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!

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the in-my-day-we-used-version-4-and-we-liked-it dept.

The Internet 351

Ant wrote in to mention a Computerworld article that is reporting on the slow acceptance of the IPv6 version of the internet. From the article: "Information Technology (IT) decision-makers, in U.S. businesses and government agencies, want better Internet security and easier network management. However, few see the next-generation Internet Protocol called IPv6 as helping them achieve their goals, according to a survey released Tuesday by Juniper Networks Inc."

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

never happen (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644877)

Lightman also called for a national IPv6 coordination office in the U.S. with an annual budget around $10 billion.

No way that'll happen; $10 billion can buy a lot more soldiers to kill Iraqis.

just wait... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644881)

...untill they run out of addresses

Re:just wait... (1, Interesting)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644947)

Then they'll just rob blocks from people like MIT who have way too many and NAT the rest...

Re:just wait... (2, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645182)

I wanted to hit a colleague not long ago. I mentioned that it seemed that someone on the network had enabled IPv6 on their system, as I noticed some packets that I traced back to an IPv6 stack looking for a DHCP server. He (a network security engineer) said something about this being a threat, and that it was against policy, comments which are normal from him and which I ignore. I commented at the same time that it would be nice if we could begin converting to IPv6, at least on a trial basis for a few systems, and he said something about how IPv6 was "pointless" and "useless" since we have all the addresses we need using NAT. Arguments that NAT is a cludge and gets needlessly complex as you continue to NAT multiple layers went nowhere with him.

Re:just wait... (1)

m85476585 (884822) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645013)

What will happen if they run out of addresses?

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644883)

First post

piss, and some frost on the side plz, sir (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644885)

piss frost ipv6 SUCKS HEXa-deximal!!!!!

fp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644887)

FIRST

They better hurry (0)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644888)

2007 is coming up fast!

Re:They better hurry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644915)

2007? I thought they wanted it by 2006... Or maybe that was HDTV.

There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 (5, Funny)

ylikone (589264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644891)

just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:There's no place like ::1 (4, Funny)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644972)

Learn to use and enjoy Zero compress in IPv6 :) ::1 would be the same as 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1

Did you hear about the guy who went to get a /32 IPv6 block and the ISP replies that they don't retail out single IPs.

A sound point (2, Insightful)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645026)

IPV6 will involve more digits/typing/remembering than IPV4. Of course sysadmins are reluctant.

Give me an easy upgrade path (0, Troll)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644898)

It's not backwards compatible. I can't run old IPv4 on the same net, it's one or the other. Don't tell me to run multiple NICs, that's not practical.

In short, there's no easy way to upgrade, to try it out, to upgrade slowly and practically.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (3, Interesting)

the_xaqster (877576) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644975)

Semes like someone could make a ton of money designing a IPv4 to IPv6 bridge, so you could run 2 network segments, expanding the IPv6 segment as you go.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (1)

the_xaqster (877576) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645110)

That will teach me to not research before I post. You can run them side by side....

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (4, Informative)

MartinG (52587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645005)

What are you talking about?

I run ipv6 and ipv4 together on the same net all the time.

For ipv4 I have one static internet address on my router machine which provides NAT for all the other internal machines.

For ipv6, I have a /48 allocated to me so each machine has its own real ipv6 internet address and can talk directly to all other internet ipv6 addresses. (plus, I have over 281 trillion ip addresses spare for later)

Also the applications don't need writing for one or the other. By using the ipv6 API you automatically get support for ipv4 at the same time.

There is an easy upgrade path. What will really get folks upgrading is when more and more sites become ipv6 only. For example I am setting up a nature webcam site which will be ipv6 only for exactly this reason.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645083)

For example I am setting up a nature webcam site which will be ipv6 only for exactly this reason.

Until the porn world goes IPv6 only there will be no major rush to upgrade. I really hope that your "nature webcam site" is really nude women running around in the forest or I just don't see it making a difference.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (1)

MartinG (52587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645166)

I really hope that your "nature webcam site" is really nude women running around

Heh. not quite.

Actually it's small mammals running around somewhere in England. (or will be when I get things sorted out properly)

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (3, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645299)

Actually it's small mammals running around somewhere in England.

Young, petite, teens?

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (2, Informative)

csgames (816481) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645006)

Of course it can run on the same network. Just need a v6 connectivity, just as you have a v4 one. You absolutly don't need multiple nics! Are you one of those who think an interface can only be configured with one ipv4 address ?

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645025)

IPv6 -> IPv4 proxies do not exist. All fantasy

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (3, Informative)

iblech (738342) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645044)

Ehm, I'm currently surfing on Slashdot (IPv4), while my mail is sent using an IPv6 SMTP server. I only have *one* connection to my ISP, and only one NIC, and only one router.

IPv4 and IPv6 can easily coexist, and IPv6-only programs don't even have to be modified to accept IPv4 connections (keyword "IPv4-mapped addresses").

A miracle?

The best way to speed up adotion (4, Funny)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645048)

First, you need to make it cheap and easy to migrate, and make it part of the OS. Want a new Windows machine? Fine. It'll connect to the Internet and Ipv6 transparently, and you won't see the difference.

Second, move all the porn sites to IP v6.

Actually, screw step 1. If you can manage step 2, and keep any new upstarts from taking over the vacated IP v4 porn market, then IP v6 will become the standard within a year. We'll all have a laugh over the contorted and convoluted arguments PHBs with little to no technology understanding will come up with to justify switching their corporate networks to IP v6.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (2, Interesting)

bnitsua (72438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645052)

it took me 15 minutes to set up 6to4 on mac os x...
I can access any ipv4 address or ipv6 address without any problems.
but I guess that doesn't count as an "easy way...to try it out"

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (2, Informative)

dlippolt (100881) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645064)

much to the dismay of all my developers, my answer to just about every problem is "you can use an ssh tunnel for that"

when i bought my powerbook 15 months ago, reverse tunnels stopped working, and it took me awhile to figure out why.

normally you'd run something like:

ssh -R 8080:localhost:8080 user@remotedevbox.com

to let a remote server access tomcat running on your laptop.

i suspect OSX routes "localhost" to the ipv6 address by default in this case. the solution was to change the tunnel:

ssh -R 8080:127.0.0.1:8080 user@remotedevbox.com

point being... from the "what have you done for me lately" perspective, ipv6 has been nothing but a headscratcher. and we're supposed to run the internet on it?

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645173)

IPV6 has alot of nice features, but it's main reason for existing (expanded address space) is turning out to be mute.

The simple reason is that when people were working out the ideas for IPV6, the internet was basically a flat network where everybody had their corner and everybody had a class B, etc. Their fear was we'd run out of addresses. Well, we did and people simple solved the problem with cleverness instead of just expanding the address space.

The fact is now, entire corporations can run on a couple of class C address and leverage the power of NAT and proxies.

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645084)

There are various proposals for the upgrade. Tunneling and dual stack are two of the leading ones. Also IPv4 addresses can be mapped to valid IPv6 addresses. I havent looked at the spec lately but i believe the IPv4 address is appended with all 0's

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645118)

Don't tell me to run multiple NICs, that's not practical.

How on earth did this get modded up? This guy has no clue what he is talking about. Multiple NICs indeed.

Finkployd

Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645155)

Then use multiple virtual nic:s, or bind both an IPv4 and a IPv6 address to the same.

How about this? (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645222)

Why dont all IPv4 addresses simply automatically get a secondary address where 255.255.255.255 would become 0.0.0.0.255.255.255.255

Oh Dear (5, Insightful)

taskforce (866056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644901)

"There's an education job to be done," said Rod Murchison, senior director of product management for the Security Products Group

Translation: "There's a marketing job to be done"

I thought education was for important things which you need, and marketing was to convince you to use products and services?

Need more software and support (4, Interesting)

strider44 (650833) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644912)

The reason why is there's not that much support or software for the protocol. As the summary said they want better security and easier management, but there's not even a good IPv6 firewall up and running, so why would they take it up?

Wait a while until there's the software backing then you'll see companies using it.

Re:Need more software and support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644943)

And how will you know when there is?

Oh, wait...

Easy and cheap solution (1)

Nomihn0 (739701) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644931)

What's the problem? IPv6? Qr5as! Just get a bigger, longer, string.

Duh (5, Insightful)

Heliologue (883808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644932)

Which is why IPv6 isn't going to be in full effect until 2025. They figured that acceptance would be slow. The fact is, at this point, people don't need IPv6. But when the numbers start to run out, they'll be clamoring for it.

Re:Duh (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645088)

The sky is falling, The sky is falling.

When numbers run out???!!!??

There are over 4 billion ipv4 addresses. How many of those ip addresses are actually used? How many of those ip addresses could be easily NATted?

I couldn't imagine even 20% (800 million) are being used at any one time.

how many internet users + how many internet servers + gateways = ???

Re:Duh (3, Insightful)

Heliologue (883808) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645150)

Substantial portions of that address space is reserved for private network, loopback, etc. You could end up using these addresses, of course, but that would require reengineering every network-capable device that's been built to-date. You don't think that within a decade, there'll be 4 billion mobile phones, each with it's own address? NAT only goes so far.

NAT works... (4, Insightful)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644933)

NAT is the reason why ipv6 has not really been needed. The idea of having an IP address for everyone on the planet and for his dog too was really not needed.

Once NAT+Firewalls became popular enough, the requirement for large IP chunks for offices and stuff disappeared.

No backward compatibility, ugly naming scheme (tell me , who like ::1 ?) and over all lack of a need helped kill IPv6 from becoming too popular.

Re:NAT works... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645133)

NAT is not good enough.

Too many things have to work around NAT problems.

I run a small network and all the users running filesharing programs have problems. I have to give them each a port.

What happens when more than one of them wants to run server for a protocol which needs a specific port? SMTP?

Why shouldn't people be able to have full IP connectivity? NAT does not provide that, and UPNP is not enough to fix that.

Re:NAT works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645174)

I like it. The address schema makes much more sense than ipv4. And what no backward compatibility are you complaining about? 6in4, 4in6, etc..

Address space is the least significant change (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645204)

What's up with that strawman argument? The expanded address space is the least significant change between IPv4 and IPv6.

See my previous post [slashdot.org] .

Re:NAT works... (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645219)

Aren't we running of IP address for v4 even with NAT?

Re:NAT works... (4, Insightful)

MenTaLguY (5483) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645288)

I guess you've never had to merge two large private networks that are behind NAT.

NAT itself is okay, but using private IP ranges behind it doesn't really work for large organizations, especially large organizations that can (and do) need to merge with other such large organizations.

I've been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations; it can cause a LOT of pain.

Industry study say govt must spend billions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644960)

...to mandate IPv6 transition or earth will stop spinning sending everybody flying off into space.

Re:Industry study say govt must spend billions... (2, Funny)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645257)

I read that Alexis de Toqueville Institute study as well.

IPV6 and Firefox....the Truth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12644963)

Hi, I'm Blake Ross. [bibi.org] (that's me on the left). You might know me as gorgeous teen leader of world class browser Firefox. Hey my buddies on the team like Ben Goodger call me "El Spicko" cause I'm one greasy spick mother. I even got a pass to say 'nigger', sometimes I call my spick brothers and homies, I say "hey my nigger".

When I drive around town with the hood down and the system cranking, I say to the ladies "how you doing girls?" and they say "Hey El Spicko we love you" and I just say "Hey". I used to work in kebab shop for my cousin but now I work on my browser Firefox which I invented.

All you fags who keep saying Firefox is shit, you don't know shit. Kiss my spick nigger butt is what i say. Hey. We do what the fuck I want, it's my business I run. hey.

Have you seen my photo on wired magazine ? [wired.com] Nice. My friend Ben, you see it's like this..he's a bit of a fat faggot and he likes all the geek stuff, me I'm more a ladies' man, i got plenty of pussy to choose from. hey.

Listen I got to go, my cousin was busted for dealing crack, and mother was a whore but I tell you something truthfull, the way I did it, the way i became the boss of Firefox and changed the world, well you see it's a gift, not everyone has it like I do, but maybe you too can make something of your lives like me one day



later, here is some more free photos for my fans...

peace

http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2005/01/24 /ross-main.jpg [usatoday.com]

http://www.bibi.org/box/2005/janeiro/the_firefox_e xplosion.jpg [bibi.org]

Information Technology (4, Funny)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644973)

Thanks for clarifying what IT meant. I've been lost on this site for YEARS and now I finally know what that acronym means. Life is good.

Re:Information Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645285)

Thanks for busting my sarcasm meter, jerk!

What does ipv6 get you? (1, Interesting)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644974)

nothing.

That's right, upgrading your network and spending lots of time/money gets your organization nothing. Sure ipv4 space is limited, but what's wrong with a little conservation.

I would bet most of the ip space is used for dialup users, where 1 dialup user = 1 ip address. Why not just NAT those dialup users? If you need a static ip address, do a 1:1 NAT or something. There's absolutely no reason a dialup user should have a public ip address.

People that use the internet for e-mail/web browsing could care less about their ip address.

Gaming on dialup hasn't really ever worked and is painful at best.

Running a web server on a dialup connect? probably not.

How many people still use dialup?

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

kworthington (678559) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645080)

A lot of people do still use dial-up, actually. But you do bring up interesting points: a dial-up user really should be NAT'd. After all, NAT is what has helped the world not really need v6 in such a hurry. On the other hand, switching now might save pain down the road. Being proactive is often a good thing, and rather than having a Y2K-like situation where everyone has to scramble at the last minute/month/year, we could switch before it becomes an issue.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645163)

That's just my point. There's not a dire need for them. With your example of Y2K, that was a definite time/date that a problem would occur. Running out of anything is never a definite. Ip space is and will always be limited. Raising the limits doesn't mean you'll remove the problem, you'll only prolong it (for a really really long time). Finding a solution to the problem now is the best bet, the problem being the under utilization of our current ip space.

Removing those dialup users would also severely cut back the spambots.

I know a solution, give everyone /31's. (humor intended)

Another, probably more feasible solution is to use normal numbers, instead of dotted quads. Normal numbers are, at least theoretically, unlimited. The whole base-8 thing is so 1995.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645197)

bollocks. You have just as much 'right' to be publicly accessible from a dialup as cable/dsl/whatever. Heck, it might be the only option for you. How is someone else supposed to access the machine remotely?

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

MartinG (52587) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645108)

How many people still use dialup?

Not many, but forget about dialup and you still have a startage of addresses.

I know a few people who struggle now to get 2 ip addreses now for business purposes and the problem will only get worse.

ipv6 is the solution and so far the best arguments against it seem to revolve around not being able to read the addresses as easily. Well I say wake up and use DNS. That's what it's there for.

NAT is a hack and it broken for many protocols anyway. That's why all sorts of connection tracking and other kluges is required for various protocols. The sooner that nastiness goes away the better.

Roll on ipv6.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645130)

Gaming on dialup hasn't really ever worked and is painful at best.
I very well remember playing QuakeWorld on dialup. It worked just fine. Most other users on that server were on dialup connections as well.
How many people still use dialup?
Worldwide, it's the majority of all Internet users.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645232)

I very well remember playing QuakeWorld on dialup. It worked just fine. Most other users on that server were on dialup connections as well

Right, because that's the only thing that was available at the time. Playing QuakeWorld over dialup on a p-100 as opposed to playing a comparable game today, with today's bandwidth, with today's computers. Even playing over dialup back when people played QuakeWorld, there'd always be someone that would get on with a resnet and own everyone.

Worldwide, it's the majority of all Internet users.

that's my point. NAT the majority of the users of the internet and you'll:

1. instantly have the majority of the normally used ip space suddenly available (for what purpose???)
2. instantly stop the spam flow to millions of mail boxes
3. instantly make DOSes nearly impossible on a large scale
4. instantly provide security for users behind the NAT.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (2, Informative)

Danathar (267989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645152)

Other than larger address space?

- New header format (less overhead in routers)
- A new Efficient and hierarchical addressing and routing infrastructure (again....less overhead in routers)
- Stateless and stateful address configuration (You could theoretically dump your DHCP servers)
- Built in IPsec
- Better support for QOS (Quality of service) in the protocol fields
- It's extensible (more headers can be added..it's in the protocol)

and more...

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645194)

Your argument makes no sense. Dialup users take their address from a pool of available IP addresses at their ISP. When they hang up the address goes back into the pool. Whereas broadband users take their address from the same pool, but keep their addresses for a much longer period of time.

1 dialup user != 1 IP address. 1 IP address is needed per phone line, but in broadband, 1 IP address is needed per user...

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645242)

I still use dial-up every day. :( I agree it should be NAT setup.

How about cable, satelllite, etc. NAT setup even with customers' routers (using NAT)?

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645244)

5 years from now.

"Gamers on consumer level DSL are rare.

Running a web server on consumer level DSL? probably not

How many people still use consumer level DSL?"

I use dial up, I want an *Internet* connection, not a web connection. I also do not want to pay business rates to have an Internet connection. NAT is a hack. Real geeks prefer an elegant system over a hack.

Re:What does ipv6 get you? (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645306)

I understand what you are saying, but there's no reason for the majority of the dialup users to have a public ip address.

Don't get me wrong, I TOTALLY understand the need for public space in some cases, but there should be different level of services depending on what the customer expects from the connection. If someone were to do a study that said 99% of AOL's customers simply want to use the internet for web/e-mail, and AOL could save $50 million/year by not having to pay ARIN for ip space (and lowered support calls from spyware infested machines), do you think AOL would take notice and make a change?

I think your speculations as to what the future would bring is a little far fetched. Calling NAT a hack may be justified, but it's a hack used by just about every corporate network in the world.

Wintel? (-1, Offtopic)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644979)

It's been a fair few years since I heard someone use the term "Wintel". Has this guy not heard of AMD?

Also, why does he claim to be a 22 year old programmer, yet at the top of the article page, there's a picture of a guy that looks about 40-50 with a moustache?

> I do not want my browser to eat up all of my memory.

Don't use Firefox then. Firefox is the most memory hungry program I've ever used. With the exception of Thunderbird of course (if you don't agree, look at your own task manager). Currenty my Firefox is using 50MB of virtual memory (turn on the VM column in Task Manager with View > Select Columns)). Is Safari any better on the Mac?

Re:Wintel? (1)

gordo3000 (785698) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645105)

actually, current count right now for Mozilla vs. IE, both up and running and actually several more mozilla windows running. IE: 59.8 MB Mozilla: 41.3 MB on the virtual memory look. Now as RAM goes, mozilla is using a lot more, but its not the memory hog for me you seem to have a problem with. and I bet firefox is much lighter(though I don't have it on this particular computer)

Re:Wintel? (1)

musikit (716987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645224)

opera 8.00 currently current. mem usage 23,980. VM size 29,884

Re:Wintel? (1)

teshuvah (831969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645145)

OMG dude you totally posted this for the wrong article. LOL!

ivp6 is so not cool man (3, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644981)

AOL is the way to go if we want to improve the internets!!!!1

all the cyber people need to support teh AOL in their awesome efforts to make the internets better for everybody.

can't believe you peeps havent seen the cool AOL comercials!!!!111
"want a better internet?"
"you belong to america online!!!"

Give them a reason! (1)

Lockz (556773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644986)

Companies won't change if there's no incentive; they have to be shown that it will help them out in measured ways, or until they're eventually forced to do it by everyone else. They won't be an early adopter otherwise.

Doesn't achieve their goals? (3, Insightful)

nganju (821034) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644991)


How about providing static IP addresses to DSL and cable modem users, so we can actually use simple DNS (or even just memorized IP addresses) to host things with servers in our living rooms? Seems to me that would be a huge value proposition for any ISP to its customers.

Re:Doesn't achieve their goals? (1)

willisbueller (856041) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645177)

http://www.no-ip.com/ [no-ip.com] quite simple, has a linux how-to as well. Totally free for "living room" use.

I think the title says it all (1)

DrinkingIllini (842502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12644996)

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet

Ain't that the truth.

India and China (3, Insightful)

naveenkumar.s (825789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645001)

Developing countries dont have an option other than to move to IPv6 due the apparent shortage of IP numbers. And if that's the way, then the rest have to go for IPv6 because, they say v6 cannot inter-operate with v4.

But... (2, Insightful)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645004)

Regardless, what's wrong with IPv4? I've been using it on my network for years and I haven't had any problems or extra requirements. They're gonna have to come up with damn good reasons to switch because, at the moment, it's just not worth the hassle.

I know i'm not the only one who thinks like this.. all of my colleagues are happy with the v4 system, and the (less high maintenance) users know what i'm talking about when I assign IPs or mention '127.0.0.1'. None of them have a clue about '::1', and it isn't worthwhile changing until IPv4 truly becomes defunct and obsolete.

Re:But... (1)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645051)

and it isn't worthwhile changing until IPv4 truly becomes defunct and obsolete

Or until there is more widespread adoption.

Gotten used to NAT (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645016)

I think the major problem is that most Americans have gotten used to the limitations of NAT.

I for one would like to be able to transfer files once again with friends (you now like pictures or video conference) which I can't seem to do now since everyone is behind a NAT these days.

I would also like to play Hearts of Iron again multiplayer without having to disconnect my room mates from the internet. (No amount of port forwarding and opening ports and using DMZ actually works mind you. Well it sort of does... But not very well...)

But it might be a while before we see IPv6 universally.

Re:Gotten used to NAT (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645132)

I am confused as to why you cannot transfer files. Could you not forward ports or maybe your friends/family? Here on slashdot the general public may be considered one step away from drooling on themselves, but I am sure you could talk someone trough it. I do this for my friends and family. Most(these days all) home NAT boxes have fairly easy to use http frontends. While you may consider someone dumb for needing your help to do this I consider you lazy for not helping. Also when IPv6 is the standerd I will still use NAT and I hope many others do.It may not be a complete solution for security, but is all that protects many home users PCs from becoming spam zombies. Also there are many times when having fully routable IP address is not needed nor prudent. Let us remember that wasting IP space is what is going to kill IPv4. There is not an actual shortage of IP space, but an artificail one. This is because whole class A blocks have gone to waste for things that single addresses would have been fine for.Checking out the enourmous amount of reserved space is left as an excerise to the reader. Waste not want not.

Vested Interest (2, Insightful)

Magada (741361) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645019)

And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services. A severely restricted adress space is what they need to continue to do so. This is just an attempt on their part to establish/enforce a perception that IPv6 is not needed/wanted. It may have misfired, though.

security (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645028)

In my opinion a new internet will be crippled by
monitoring like security and tracking. Half of
internet2 when i goes mainstream will be used for
tracing users for illegal activity.

Then will be the need for a secure and
unmonitored net to run on top of the new
internet to overcome sensorship, and guess what
it will have the same speed as the current internet.

Re:security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645273)

I hear you and agree but the internet is already is already crippled by monitoring, security and tracking. [archive.org]

Notice original site that web.archive points to seems to be under some constant DOS attack. Until people wake the fuck up and stop tolerating blanket sweeping mass survellience in the name of 'security' we are going to have a problem.

Might be a good idea (2, Funny)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645030)

"If studies like this aren't acted on ... then instead of having a quarter of all the world's ISPs clustered here, around Reston, you'll have a quarter of the world's ISPs clustered around Tokyo or Beijing. I don't know if that's what the U.S. government really wants."

Hmm... moving AOL to Tokyo or Beijing might not be a bad idea. Would be much more expensive to send out all those CDs to people here...

I have a minimal (5, Interesting)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645047)

I have a minimal writeup on my blog here [joeslife.info] . It states where I got my 6to4 tunnel from, how to activate the tunnel (in FreeBSD), and the problem I faced when activating the tunnel! All in all, now my webserver answers requests on ipv6!! Check it out! Its very easy, I suggest all geeks at least try this at home. Later tomorrow, once I'm done testing, I will put an extensive writeup on how to make your home network a functioning IPV6 ONLY network (includes: Windows Boxes, Mac Boxes, Linux Boxes, FreeBSD boxes, and OpenBSD Boxes).

IPv6 Bittorrent (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645062)

If people wanted to jump start IPv6 traffic (at least on Internet2), an offical Bittorrent protocol specification that includes IPv6 would help.

Bram Cohen has talked on occasion about IPv6 having some advantages for Bittorrent although I can't remember what he said.

Re:IPv6 Bittorrent (1)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645189)

I believe that would be a great idea!! Think of this, the bittorrent protocol modified a little bit to support IPV6 Multicasting!! I believe that would be the next revolution of a content distribution system.

Let me tell you (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645063)

My problems with adopting IPv6:

  • When I am on the crapper, and my wife asks me "What is the IP address of our FTP server?" (or something), it is a lot easier to respond "one nine two dot one six eight dot one dot two ten" then "three eff eff eee colon eff eff eff eff colon zero one zero zero colon eff one zero one colon zero two ten colon aye four eff eff colon eff eee eee three colon nine five six six"
  • When in Windows, you can't cahnge your IPv6 address like you are familiar with, under network settings->TCP/IP... you have to use some obscure command line tools
  • If we were willing to takeup changes... even if they mean a more efficient system, why do we still use the same email system?
  • NAT am wonderful
  • I don't necessarily want my refigerator and TV to be uniquely identifyable
  • No cool acronym has been made from it

Re:Let me tell you (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645124)

I don't necessarily want my refigerator and TV to be uniquely identifyable

Also subnets mean you can have several billion uniquely identifiable toasters in your house with IPv4, if v6 is all about longer addresses then I don't see much of a need..

Re:Let me tell you (1)

stevey (64018) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645144)

NAT am wonderful

Sadly not - here's just one brief list of things that NAT break [utk.edu]

I can think of other things too, although I do admit that things like Skype have successfully shown that NAT-punching works simply and fairly reliably.

How about fixing SMTP (1)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645077)

I suspect that much of the perceived "insecurity" of the net stems from people's experience with spam, e-mailed viruses, and phishing. Redesigning the protocol to prevent spoofed headers would go a long way to reduce spam (or at least make it easier to filter). We get about 75 spams a day that claim to come from our domain or mail server IP.

The other major source of the perceived "insecurity" of the net is due to the insecurity of end-user devices (and end-users themselves), but that a harder issue to tackle.

The larger problem is that the internet was designed during an innocent era when all the devices on the net were assumed trustworthy. Secure .mil or collegial .edu networks never had even consider issues such as spam, spyware, DDoS, DNS poisoning, IDN spoofing, etc.

Ahh, the best laid plans... (1)

Spirckle (872312) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645079)

Why is everybody so shocked? The market changes and "oops" we forgot to think of these new requirements. So the solution is to ossify the mistargeted solution by creating a government office for it? Sounds like crybabies crying to me.

IPv6 experiences since 2000 (4, Funny)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645104)


I first implemented IPv6 on a Cisco 7120 with a single FreeBSD 4.0 box as a host behind it - this would have been some time in late 2000. The IPv6 link came from Viagenie and this lasted a few months before I got bored with it.

I tried again last year with a couple of cable modem attached Cisco 17xx and some tunnels from Hurricane Electric. I was at a point where I wanted to do a lot more with IPv6 to get ready for my CCIE exam. HE was relentlessly useless in getting me more than what their tunnel broker system provided so I gave up again.

I tried later last year with BTexact's tunnel broker service and some other routers. Made it run, then started moving offices and lost interest.

I'm at it again - BTexact because they've got the best tunnel broker web interface and they'll give multiple tunnels, Cisco 28xx here, Cisco 17xx at a playful customer's site, and one FreeBSD 5.4 host. My CCIE gets closer and closer so this time its gotta go - web server, DNS, going to put up six total tunnels, then press for a block larger than the default /64 that comes with each tunnel.

Looking at IPv6 from the outside it would appear that someone collected a bunch of people who got kicked out of IETF for mental instability, a number of disgruntled Novell employees who believed that IPX was a gift from an advanced space alien culture, and locked them all in a junior high gymnasium with a goodly supply of blotter acid and two boxes of twinkies. Its the only explanation we have for the results we see today ...

use this tunnel broker (2, Informative)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645138)


These guys have a good tunnel broker interface:

https://tb.ipv6.btexact.com/ [btexact.com]

I used these guys a couple of years ago and they made me very sad:

ipv6tb.he.net/

Few articles actually address IPv6 benefits (5, Insightful)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645111)

The biggest problem is probably lack of awareness, just like in many other situations.

Few articles actually address real IPv6 benefits and instead pull out strawmen about a purported shortage of IP addresses. That's got to be the least significant and least relevant change between IPv4 and IPv6. Maybe that's all the 'journalists' can get their teeny minds around, or maybe it's mandated spin because certain key advertising accounts *cough*MS*cough* aren't looking to be IPv6 compliant any time soon.

Some of the main advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 are:

  • quality of service
  • simplified headers
  • multicasting
  • security (that's certainly buzzword compliant, why is it never brought up?)
  • autoconfiguration
  • improved routing
  • authentication
Japan and China are already rolling out IPv6 networks. Since the article specifically points out the U.S., maybe it's time that U.S. businesses start getting technical news from sources other than their MS account representative.

IPv8 is much better - get a clue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645115)

IPV8 is MUCH better

guys, get a clue!!!

first post!! ;)

well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12645119)

why would we bother to adopt a new technology until there's an impending crisis w/ the old one?

There is also the "network effect" to consider (2, Interesting)

under_score (65824) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645134)

I could set up my servers to do IPv6, but I don't have sufficient motivation to do so. It takes time and energy to get this set up, and I don't see any return for doing so. This is because the network effect [wikipedia.org] is not yet strong enough. Someone has to work on getting IPv6 to "Cross the Chasm" [wikipedia.org] or to "the Tipping Point" [wikipedia.org] .

regardless... (1)

ohzero (525786) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645148)

With the most recent windows update, MS decided that we should all implement ipv6, which broke alot of things. I just switched to Mac. At least I know that the ipv6 interface on this thing can be smoked with ifconfig....

First step.... Make the ISPs switch (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645184)

The last time I checked with my ISP (telus), they weren't supporting IPV6. This means that I need to tunnel to the nearest IP6 gateway -- so much for improved speed.

Once most ISPs are IPV6 native, there'll be a lot more reason for people to play with it -- if only because it'll then be a lot easier. (Hey, I'm lazy. I expect that others are too). I had tunnelling working for a while but it broke and I haven't gotten around to getting it working again.

Please tell me this is a mistake... (1)

spasmfrog (846778) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645190)

from TFA:
Computer users would need a broadband connection with at least 512M bit/sec. to enjoy the better picture. IPv6 will free television stations from expensive satellite cable connections, Bayliss said.

What was wrong with OSI? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645210)

I could never figure out what was so wrong with the OSI NSAP addressing that required IP6 instead. Other than NIH that is. Anyway...

IPV6 --prepare for your toaster spamming people (2, Interesting)

tarpitcod (822436) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645220)

Most users use a firewall to do NAT at the moment., they thus get some level of protection.

Take that away, have loads of IPV6 addresses and un-informed consumers, and your setting yourself up for your uC driven toaster, oven, refrigerator, entertainment center etc spamming people.

It just gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies -- does anyone else remember the feeling of walking into a PeeCee site that was 'internet connected'back in the 90's and asking what they were doing and finding out every un-patched PC had a distinct IP on the internet?

Please note: (2, Informative)

CrazySailor (20688) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645279)

Juniper has a horse in the race, selling network devices.

There's currently an IPv6 conference [coalitionsummit.com] at which they're appearing as well. The conference ends today (2005-May-26).

There's a Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] article [washingtonpost.com] on the summit.

I'm posting from the summit, where they have a IPv6 802.11 network up for visitors use.

First mover disadvantage? (1)

BigTom (38321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12645280)

I guess the US (having most of the IPv4 addresses in existence) will only start upgrading when US companies need IPv6 to use all the cool gadgets and technologies developed in China, Japan, South East Asia, India and Europe.

Of course they will have missed the innovation boat (and profits) by then and will be users rather than providers of new technologies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?