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!

IPv6 Still Hotly Debated

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the who-needs-improvements dept.

Communications 639

inkslinger77 writes "A significant stumbling block to IPv6 adoption may be IPv4 loyalists who are keen to keep the old protocol in preference to the 'new improved' version, according to a Computerworld Australia article. The article covers the views of Cisco's senior technical leader for IPv6 technologies, Tony Hain and Geoff Huston, a senior Internet research scientist from Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (Apnic)." From the article: "Go to your favourite venture capitalist and say 'I want to be an ISP'. By the time he stops laughing and [finds you want to run] IPv6 - the discussion gets terminated. No one wants to hear this. IPv6 is well ahead of adoption in this market so everyone is deferring. No one is running IPv6, because there is no business case for it ... if we really wanted to leave a legacy to our children we'd review the crap we have today which is pretty ghastly ..."

cancel ×

639 comments

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

Me too (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999320)

To be honest, IPv6 never really made sense to me either. I mean, OK, so we're running out of IP addresses and we need more... but as more and more companies are turning to NAT instead of using public IPs behind a firewall for internal services, some IP blocks are being freed up, and it looks to me like there are still a HUGE number of reserved subnets [iana.org] out there.

But assuming we really do need more IPs, why IPv6? Why 128 bits instead of, say, 64? Why build the functionality of DHCP, which (mostly) works perfectly well* and is extensible enough to support cool stuff that hadn't been thought of when IPv4 and DHCP were invented (e.g. WPAD, netbooting), into IP? What's the deal with including your MAC address as part of your IP address?

Going with the assumption that the problem really is as bad as people say it is (China has a gazillion people and more of them are getting online, and it'd be great if my refrigerator had a web-based interface I could access remotely without setting up port forwarding or a VPN, etc.)... I'm not convinced that IPv6 is the right solution to the problem. It just seems to be the only solution anyone has offered, and a lot of money has been spent bringing it closer to reality.

So, convince me: why is IPv6 the right answer to the problem?

* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?

Re:Me too (2, Informative)

mboverload (657893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999398)

> Why 128 bits instead of, say, 64?

Exactly what I'm asking. From wikipedia:

The primary change from IPv4 to IPv6 is the length of network addresses, with IPv6 addresses being 128 bits long (as defined by RFC 2373 and RFC 2374). This corresponds to 32 hexadecimal digits, which are normally used when writing IPv6 addresses. Each hexadecimal digit can take 16 values (see combinatorics), resulting in a total of 1632 (340 undecillion) addresses. IPv6 addresses are usually composed of two logical parts: a 64-bit network prefix, and a 64-bit host-addressing part, which is often automatically generated from the interface MAC address. It is often argued that 128-bit addresses are overkill, and that the Internet will never need that many. However, it should be noted that the rationale for the 128-bit address space is not primarily to make sure that addresses never run out, but rather to ensure that routing can be handled smoothly by keeping the address space unfragmented. This is seen as an improvement over IPv4, where a great number of discrete netblocks are often assigned to one organization.

I still think it's complete overkill

Re:Me too (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999451)

NAT really isn't anything more than a kludge, and despite a lot of work done to make some of the finickier protocols work through it, the point behind IPv6 is to create an address space sufficiently large that we don't have the provisioning problems that are evolving now. Is it overkill? Well, for 2005 there's no doubt. But IP4 was probably massive overkill in 1980. The point here is that these artificial limits we've set (640k, IP4, two-digit years) eventually lead to very big hastles, and if we're going to have to find some new way to enlarge the address space, why not do it right?

Re:Me too (0)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999586)

NAT also has the side effect of security .. I don't think I want my fridge and toaster exposed to the internet without my trusty Linux NAT firewall between it.

Re:Me too (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999701)

The firewall's what is providing the security there. The NAT portion is doing the opposite, as it's opening up a route through the firewall.

Re:Me too (1, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999624)

You realize IPv6 has more IP's then there are atoms in the universe, right?

Re:Me too (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999719)

"if we're going to have to find some new way to enlarge the address space, why not do it right?"

"You realize IPv6 has more IP's then there are atoms in the universe, right?"

Surely if we have more IPs than it is possible to need (unless for some reason you want to give them to individual particles, which I doubt) it's been done right as we'll *never* run out, instead of finding in 2100 we have to do this all over again?

Re:Me too (4, Interesting)

eric76 (679787) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999739)

You realize IPv6 has more IP's then there are atoms in the universe, right?

Just think of all these worms scanning blocks of IP addresses somewhat randomly for vulnerable machines. It's a target rich environment.

Now imagine that we were using IPv6 instead. With a random approach to scanning, many of those worms would take years before they happened to locate an actual computer.

Of course, those writing the worms would have to switch to non-random techniques. But someone who is reasonably careful (i.e. didn't use Internet Exploder and Outhouse Express), they could have a system wide open to exploitation without it ever being exploited.

Re:Me too (1)

SnowDeath (157414) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999643)

Yes, but the design calls for 64 bit network address space... Reasonable...
And then it calls for 64 bit host address space. meaning there can be as many computers in your network as there are networks in the world. Convenient, but complete overkill as it lacks the ability to personally manage your host network address space with a memorizable number. Though actually I believe recent versions do allow personal host addressing.. its still overkill.

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999668)

the point behind IPv6 is to create an address space sufficiently large that we don't have the provisioning problems that are evolving now.
So why not just proxy/tunnel IPv4 over IPv4? [google.com] You say double encapsulation overhead, I say that the fuckwits uploading a bunch of >1MB jpegs to their blog don't care.

Re:Me too (4, Insightful)

exaviger (928938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999694)

Nicely put, just to stengthen your point - a little historical snippet "In the early days of mainframe computing, resources were at a premium. Memory was expensive, disk storage was limited and input devices constrained. Every programming method was used that made efficient use of each component. One of the methods used was to truncate the year value to a two digit number for entry, storage and processing. This saved space and saved on the associated cost of storage and processing. After all, why enter and store the century portion of the date when it will always be 19? Right? It would be decades before the year 2000. By then, all the programs and hardware being used would be obsolete and replaced with newer equipment and programs." Do we not learn from our mistakes? Calling IPv6 overkill is silly, why should we not overkill? Why not make sure that for the next century every electronic device will be able to have its own unique IP address. NAT is all good and well but what about the growing number of mobile devices, what about some services that dont work behind NAT? Who knows what will happen in 5,10,50 years. Soon every single vehicle, vending machine, traffic light and any other electronic device will require and IP address be it public or local. I am all for IPv6!

Re:Me too (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999399)

Replying to your offtopic....it must be a problem with either the server or your understanding of how to configure it.

There is nothing in the protocol that says you can't run multiple IP subnets over the same physical wires, and in fact I do it all the time.

Re:Me too (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999573)

There is nothing in the protocol that says you can't run multiple IP subnets over the same physical wires, and in fact I do it all the time.

Just to clarify, I have no trouble running two subnets on the same physical LAN, the problem is using DHCP on both subnets. Let's say we have a "private" subnet and a "public" subnet. I've got a database of known MAC addresses, from which I build dhcpd.conf. If I get a DHCP request from a computer with a known MAC, I want to assign it a static IP address on the "private" subnet. If I get a DHCP request from a computer with an unknown MAC, I want to assigned it a dynamic IP from a range on the "public" subnet. Firewall rules on the router would prevent machines on the "public" subnet from accessing systems on the "private" subnet.

Obviously security wouldn't be perfect; anyone with a packet sniffer can see what's going on and it wouldn't affect non-IP traffic (e.g. AppleTalk, IPX, etc.). My problem is, dhcpd will absolutely refuse to run if you have IP aliases on Linux (e.g. eth0 and eth0:0), doesn't work correctly if you bind dhcpd to two NICs that are both plugged into the same switch, and ignores the configuration for the other subnet if you only bind it to one NIC.

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999731)

My problem is, dhcpd will absolutely refuse to run if you have IP aliases on Linux (e.g. eth0 and eth0:0),
Did you try aliasing both to "eth0"? This is possible using the "iproute" tools.

Scalability. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999447)

Instead of hacking IPmasq'ing to work with P2P protocols, just implement a system where there are enough addresses for everyone's PC, phone, etc.

As for you ISC DHCP problem, you can assign whatever address blocks you want to. You just need to setup the correct criteria and have a way to recognize it. The easiest way is to assign one block to particular MAC's an a different block to regular boxes.

Re:Scalability. (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999599)

As for you ISC DHCP problem, you can assign whatever address blocks you want to. You just need to setup the correct criteria and have a way to recognize it. The easiest way is to assign one block to particular MAC's an a different block to regular boxes.

If you mean two different ranges within the same subnet, that's what I eventually wound up doing, but I couldn't get it to work with two different subnets. See my reply here. [slashdot.org]

Don't use a virtual adapter. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999789)

Just assign a secondary IP address to that card. Bind9 should be able to handle multiple addresses per card, as long as they aren't virtual. The problem appears to be how the broadcast packets are received and there really isn't any way to handle that with a virtual card.

But a secondary address should be able to handle it as the initial request will go to the primary address, an address will the issued, and future updates will be seen on that same card, but via the secondary address.

Re:Me too (5, Insightful)

cnlohfin3109 (758597) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999492)

IPv6 gives us more then just more address space. The ip is designed heirarchally(sp) which will help _significantly_ with routing, decreasing tables etc. Not to mention not wasting time havening to check checksums all the time... cause there is none! Its silly if we get into the terabit speeds and still wasting so much time just tring to route the ethernet frames, not to mention the sheer processing power required by a router for those speeds.

sp (1)

jasongetsdown (890117) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999627)

"heirarchally(sp)"

hierarchically

Re:Me too (1)

stef0x77 (529972) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999528)

* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?

Are you serious? This sort of question takes the credence out of the rest of your post. It's because DHCP uses physical link broadcast (ie: 255.255.255.255 and also strange addresses like 0.0.0.0) to do it's work.

Of course there's ways to do what you want to do, but it's not simple on any level. You can use use VLAN aware equipment and OS and have isc-dhcp listen on the two vlan NICs. Or you can record all the MAC addresses for the "other" subnet in dhcpd.conf.

Re:Me too (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999711)

It's because DHCP uses physical link broadcast (ie: 255.255.255.255 and also strange addresses like 0.0.0.0) to do it's work.

Of course the request is broadcast everywhere, and running two DHCP servers on the same physical LAN can't work. I only want to run one DHCP server, and have it assign IPs on different subnets depending on MAC.

You can use use VLAN aware equipment and OS and have isc-dhcp listen on the two vlan NICs.

This has been suggested to me. In this particular case, I don't have any VLAN switches and can't justify buying them.

Or you can record all the MAC addresses for the "other" subnet in dhcpd.conf.

Hmm, what do you mean? I tried what I think you're suggesting, and dhcpd ignored them. More details here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999567)

Because, which IP would it assign? How would it determine that? If they're on the same physical LAN, then both subnets are receiving the broadcast for a DHCP EQ.
I've done this before, but with using "reservations". I used it to create a pseudo-captive portal system, where "registered" computers (their MACs) were reserved a particular address, and anything that wasn't reserved was assigned an address out of a pool of "untrusted addresses", with a different IP range and mask, whose gateway ended up being a webserver which responded to requests for ANY site (google,msn.com, etc) with an error "Your computer is not registered, click here"...

So, TrustedComputer sends a DHCP REQ broadcast, DHCP server gives it "192.168.1.1", with proper gateway details, etc
BadComputer sends a DHCP REQ broadcast, DHCP server gives it an "unreserved address" of, say, "172.16.1.1", with a "captive portal" webserver as the gateway.

It helps to stop random laptops plugging into your network and using your internet connection, but in reality, it affords no protection to anyone who has half an idea of what's going on. The user can still assign a static IP in the allowed range with the proper gateway, or change their MAC address and re-request a proper IP, and they can still contact anything that's on your local LAN.

I wrote a fairly simple method of doing it here:
http://www.freebsdfreaks.net/old_articles/simple_m ac_registration.html [freebsdfreaks.net]
This one here is way weirder, is a more of a complicated way of doing it, including using ipfw2 to block requests from non-registered MAC addresses:
http://www.freebsdfreaks.net/posts/freebsd_forced_ mac_registration_captive_portal_howto.html [freebsdfreaks.net]
The instructions may be outdated or incomplete by now.

I hope you find it useful. Please drop me a line if you see anything askew, as I haven't had time to fix much on there lately. :-)

Cheers!

Problems with IPV6 (1)

mrsbrisby (60242) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999595)

People don't seem to understand that IPV6 isn't the Internet. It's something else that nobody is on and nobody wants on because nobody is there.

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html [cr.yp.to]

IPV6 is being led by fools that are convinced that IPV6 is solely "a matter of time". Fact is, they have no transition plan, and until they do, they're going to continue to get laughed at.

I have recommended on numerous occasions that the simplest solution is to freeze the IANA and require TCP and UDP services publish their ports in DNS, and while we're at it, deprecate every record but NS, PTR, SRV and A. Make it a requirement right now.

Existing installations have it easy- they simply publish SRV records that contain the port numbers they already are using. New installations get to contact one less central authority about addressing, and at the rate that primary Internet vehicles (web browsers and email clients) are being deprecated for bugs, client deployment could be had in as little as 6 months.

You wouldn't need to add new configuration to your clients, and you wouldn't need to change anywhere near as much software as needs changing for IPV6. Best part: you'd increase the public internet address space by almost 16 bits- giving us almost 68,719,476,736 addresses or room for each person on the planet to publish 10 uniquely and immediately addressable services each - and that's without reallocating existing blocks- you do that and the number skyrockets to nearly 281,474,976,710,656 - which is enough addresses for everyone ON THE PLANET to publish 46,912 similarly immediately addressable services right now.

In contrast, IPV6 not only has to do all the work I suggest, but it has to replace every client and every server- regardless of whether or not they are going to benefit from the increased address space and complexity and they'll need to change the configuration files and configuration databases of those programs as well to accommodate the larger addresses.

But this will never happen: IPV6 is being run by people who think A6/DNAME records are a good idea.

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999674)

But assuming we really do need more IPs, why IPv6? Why 128 bits instead of, say, 64? Why build the functionality of DHCP, which (mostly) works perfectly well* and is extensible enough to support cool stuff that hadn't been thought of when IPv4 and DHCP were invented (e.g. WPAD, netbooting), into IP? What's the deal with including your MAC address as part of your IP address?

I'm a bit behind on IPv6, but I was under the impression that it was just IPv4, but with longer addresses. What funkyness is in IPv6 that involves DHCP and MAC?

And the 128 vs 64 is number of address. Remember the number of addresses go up exponentially with address size. 128 bits is enough to give every toaster-sized chunck of mass on (and in!) the Earth a unique IP address. We don't want to have to switch to a new system again in 30 years.

Re:Me too (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999716)

It just seems to be the only solution anyone has offered, and a lot of money has been spent bringing it closer to reality.

So, convince me: why is IPv6 the right answer to the problem?

It works, it is the only solution anyone has offered that isn't a kludge like NAT (which is problematic to say the very least) and it is probably sufficiently large that we will not run into address shortages unless we develop faster-than-light communications and colonize other planets and/or systems.

There's no particular reason not to go 128 bit, especially since we already have processors that can handle 128 bit datatypes in a single operation. Not to mention, that's not actually necessary in many cases...

Re:Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999734)

and it'd be great if my refrigerator had a web-based interface I could access remotely without setting up port forwarding or a VPN, etc.)


Right now you may want your refrigerator to have access to the internet, that is until some scr1p7 k1dd13 h4x0r3s into your refrigerator and turns it off and ruins all of your food.

First! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999335)

Oh joy! I'm first!

Walk in shower. (-1, Redundant)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999362)

so i have a pretty big walk in shower and i usually sit down naked and let the water hit me. i know it def has enough room for 2 people. so im sitting down taking a shower and this big ma fucker almost goes on my thigh. im sorry but my dick is exposed and i do not want any spider on it, or biting it or whatever. god that was sooo nasty.

Re:Walk in shower. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999448)

so i have a pretty big walk in shower and i usually sit down naked and let the water hit me. i know it def has enough room for 2 people. so im sitting down taking a shower and this big ma fucker almost goes on my thigh. im sorry but my dick is exposed and i do not want any spider on it, or biting it or whatever. god that was sooo nasty..

Re:Walk in shower. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999570)

i have a morning ritual that i need to share. i call it "the terminator". first, i crouch down in the shower in the classic "naked terminator traveling through time" pose. with my eyes closed i crouch there for a minute, visualizing either arnold or the guy from the second movie (not the chick in the third one because that one sucked) and i start to hum the terminator theme. then i slowly rise to a standing position and open my eyes. it helps me to proceed through my day as an emotionless cyborg badass. the only problem is if the shower curtain sticks to my terminator leg. it ruins the fantasy.

Something I don't get... (2, Interesting)

Analise (782932) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999364)

Why the emphasis on NAT boxes saving the day? Why do people think they're so wonderful and with them, we don't need no stinkin' ipv6? I mean, yeah, they've been useful and I'm not disputing that, but I'm not sure they were ever intended as anything beyond a stopgap measure until something better could be found. Not to mention that, as I understand it, they actually impede certain methods of communication over the Internet (anything that needs a real end-to-end connection, I think).

Yes, ipv6 still has a ways to go, but I honestly think it's a much better alternative than sticking with what we've got. We're going to have to do somethinga bout it anyway, since there are plenty of people already starting to use it, or will be in the future.

Re:Something I don't get... (3, Insightful)

Daedala (819156) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999381)

Sometimes, it's good that NAT impedes some forms of communication. Like, say, exploits.

Re:Something I don't get... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999485)

One does not need NAT to lock up vulnerable ports. I have a Linux-based firewall that covers my public IP Windows boxes, and it works fine.

I am sick of this argument. (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999589)

If client-based firewalls ar eso great, then why doesn't IBM and Ford and the Fortune 500 have all their PCs connected directly to the web and install personal firewalls? Answer?

  - Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT

  - You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment

Thus, corperations have no need or desitre to have all their terminals directly connected to the internet. Thus, they don't need IPv6. Thus, the vast majority of computers *in the world* (business use still trumps home use by a factor of like 5 to 1) do not need it.

Re:I am sick of this argument. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999704)

You obviously doesn't have a clue about how firewalls work since you're suggesting "personal firewalls".
The thing with NAT is that it basically needs a "stateful firewall" to work. There's no reason at all not to set up a stateful firewall without the address translation part, thus not breaking end to end communication while keeping the comfortable warmth of you firewall "security". //fatal

Re:I am sick of this argument. (1)

Trevahaha (874501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999733)

Who mentioned a client-side firewall? I know I used to run a network with a Gibraltar firewall protecting all my Windows boxes. It was great, I allowed specific ports to be public (i.e Remote Desktop). Private IP space on our LAN with one-to-one public translation. With IPv6 this would be possible for everyone to do. It empowers you to have options, not be locked with saying "I have one public IP address for these 50 devices."

Re:I am sick of this argument. (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999779)

"- Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT"
They'd all still go through a IPV6 Router replacing the NAT box. So you replace one piece of equipment, but the rest (LAN + computers) is identical.

"- You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment"
Then get one which only admins can configure.

Re:Something I don't get... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999478)

Why the emphasis on haveing everything with a open internet address? 90% of all computres and devices should NOT be on the internet and behind a NAT.

Fools think they need EVERYTIHNG with an internet address. The truth is that even if you could your ISP will not let you have mre than 1 so you will be doig NAT anyways.

DUH.

get real, toute the real advantages if IPV6 not the stupid nat issue.

Two reasons. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999479)

#1. It allows you to run multiple boxes at home WITHOUT having to pay extra for a "family" connection plan.

#2. Cheap and easy way to block worms and such.

Re:Something I don't get... (1)

HMC CS Major (540987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999483)

A few advantages of NAT over IPV6 in a 'business' setting:
1) Most default NAT configs will actually prevent internal networks from the trivial overflows that just scan IP address blocks.
2) Most default NAT configs will work with existing or very inexpensive gear, meaning there's almost no cost involved (other than 'time').
3) NAT doesn't require renumbering existing services.
4) NAT allows conservation of IPV4 at a corporate level; a /20 can be stretched a LOOOONG with some basic NAT in front of the corporate desktops.

Here s abetter question, for you (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999493)

Why do we need all these freaking IP addresses anyway? I, for one, do *not* want my house, and fridge, or even my home PC for that matter, connected directly to the web. I have to deal with enogh virii and trojans and crap as it is, without worrying about if the OS on my fridge is updated with the latest patch to fix the buffer overflow on the mayonaise level access port.

What is wrong with having to go through a VPN login procedure to access these types of services? Whats the big deal? You log into the NAT access point, the *only* thing in your house on the web, and from there you can get to any other device. It is *not* that hard people.

I personally do not see any need or use for all these new IP blocks people seem to think we need. No copanies will put their workstations directly on the web, it is a huge security risk. What is the business/use case for IPv6? What does it give you, when you don't want to connect devices directly to the internet anyway?

Re:Here s abetter question, for you (2, Interesting)

Trevahaha (874501) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999797)

Because your recommended solution is a patch for the problem. So what if you don't want it, maybe I do want a public IP address for a fridge that I want everyone to have access to. Having IPv6 doesn't destroy NATs - you can still do it.

It's a matter of people saying "but I don't want to change!"
I'm excited that I could have a chance to reserve a person IP range for myself. I'm excited that the cost of IP addresses would fall because they are no longer a commodity. Why can't we realize that this gives us more options, it doesn't destroy the old ones.

"IPv4 loyalists" (4, Insightful)

FirienFirien (857374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999377)

What are the chances that the term "IPv4 loyalists" includes those who just have no reason to make the effort to shift to the new system? Considering the number of [people, admins, even that amusing case where MS didn't patch its own servers] who don't even download security patches - the shift to a parallel system while the old system still works fine just isn't going to happen in droves.

What's in a name? (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999379)

is well ahead of adoption in this market so everyone is deferring.

Maybe it will be IPv7 by the time it's adopted.

Better yet, why not name it IPv2005, so everyone will have to take it up by the end of the year lest they be left behind? Sure sounds better than IPvXP or IPvVista, doesn't it?

Average people (1)

ForumTroll (900233) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999408)

IPv6, I'm sure, will eventually be implemented however it's going to be a very slow process. The average person doesn't want to replace their routers etc. because all they want is simple Internet access to browse a few web sites (online banking etc.) and send email. Most of these people are not interested in upgrading because it costs money and also is a pain in the ass for them to take time out of their lives to do so. From the perspective of the average Joe, it's the "If it's not broke why fix it" syndrome and I can't say I blame them. Most people simply don't care enough to spend the money and effort to upgrade for what they see as little or no benefit.

One Reason Alone is Enough (5, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999423)

One reason alone is enough to make IPv6 a "good idea." Permanent static IP addresses for everything.

I, for one, will welcome the end of the NAT kludge.

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (2, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999491)

One reason alone is enough to make IPv6 a "good idea." Permanent static IP addresses for everything.
I, for one, will welcome the end of the NAT kludge.

And your ISP will charge you for each Address you use!
NAT let's you use ONE IP from you ISP and have as many Internal IPs as you which without being gouged.

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999672)

So does NAT not function with IPv6?

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (2, Interesting)

operagost (62405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999693)

And your ISP will charge you for each Address you use!
In a scheme where there are enough available addresses to give one to every grain of sand, the laws of supply and demand suggest that the value of each IP address will approach zero.

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999804)

I pay $3 a month for an extra IP. If the price scales with availability, that means they should charge me $.00004 a month on IPv6 for an extra IP.

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (1)

hpa (7948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999541)

One reason alone is enough to make IPv6 a "good idea." Permanent static IP addresses for everything.

You know that one of the working assumptions of IPv6 is that your ISP can change your netblock prefix at any time, right?

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (1, Insightful)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999542)

As a network engineer, I see your statement and laugh. NAT is the only thing keeping the internet together. Without NAT, the impact of worms and vulnerabilities would be so much worse than it is now the results would be unspeakable. NAT is the best way in general for networks to attach to the internet because it creates a "protected" zone where inbound transactions can't get to--and this is GOOD.

Re:One Reason Alone is Enough (2, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999654)

That's what firewalls are for. Not NAT.

Privacy please. (1)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999609)

I don't think I want a permanent static IP address. I know ISPs keep logs, but I'd rather not have web sites or people gathering data about me be able to count on that IP always being a single person (me).

I'm still waiting... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999427)

Personally, I'm still waiting for ipv8 which will purportedly allow me to have an IP address for every cell in my body. The only thing I haven't worked out is how to run 6*10^13 spam filters.

Re:I'm still waiting... (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999591)

Trust me, it's hard on the liver.

Moving Day at IPv4 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999432)

"No one is running IPv6, because there is no business case for it ... if we really wanted to leave a legacy to our children we'd review the crap we have today which is pretty ghastly ...""

More like there's no easy upgrade path. The x86 survived and grew exactly because one could move from one generation to another. IPv6 doesn't have that advantage.

Market Forces (5, Insightful)

bizitch (546406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999435)

Just like anything else, market forces will dictate when this gets adopted.

Are we really running out of IPv4 numbers? The market will tell us.

Is there a killer app for IPv6? The market will tell us.

Can we ram IPv6 down everyone's throat? The market will retailiate and hit back.

BTW - what's with this "wont somebody please think of the children" bullshit about? If we need to get to IPv6 - we'll get to it - relax already!

Re:Market Forces (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999590)

Who's this market you're talking about? Oh wait, the market is US. That means when we are talking about IP6 instead of relaxing about it as you suggest, we're one of those mysterious market forces that you talk about, pushing IPv6 forward.

If you are telling us to relax and let the "market" do our work for us, then you obviously don't understand what a market is, and you don't believe your own rhetoric.

Market? Or cynical manipulation? (5, Insightful)

DoctorNathaniel (459436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999759)

"The death of IPv4 has not really killed the Internet. In fact, far from it, we've managed to make an industry around it."

In other words, by keeping IPv4, we can sell NAT boxes (which we're already selling in huge numbers.. the wireless network hub in my den is a prime example.) Cisco has a big investment in building hardware to take care of IP space limitiations.

"You will still be able to get addresses, if you pay for them, because a market will appear."

In other words, this damned internet isn't making us enough money, because IP addresses are free. We want people to start trading them, so we can get commissions on the sales.

It's clear that this is "good buisiness" for the big internet companies: why invest in a new system that will make users's lives cheaper and easier when we can continue to sell patches on the old stuff, and make a market so that we can start charging the freeloaders?

It's also clear to me that the only way IPv6 will get adopted is if public bodies start using them and demanding their use. For instance, if Internet2, the US military, or all of .gov start adopting, then it will get off the ground. Of course, this is unlikely to happen because Cisco doesn't sell IPv6 switches.

I'm no expert, but to my cynical eye it looks not like market forces, but like the usual problems with capitalism exploiting a local maximum and avoiding short-term risk.

----Nathaniel

Re:Market Forces (1)

manno (848709) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999761)

Is there a killer app for IPv6. Yes it's call IP Over Power Lines

Re:Market Forces (2, Informative)

tenchiken (22661) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999806)

A few things to remember, this isn't the first time that technical purists have tried to change the underlying protocol for the internet for logistical reasons. The first Attempt [wikipedia.org] at replacing TCP/IP internet wide was far more braindead then IPv6 (packet size of 53 bytes? Yeah, let's ship everything around in a packet size that not only is not a power of two, it's a large prime number! Oh and for traffic control, let's just drop everything into a leaky bucket!)

However, it's been clear ever since IPv6 was introduced that it was signficantly larger and more complex then it needed to be. Not only is it not a sensible extension of IPv4 (which has proved it's durability over and over) it is requiring a whole new round of experience so we don't run into the same problems we hit in 88 and 89 before Van Jacobson [wikipedia.org] fixed TCP/IP.

I think that NAT and CIDR [wikipedia.org] have removed the need for IPv6 until the next iteration of technology requires it. It does not make any sense to migrate to the new technology before then.

obligatory (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999440)

I for one welcome our new IPv6 overlords!

Nobody likes to do an IP renumbering, but why forego progress to preserve the status quo? We already use IPv6 for internal stuff, but since there's little adoption, it isn't more than a novelty. I hope that with the explosion of embedded systems, we'll start to see more folks interested in adopting IPv6.

IPV6 128 bit addresses make no sense (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999457)

I don't see why IPV6 needs to have 128 bits for addresses. You can tag every atom in the universe with its own IPV6 address. Why not do something simple like just have every segment of TCP be a 16 bit value instead of a byte? That way you could have 12312.2342.121212.3423 as a valid network address, and, 2^64 addresses out to be enough for anybody...

Re:IPV6 128 bit addresses make no sense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999554)

640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Bill Gates, 1981.

Just because it's not need now doesn't mean that it won't ever be needed.

Re:IPV6 128 bit addresses make no sense (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999670)

Just because it's not need now doesn't mean that it won't ever be needed.

128 bits of IP addresses will never be needed. That's 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 different IP addresses. A sparse address space is part of the design, apparently.

Re:IPV6 128 bit addresses make no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999635)

No, 121212 doesn't fit in 16 bits.

Re:IPV6 128 bit addresses make no sense (1)

cnlohfin3109 (758597) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999653)

"Hierarchical Routing" In a tree sometimes there will be huge branches that will never get used. IPv4 looks hierarchical but routing occurs on the netid part of the address which is flat, not hierarchical.

Three Items: Vista, Home Autmation, and Search. (5, Interesting)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999461)

Windows Vista will make IPv6 the protocol of choice. You can bind IPv4 and IPv6 in different orders on the NIC and it will enable great support for the protocol. They are even talking about having it running as part of the default install.

MS is developing Vista to enable programmers to push Home Automation. One thing they are doing is adding in that area is the functionality for IP's to securely be handled like a plug and play device. This isn't for printers on a network; it's for all the appliances in your house. IPv4 just doesn't work well for home automation. Also another sign is the majority of GE prototypes all are geared towards IPv6 not IPv4.

The regional specs that come with IPv6 are also huge things for MSN, Google, and Yahoo. It will allow your search (and Ads for that matter) results for a "pizza place" to give you the ones in your area without any additional info.

Vista will start the ball rolling, and the other two items will make the transition come very quickly. Security is also nice, and will help stop allot of traditional hacking, but the end user doesn't get excited about that. They will get excited about the other stuff though.

Two years from now we will start to see IPv6 becoming very common.

Re:Three Items: Vista, Home Autmation, and Search. (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999677)

I didn't think of this before, but how does IPv6 fit into the whole DRM scheme of things. Isn't your IPv6 address tied to your Mac address? Will Microsoft be able to track you based on this fixed IPv6 address?

IPv6 - too little, too late (1, Insightful)

hpa (7948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999466)

Cisco is probably one of the companies responsible for IPv6 being such a mess it is. The IP router vendors, led by Cisco, pushed for as few changes as possible over IPv4 in order to leverage expertise and be ready for deployment quickly. So far, so good. It's lifespan (until another switchover would be needed) was estimated at 30 years; this is roughly how long IPv4 has lasted since it's predecessor, NCP, was retired.

However, everyone involved completely underestimated the cost of switchover and overestimated its rate of adoption. This ultimately means that IPv6 is not enough of an advancement to justify its deployment costs. The end result is that IPv6 is already one-quarter through its estimated 30-year lifespan and it isn't even widely deployed yet.

I suspect that what we need is an IPv7 that would include:

  • No fixed size address space limit.
  • Removal of the arbitrary distinction of hosts and ports in favour of a unified end point specifier.
  • Routing assistance built into the transport protocols, to augment the current AS system.

If we start now, this might be deployable by 2020 or so... :-/

Re:IPv6 - too little, too late (0, Redundant)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999703)

You forget the most important feature (and the reason for failure of IPv6):

- a smooth migration path from the older versions of the protocol

Without such a migration path, nobody will ever switch.

It is like the early versions of Windows, that had to be able to run DOS applications or nobody would have made the switch.

It was dumb, just plain DUMB, to not consider this when designing IPv6.

New == Scary! (1)

b3x (586838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999470)

Anything new is of course going to be resisted by PHB's until PC World does an article describing how great it is ... then the PHB's will want IPV6 is designer colors.

The IPv4 scarcity issue is a myth (4, Funny)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999509)

There are plenty of addresses in northern Alaska that aren't being used. "Peak IPv4" indeed.

Geoff Huston's changing story (3, Interesting)

wayne (1579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999525)

Geoff Huston is the one mentioned in this article that IPv4 address exhaustion isn't a problem. It isn't a problem because scares IP addresses lets ISP charge more. I'm not sure that consumers would agree with this logic.

In July 2003, Geoff said that IPv4 addresses will run out in two decades [potaroo.net] .

About two years later, Goeff says that IPv4 addresses will run out in just one decade [potaroo.net] .

So, if even very anti-IPv6 folks are saying that IPv4 addresses will run out sooner than expected, I think it is time to start preparing to the conversion.

IPv4 and change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999530)

People who don't want us to switch to ipv6 .. it's like going from horse and buggy to cars.

Yes, horse and buggy is a low cost transportation method that works ..but does that mean we should not improve on it? But cars are better. Just because the world still goes around without ipv6, doesnt mean things won't improve wih IPv6. Think of all the benefits .. devices and cell phones with voip that allow multiple device presence. Improved QoS (quality of service) features. More people in developing countries able to run servers/blogs cheaply at home enabled because they no longer have to be natted. etc. Emergency services made possible by ubiquitous addressable wirless devices. List is endless.

NAT Separation Good??? (2, Informative)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999544)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NAT and the separation of networks a good thing, security wise? (Obviously there are other measures needed, but it plays a part..) Even if we had IP6 it seems we'd still want DMZs and the like. Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from the articles, but it seems like they're emphasizing everyone being able to have an IP address on a common network essentially - instead of the Internet being a network connecting a bunch of private networks. I don't know about you, but I feel much safer having my computers on a private network connected via one IP and a router than I would having all of them exposed.

Re:NAT Separation Good??? (2, Informative)

hpa (7948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999596)

NAT and firewalling are completely separate things. Since they're done at network boundaries, they are usually combined in one device, but they don't have to be.


NAT is a pretty bad thing. Unfortunately the IPv6 people haven't considered the requirements for managing that large of an address space except by hierarchy (which breaks as soon as you want to have a backup link to another ISP), so I fear we'll still have to have NAT in an IPv6 world.

Re:NAT Separation Good??? (1)

imunfair (877689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999662)

I wasn't even bringing firewalls into the equation - NAT would force you to forward ports, etc. thus providing somewhat of a security benefit - right? (At least from the outside-in perspective)

VideoConferencing and VOIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999740)

To enable incoming calls for VOIP and video conferencing to a machine you need a public IP address. Without one you need a mediator (another host on the internet which you are connected to like instane messaging networks operate). P2P based video broadcasting technologies and similar are unable to operate. Essentially having you locked up behind NAT allows companies to charge for services created by restrictions that were not part of the original internet.

A NAT gateway works like a firewall in the same way that tearing out the eyes of a child prevents them from seeing porn, it cripples.

privacy (1)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999568)

am i the only one concerned about the geographical portion of the addressing and the issues with privacy this brings up?

WSIS, I wonder if this will be discussed... (1)

Osrin (599427) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999571)

... next week. In theory under IPv6 we can be less protective with IP address space, and give the UN and Europeans some portion of it to manage in whatever way they see fit. I doubt anybody present will be thinking beyond the raw policy issues sadly.

IPv6 and Network Troubleshooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999576)

I do firewall management and support for a fairly well known Managed Security Service Provider. I deal a lot with troubleshooting complex issues with multiple parties on conference bridges. In the process of troubleshooting, I rely heavily the relay of IP address information to figure out the flow of traffic and to determine what the issue is.

The quality of the bridges are not always perfect, while the bridge itself is usually trouble free, frequently there are participants in noisy situations or someone on their cell phone with a poor connection.

At times relaying IPv4 information can be difficult and it is often mis-heard or needs to be repeated several times. I dread the day where IPv6 is the norm. It just increases the complexity of sharing IP information, and not all IP's I deal with have a DNS name associated with it so I will be dealing solely with the 128 bit hex address.

Demand (1)

ChodeMonkey (65149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999579)

IPv4 will likely remain around for quite some time until there is a sudden demand for new (globally accessable) IP addresses. If there is a sudden spike in the demand for IP addresses then it is likely that some companies will choose to adopt IPv6 instead of opting for a stopgap measure that may not save the day for very long.

The question people should ask is what type of device/application will emerge such that everyone wants a new global IP address (or 10)? Consider that if it were not for email and porn most people would have not linked up to the internet and the IPv4 addresses would still be being slowly chewed up by the academic and government agencies that grew out of ARPANET.

Unless the RATE at which new global IPv4 addresses are needed increases people will be totally fine putting up with stopgap measures.

Accountability and economy... (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999600)

I think because ip v6 is too strict when it comes to accountability is what is keeping it from being popular. Why? because all processes including economies need a lubricant to keep this process running smoothly. Corruption is the economies lubricant, while too much make the economy slide into oblivian, too little will grind the economy into a standstill. The proper answer for a healthy economy is balance between corruption and accountability. Any law or technology that will disturb the balance either way will cause a disturbance in the force (all people making decisions where and how much to invest).

My conclusion is that the majority of investors see a more or less balanced internet as it is now and are afraid to disturb that balance.

Of course you can have your own opinion about this.

Backwards compatible? Er... yeah. (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999608)

Internet Protocol Version 6 is a backwards-compatible replacement for the current Internet protocol

Is this true? I was under the impression that the compatibility more or less ended at the socket API. Is the v4 address space actually mapped in to the v6 address space now so that hosts with v4 addresses are automatically capable of talking v6 if there is a v6 path?

No? That's what I thought. No, you have to go buy (cha-ching) seperate v6 space a number all your servers and routers with two seperate addresses, one v4 and one v6, manage new DNS for your v6 hosts, etc. etc. v1 had more compatibility with v4 than v4 has with v6. At least with the move to v4 the existing registrations mapped in to the new address space.

Feel free to point me at the documentation that says I'm wrong about this. No, really, I would like to be wrong about this. But last I heard they wanted to start the registration process over from scratch with this move and that means you don't have backwards compatibility.

Follow the money (1)

MedManDC (536578) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999610)

The only reason these guys are against IPv6 is that they make money selling the ever-scarcer IPv4 addresses. Take away the scarcity, take away their profits. That's why they object.

Re:Follow the money (1)

planetoid (719535) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999727)

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if certain bloated, wiretap-happy government agencies (they know who they are) are also nervous about private companies and organizations adopting IPv6 without legally requiring for some kind of backdoor decryption in the IPsec portion.

Sounds stupid right? All the more reason to assume that some government agency is thinking about it.

Why doesn't Slashdot support it yet? (4, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999611)

calum@www1 calum $ ping6 www.slashdot.org
unknown host
calum@www1 calum $
Cmon, Slashdot. insmod ipv6.o

NAT is not the answer! (4, Insightful)

kasparov (105041) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999631)

Anyone who has to deal with SIP absolutely hates NAT. SIP [faqs.org] is a VoIP protocol that is pretty much where everything is headed. Some instant messenger clients/servers even use it. And it is most definitely not NAT-friendly. In SIP, the call setup information and the media can travel differnt paths. This means that endpoints can comunicate directly without having to send media through a central location. Since the SIP message contains a description of what ports to expect the audio to arrive on in the body of the packet, NAT boxes will generally block the media coming from the other device. 90% of the problems that VoIP providers end up having to deal with is NAT-related.

You have to go to all kinds of lengths (using special session border controllers, media proxies, etc.) to be able to support SIP calls where one or both parties are behind a NAT. It is awful. NAT is a hack--a useful one in certain situations, but still a hack.

Two big issues (2, Insightful)

augustz (18082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999633)

One is, despite the claims that IPv4 will run out in the next "x" years and companies will be screwed, that never happens.

Worst case, folks will figure out how to get by on 1-2 ip addresses, or pay more than the $1/month or so to get an extra. There are TONS of unused, unrouted addresses out there through the entire hierarchy, from subnets, class b's etc.

Second, IPv6 and you can what? If I run IPv6 only, I need to at some point tunnel to IPv4 (and often get an IPv4 address anyways) to connect to the rest of the net. If I run just IPv4, I can connect to everything, and the first person who develops google that is IPv6 ONLY is going to have very few users.

In other words, the business case is flat out not there.

Also, I never understood why IPv4 wasn't just a subset of IPv6? Why can't my existing IPv4 addresses also be IPv6 addresses with a standard prefix? Maybe this has changed, but when IPv6 came out it looked like that wasn't part of it.

If my address was a subset, my ISP could create IPv6 endpoints for my address along with the IPv4 routing, even if I hadn't upgraded. They'd just strip the prefix and forward to me.

Re:Two big issues (2, Informative)

hpa (7948) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999688)

Also, I never understood why IPv4 wasn't just a subset of IPv6? Why can't my existing IPv4 addresses also be IPv6 addresses with a standard prefix? Maybe this has changed, but when IPv6 came out it looked like that wasn't part of it.

They are, the prefix is ffff::/96. In addition, there is 6to4, which lets you use your IPv4 address as a 48-bit IPv6 prefix, 2002:<IPv4 address>/48.

The problem is... who will deploy the first IPv4-unreachable Internet service?

Callous and unabashed greed (1)

skwirlmaster (555307) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999636)

Honestly, that article is ridiculous. The idea that IPv6 won't be rolled out because IP address hording is going to be marketable. Sure thing. I can totally see myself paying an inflated amount of money for the privilege of hosting a web server.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I see a lot of people deciding that they don't care to spend a boat load of money on services they can put on IPv6. SSH for example, if all I need is a SSH server, or an extranet server, or something that has no need of being globally available, I don't think I would buy an IPv4 address for the privilege of making it available to the old net.

When/If the IP address market really gets going I foresee a real migration to the IPv6 space. Furthermore, hobbyists and technophiles will begin to move to IPv6, the rest will follow.

Ahhh APNIC (1)

Havokmon (89874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999645)

"No one is running IPv6, because there is no business case for it ." says a senior Internet research scientist from Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (Apnic)

Oddly enough, I've just recently flat out banned large portions of APNIC from signing up with my email service because I've gotten so many spammers from there ... coincidence? Maybe. In all my dealings regarding spam, they just seem ass-backwards over there.

IPv6 Considered "Production Grade" (5, Informative)

netrangerrr (455862) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999659)

At Tuesday's IETF meeting in Vancouver the vote for consensus was many for and none against elevating the IPv6 Protocol Standards from "draft Standard" to "Internet Standard" and make them part of the everyday production Internet. The IPv6 WG is even shutting down as it has accomplished its mission and designed a good working protcol. The wired and wireless networks provided for the engineers at the IETF is running IPv6 and we are regularly using it to get information from our working group colloboration sites like: www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/

Don't fear, the IETF V6 Operations (V6OPS) team and the IPv6 Forum will continue work to better clarify how to deploy IPv6 and to help build new network services around the new features. Most of the new network services groups in the IETF are basing new services on the features of IPv6 - early examples are Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Network Mobility (NEMO) both of which are being extended to offer IPv4 access through IPv6 tunnels in order to get IPv4 native service through IPv4 NAT.

If you actually have useful comments or design alternatives for IPv6, bring it up in IETF working group mailing lists [http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html%5D [ietf.org] . If you don't understand because of FUD, please read up on our North American IPv6 Task Force website website [ www.nav6tf.org/ ] or the similar European/Asian sites.

Legacy? Lol! (2, Funny)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999682)

Yeah because protocols are what we'll be remembered for!

IPv6 Addressing Debat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999685)

Much of the debate about the mechanics of how IPv6 gets rolled out takes place on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List [arin.net] (PPML). If you're interested in deciding the future of how this stuff will work, that's the place to start.

The Government is moving to IPv6 by 2008 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13999743)

Agencies may have until June 30, 2008, to transition to Internet Protocol Version 6.

Government Vendors have to be IPv6 enabled if you are going to want to continue to sell there.
http://www.gcn.com/IPv6/ [gcn.com]

How many is an undecillion? (1)

norminator (784674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999746)

According to wikipedia:

IPv6 is intended to address the concern of IPv4 address exhaustion.... IPv6 addresses this problem by supporting 340 undecillion (655368 3.4 × 1038) addresses.

And as we all know, 340 undecillion addresses ought to be enough for anyone!

I don't know whether or not there is a huge need to jump to IPv6 or not, but hasn't history shown us that even the seemingly "good enough" possible ranges aren't usually good enough forever (640k, Y2K, etc.)? Not that I have any idea how we could ever use up "430 quintillion (4.3 × 1020) unique addresses per square inch" (again, thanks to wikipedia), but who knows what novel ideas will come up in the future? Plus having so many unused addresses has its advantages, too, since it makes it harder (it would seem almost impossible) for hackers to randomly guess a valid address out of that big of a space, even with an automated script that could test millions of addresses in a short time.

IPv6 Solving Yesterday's Problem (1)

ChickenFan (887311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13999785)

One of the key principles of the Internet Protocol in its original usage was the idea that every entity has a unique address. The (Address,Protocol,Port) tuple identified a single connection endpoint.

NAT broke that by hiding many hosts behind a single address. Making it work required port forwarding to steer inbound connections to the appropriate internal host, TCP state tracking to allow many internal hosts to connect to external services and application layer gateways to fix NAT unfriendly protocols like FTP.

IPv6 steps in with its vast address space to save the day. All hosts will once again have a unique address... restoring order and peace to the Internet. Hurrah!

The problem is that now the game is security and privacy. We don't want all our hosts on the Internet. We want NAT and firewall and virus scanning. We don't want a firehose to the Internet we want a spyhole... with everything carefully controlled and protected.

IPv6 addresses a problem that nobody really cares about.

The IPv4 address space is running out... but the IETF and IAB are smart. The sky won't fall if IPv6 doesn't happen.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?