

I HAVE 6 GMAIL ACCOUNTS TO GIVE AWAY (-1, Offtopic)

ellisDtrails (583304) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315442)

All you have to do is complete an offer on http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8804 376

I will trade them for confirmed referrals on http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8804 376.

If you've completed the referral, I'll send you a GMail invite, simple as that.

What can I do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315483)

So what can I do? Are there any national cable or DSL ISP's I can sign up with? I can complain to my ISP all I want but it's not like anyone would give up their ISP simply because there's no IPv6 if they don't have an alternative. Does anyone have ideas as to what a regular old user interested in helping this technology can do?

Same thing happened.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10315487)

with HDTV. Now look at the market. Its booming. It takes alot of variables beside the two mentioned in this article to make it happen. But it will one of these days. HDTV had the government behind it in setting a deadline date that forced the industry to convert. And it will most likely take another forced change to make IPv6 come to light.

IPv6 as a "solution" to NAT? (3, Interesting)

venomkid (624425) | more than 10 years ago | (#10315492)

This may be a bit OT, but I'm reading many people talking about NAT like it's some horrible thing.

As a longtime NAT user I like the fact that just one of my computers is hooked to the real internet and the others can't be diddled by outside computers.

Even if I had unlimited IPs, I'd still probably do it this way.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?