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!

How Things Will Change Under IPv6

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

The Internet 450

Da Massive writes "IPv6 Forum leader Latif Ladid provides an insight into the workings of IPv6. He also talks about how peer-to-peer file serving as we know it today will be redundant with the newer protocol." From the article: "Q: What is the most significant benefit that IPv6 offers the world? A: Global connectivity. Currently we have less than 50 percent world-wide Internet penetration, and we have used most of the address space. If you look at the Western world, we have more than 50 percent penetration. In total we have close to a billion people connected to the Internet. So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration. We have six billion people on the planet. When the Internet protocol was designed back in 1980 there were 4.3 billion address spaces; it was already insufficient for the population. By 2050 we will be nearly 10 billion people. But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people."

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

Haha... (0, Offtopic)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062593)

You said penetration.

Billions and billions of devices... (1, Funny)

zenmojodaddy (754377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062600)

I call it The Thingternet!

Re:Billions and billions of devices... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062662)

Oh come on, that's just thtupid.

service? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062606)

"Billions and billions of devices that will service these people."

huh???

Re:service? (2, Funny)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062649)

Like this : here [theregister.co.uk]

Re:service? (3, Funny)

Soybean47 (885009) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062809)

Oh, you know what they're talking about. Billions and billions of devices to "service" you. Ever increasing "penetration." What, you think this guy is wrong aobut the future of the internet? ;)

One thing that doesn't work (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062613)

Having to listen to damm public service anoucement asking us to help all the dumb little nigger children we got around here. Like they will ever amount to anything.

No one cares about little niggers running around, and we don't want to give them all of our hard earned money.

Re:One thing that doesn't work (-1, Offtopic)

d3ik (798966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062668)

Yeah, you can use that money to go back to school and learn how to spell 'announcement'. While you're at it you can work on pluralization. It's all a moot point though. I doubt the Arkansas 7-11 you work at would ever pay enough to put one of them (or you) through any type of secondary education.

YHBT YHL HAND..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062766)

R U A GayNigger??
from outer space perhaps?

wanna butt-hump on the boulevard?

Agreed. Niggers are garbage. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062832)

Niggers, whether over in Africa or hanging out on the street will never amount to anything. They are part of the low IQ underclass. They are absolute rubbish and like rubbish need to be disposed of.

Huh Huh Huh Huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062618)

You said Penetration.

Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (1, Interesting)

KinkoBlast (922676) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062622)

Like Jabber. if my IP was 1:2:3 then my fancy Intenet Coffee Pot would be 1:2:3:coffeepot1

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (3, Interesting)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062700)

How about if your domain name is blahblah.com, then your web server could be www.blahblah.com? It gets better: Your mail server could be mail.blahblah.com. And yes, your coffe pot could be coffeepot1.blahblah.com.

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (2, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062705)

Errr you did read the bit that said that IPv4 can't support the number of people on the planet already? Also you do know that all you are talking about is a secondary addressing approach (network 1 : 1.2.1.2, sub-network : 2.3.3.3) which is already possible on IPv4, but requires an agreed standard for the secondary networking approach.

Oddly secondary networks have been considered during all of this, but it was easier to update the primary network addresses rather than formalising NATs which had other issues.

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062819)

He used the colon notation (1:2:3) not the dot (1.2.3.4), so it's very likely he was talking about v6.

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (4, Interesting)

dslauson (914147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062733)

Not a terrible idea, but it assumes that end users are going to be able to figure out how to configure static IP addresses for all their devices, which is a pretty big assumption.

Plus, who would be in charge of assigning them? Would that mean that I have to register for an IP like I do for a domain name? Who's handing them out, the DMV? The Social Security office? The UN?

Also, it seems like it would be easy for hackers to mimic other people's IP address. Seems like maintenence nightmare.

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (2, Informative)

rekoil (168689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062921)

No need - your IPv6-enabled DSL/cable modem will contain a Router Advertisement Daemon [litech.org] that takes care off all that for you.

Re:Why not give PEOPLE addresses? (3, Informative)

Mercano (826132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062938)

It wouldn't really be routable. There would be no way figure out which way to send the packets for a given "address." For istance, under IP4, any router that sees a packet going to any machine with an address starting with 129.22 (one of the few blocks I know off the top of my head) knows that the packet should be pushed out a pipe that heads in the general direction of Cleveland. In fact, most routers probably work off even broder rules, with (just making this up, now), all address starting with 129.17-129.32 should be pushed out towards OAR net, then OARnet would do more focused routing in house.

With "people address", there are three problems. First, no way to generalize routing rules. Secondly, there is the fact that all your stuff might not be in the same place. Most of it is at your house, but some of it is at the vacation home. Finally, there is the problem that people, unlike IP4 address, tend to move arround alot, geographically speaking. Usually, if you move from New York to LA, you get a different IP, even if you use the same national ISP. Under your scheme, the whole internet would have to be told to redirect your trafic. Yick.

But when? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062624)

How long will a complete transition to IPV6 take? Many many years IMO, if it ever happens at all. None of the firms I know of or work with have even started looking into migrating yet. Hell they are'nt even talking about it.

Re:But when? (2, Insightful)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062710)

I'm personaly hoping that we run out I can't wait see the time share IP address and IP addresses on ebay.

Re:But when? (4, Insightful)

aonaran (15651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062807)

"How long will a complete transition to IPV6 take? Many many years IMO, if it ever happens at all. None of the firms I know of or work with have even started looking into migrating yet. Hell they are'nt even talking about it."

This is the thing that bothers me, it looks like y2k all over again. No body thinks it's a problem until there's a last minute scramble to get the issue resolved.

The only difference is this time around there's no clearly defined cutoff date and when the transition happens it'll probably be spread out over months or years as people start to clue in that they are missing half the internet.

Most of the technological hurdles in connectivity have been overcome, even home users can upgrade their linksys routers in 5 minutes or so to take advantage of IPv6 but for some reason ISPs are holding back and because of that businesses are holding back. Everyone is waiting for somone else to make the first move.

Re:But when? (2, Insightful)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062894)

Start with yourself. Install an IPv6 stack and start using IPv6 servers (Such as for IRC) wherever possible. The 6-to-4 routing can be dealt with on your end (Usually without you needing to change anything awkward) and through one of many open 4-to-6 bridges on the other end. Eventually your IP will notice more and more IPv6 traffic traversing their network using 6-to-4.

Start turning businesses on internal networks and when it is realised that IPv6 is in fact far nicer, because you're not playing hell trying to set DNS servers and allocate IPs, they will demand more from their ISP.

Longhorn has an IPv6 stack built in, find your favourite Linux distro and demand an IPv6 stack in that.

Re:But when? (4, Insightful)

Undertaker43017 (586306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062909)

The problem is mostly social. You now have millions of people on the Internet that barely understand what it is, and while from a technical persons point of view IPv6 is "no big deal", from this groups point of view this is a "big scary", and something they wouldn't think of doing on their own. So I suspect the majority of ISP's have realized this and are not ready for the customer service nightmare that changing would cause. Sure you can upgrade your Linksys to handle IPv6, but how many people even know the device CAN be upgraded at all, let alone know how to do it...

Re:But when? (1, Informative)

puke76 (775195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062942)

The IPv6 mess [cr.yp.to] (according to D J Bernstein).

Welcome Overlords (4, Funny)

j_kenpo (571930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062630)

"There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people"

I for one welcome our new.... thingy overlords...

Re:Welcome Overlords (2, Funny)

Doctor Memory (6336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062657)

Not sure I want to be "serviced" by a device....

Re:Welcome Overlords (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062682)

Seems to satisfy millions of women...

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062633)

address space allocates you!

untrue (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062634)

So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration.

This is completely untrue! There is lots of full penetration on the internet.

"Billions and billions" (4, Insightful)

FirienFirien (857374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062643)

On the comment "Billions and billions of devices that will serve these people", it seems to be unmentioned that (random estimate, not researched in any way) half of them will not be directly hooked into the interweb. Many of those are intended to be that way, since you want your layers of security, and that's why we have however many thousands of addresses in the range 10.0.0.[0-256]; technically they're using the same IP, but it doesn't matter because that IP is kept internally, and not in contact with the web.

IPv4 does not have enough numbers to give every single device its own unique IP. On the flip side... if we were locked into the system, it would still be workable.

Re:"Billions and billions" (2, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062697)

It always amuses me that people use the total population of the earth to explain why we need X number of whatever. Do the billion or so babies need an IP address? What about the billion+ sustenance farmers?

OTH, there is a fair point that it's not about people, it's about devices..

Re:"Billions and billions" (2, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062725)

Private addresses + NAT is not a security measure, although it looks like one.
The same issues can be addressed without the need for NAT and private addressing.

The main reason private addressing is used is because getting public address space is a hassle... whether people realize it or not.
Just imagine.. if you could just have a million public IP addresses that worked, why wouldn't you use them?

Re:"Billions and billions" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062763)

and that's why we have however many thousands of addresses in the range 10.0.0.[0-256]

For a home network thats fine, but in the business world, it's got serious limitations. Sure, we could number all of our office computers in the 10.x.y.z network, but what do we do when we merge with another company, start over from scratch and renumber everything (sure, its easy with DHCP, a script to update all 2000 machines' addresses in the DHCP server, another script to update all the firewalls with the appropriate machines ip addresses, another script to update the network backup configuration, another script to....)? What if we just need to establish a VPN connection with another company? These are excessively complex things to deal with, when everyone could have had unique addresses and a decent firewall from the start.

Re:"Billions and billions" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062820)

'Interweb' is only funny when you actually know the difference between the Internet and WWW ("that IP is kept internally, and not in contact with the web").

Re:"Billions and billions" (2, Informative)

TCM (130219) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062935)

half of them will not be directly hooked into the interweb. Many of those are intended to be that way, since you want your layers of security, and that's why we have however many thousands of addresses in the range 10.0.0.[0-256];

Repeat after me for the 34253456345324th time: NAT is not a security measure. NAT is not a security measure. NAT is not..

What About Private Address Space? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062652)

It seems that when discussing "the sky is falling" ipv4 schemes, no one ever takes into account private networks. In most cases, especially in the Western world, all devices are not directly connected to the internet. Private address space, when used according to specification, will eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard.

IPv6, in some ways, is not a good thing, and my vote is to continue using the current addressing system, albeit in a more conservative manner.

Re:What About Private Address Space? (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062721)

With IPv6, you still have private address space, if you want, so your reasoning for staying is faulty. The problem is that there is no ip space as more ppl want ip's than are available. Quite honestly, we need to move to IPv6.

Re:What About Private Address Space? (5, Insightful)

kotj.mf (645325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062755)

Private address space, when used according to specification, will eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard.

Actually, it'll eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard for a period of time, after which we'll all need to upgrade anyway, when it'll be even more costly.

Ladid's main point seems to be that NAT-proponents take this kind of short-term, client/server-centric view. There's nothing wrong with client/server, but it's a significant hinderance for independent development of things like VoIP, where peer-to-peer makes far more sense.

Basically, it's not just that we're running out of address space; it's also that treating NAT like anything other than a (relatively) short-term fix ultimately hinders the development of new uses for the internets.

Re:What About Private Address Space? (2, Insightful)

bigtrike (904535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062822)

Connecting those devices indirectly to the internet requires NAT or some other kludge. While it works to a degree, it has a lot of shortcomings and is not a viable long term solution.

Re:What About Private Address Space? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062964)

Its funny how preception changes with risk. A few years ago everyone was screaming that we needed IPv6 even though NAT had been invented. Now we are finally realizing the security advantages of NAT and are starting to accept that we don't all NEED a publically addressable space.

At one time we wanted to be able to connect directly to our fridge from work, now we are happy and prefer to connect directly to our home server which will route request to our fridge based upon security clearances.. Because seriously do you expect GE to build an internet connected fridge that takes all security precautions and never gets hacked into. Much like the multi-layers of an OS local networks need layers of access starting with a secure router that can handle security instead of expecting each device to be secure on its own.

Oh, penetration (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062654)

Q: Besides the obvious thing about address space, what other advantages does it have?

A: Penetration! Because we don't have everybody connected yet!

Q: And how does IPv6 increase penetration? Does it build wires to people's houses or make provide satellite dishes to third-world countries?

A: No, but it does make sure we have enough addresses once they have some money to buy the actual hardware stuff!

Look, I know that eventually we're going to have to transition off IPv4 because of the address space issues, and that we might as well start now, but articles like this make it more like a marketing stunt to sell new hardware RIGHT NOW.

Re:Oh, penetration (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062825)

I agree, I think the reasoning in the story description is flimsy at best. Besides, people don't need IP addresses, computers and other electronic devices do. Even then, most devices don't need publicly accessible IP addresses.

I need a better argument than "NAT is a hack" and such to convince me. I suspect many others aren't accepting that argument for face value either. In short, not enough people are pushing for IPv6 because the proponents of IPv6 aren't convincing enough people to demand a switch, especially in light of the cost of replacing IPv4 devices.

I don't want my refrigerator, lighting, A/C & furnace controls (hypothetically) on a public IP. I also don't need my printer, TiVo, Myth box to have a dedicated public IP because those too are private devices and I'd rather keep layer of abstraction for them with port forwarding and some form of authentication to restrict unwanted accesses. Still, those devices are the biggest arguments made for IPv6.

Re:Oh, penetration (2, Insightful)

leonbev (111395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062873)

Exactly... No one in their right mind would want to give the appliances of their home network a public IP address. The last thing I want to worry about is having my microwave or refrigerator being hacked and wrecking my food because I haven't installed the latest security patch to whatever embedded OS they're running.

Re:Oh, penetration (1)

YaRness (237159) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062950)

Furthermore, most of those people that aren't hooked up yet don't need internet. They need food.

Whatever idiot was being interviewed sounds more like a marketing exec than a techie. It's so brimming over with bravado and best-thing-since-sliced-bread it's hard to stomach. It's an interview for and by executives; nothing for nerds to see here, move along.

I am surpised that Broadband ISP have jumped. (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14063004)

Think about it. Almost every broadband ISP offers a "home network" package where they charge you extra for extra computers on the connection. However everyone else on the planet is selling easy to use broadband routers to do it on the cheap. If every device gets an IPv6 address then you can bill them very easily for all those extra computers on that DSL line.

IPv6 Changes (5, Interesting)

mrtroy (640746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062683)

What people dont seem to realize is that IPv6 is not only about adding more addresses.

They also improve the packet structure (by doing things like removing the fragmentation flag)

And we should be looking at making wireless roaming easier (consider forwarding mechanisms when changing WAP's)

But more addresses is a key benefit. And there is no real harm, just the cost of transition which can be minimized due to the backwards compatibility provided through tunneling, etc. So if everyone just starts installing IPv6 hardware, everything is happy. Why is this issue being rehashed?

Re:IPv6 Changes (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062884)

What i'd like to know if exactly why the author thinks web services won't require a central server. From TFA: "I want to send a piece of music directly to a friend. I don't want to pay someone else to do it for me." and "I need an ISP, I just don't need someone else like Skype to offer me additional services over my connection as I will be able to do it all myself. "

So the IPv6 protocol includes a chat client and direct P2P application in the stack?

Sure you can write apps that go directly point to point, but where is the list of those with the service going to be kept?

Re:IPv6 Changes (2, Informative)

Crazy Man on Fire (153457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062931)

The point is that P2P is harder in IPv4 than in IPv6 since you have to deal with NAT. In IPv6, you could communicate directly with somebody without going through NAT and therefore that part of the communication would be trivial. No fancy stuff would be required to account for NAT between the two peers. You'd still need an application to do the communication, but it would be pretty trivial.

IPv6 will finally allow the connectivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062689)

...needed to support a network of flying cars.

I've .... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062692)

Penetrated my thingy into billions and billions of things....

and IPv6 will help me how?

WeenerIP?

Why don't we start today? Tunnels! (3, Informative)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062693)

If you just want a broker that is quick to get started with, go to btexact [btexact.com] and sign up. For those "permanent" set ups, go to (you will get a tunnel initially, but have to save uptime enough to get a subnet and such).

So, what can it be used for? Well, at the moment I do not really use it to browse the web, but I use it for reverse dns on irc (efnet, freenode and most other ircnets have ipv6 enabled servers). In other words, I can have a range of customized hosts (very handy since many friends have shell accounts here) on irc, like @doomtech.net or cust-523452.nix.net.ru. The first one is my own domain, but the second is from afraid freedns [afraid.org] . Afraid has a huge range of public domains, which you can add AAAA and PTR records for.
After thinking up a host, please go to spamcalc [spamcalc.net] , if you don't have the brains yourself to see if your host is dns spam or not. A host like doomtech.net is not dns spam, but something like i.am.god.and.i.live.in.the.cave.with.osama.bin.lad en.info is.

Sixxs and btexact have pretty exact instructions on how to set this up on a range of operating systems. With the aiccu client from sixxs, the tunnel should work behind most NAT setups as well.

Oops, I almost forgot! (2, Informative)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062792)

With sixxs, you get a /48-subnet, which should be sufficient for your quadrillion machines. The address I have looks something like this: 2001:770:11e::1, which is a short for 2001:0770:011e:0000:0000:0000:0000:0001. Luckily those zeroes can be shorted to just ::, which makes these addresses pretty easy to remember, actually. You can also have a bit fun, if you wish, by having e.g. 2001:770:11e:FFFF:DEAD:BEEF:DEAD:BABE :)

If you are bored some day, give the tunnel stuff a try, instead of sitting in your underwear drinking cola and multitasking irc and quake4.

I call it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062694)

I call it the Hawkingnet

Re:I call it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062971)

ITYM Sagan.

Even though I think it was Johnny Carson who said "billions and billions" doing a Sagan parody.

But not everyone will need IP addresses (2, Informative)

WebHostingGuy (825421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062696)

While it is nice to say we don't have enough IP address to cover everyone now, be realistic. Not everyone will need one. There are a lot of people like me who will have lots and lots of them with all the toys I accumulate. However, there is also going to be a lot of people who won't.

While we will need more in the future saying we have to have more IPs because we have more people is not necessarily correct. Whereas NAT is being used a lot in corporate networks it is also being used in the home as well. I know, this doesn't solve everything. However, I can say right now there is a generation of people (my parents) who do not know what an IP is, nor do they care. Including them in the big list saying we need IPs for them is a fallacy--they will never use it or want it. And how about babies? Unless you are tagging them with remote tracking chips when they are born chances are they don't need one. Moreover, right now there are entire places in the third world which do not have systematic running water or electricity. Including them in this count is ridiculous as well. They need a lot more basic needs before they all need individual cell phones running IPv6.

Re:But not everyone will need IP addresses (1)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062750)

Why is the "most regular people don't care" argument used each and every time? I mean, it is not like every person is interested in doing , but we still do it anyway. By the way, there are a lot of people in third world countries who have food and water, just not any tech.

Re:But not everyone will need IP addresses (1)

jcdick1 (254644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062876)

Most people don't want to or care to vote. Lets not transition to democracy.

I am only being a little fecetious here. Its about the technological innovation and its about the philosophy of the Net. The internet was designed and intended to be with the philosophy that all devices on the Net are equal in its end-to-end architecture. Your desktop PC is no less or more a valid member of the Net than the big web servers at IBM. Just because the majority of people on the Net don't know about or don't care about having an IP doesn't make this philosophy any less valid or important to maintain.

And the technological advantage is that it allows the kind of innovation people are looking for. Potentially the greatest communication revolution since the development of the Internet itself - VoIP - would be dramatically easier without the short-term patch of NAT.

Why is NAT so bad? (3, Interesting)

mightypenguin (593397) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062708)

I understand that NAT is considered a hack, but isn't the fact that a device's real address is hidden a security feature for the user? Wouldn't it be that much harder for malicious users to track my internet usage? This would be especially true if I had a mobile device, since moving from one NAT system to another would make following my movements remotely more difficult. So I'd think NAT would be considered a privacy boon. The article doesn't really address this effectively. Also, since most mobile devices have limited bandwidth, I'd think that having a constantly changing IP address, or hiding behind a NAT would mean that DOS attacks against them would be more difficult. If most big mobile device ISPs like the blackberry and sidekick folks offered NAT based access in the future, I'd think that we'd be relatively safe from IPv4 address exhaustion. So stating the main reason for IPv6 being address exhaustion I think is crap. It IS very useful for other reasons though, and I think those reasons warrant it being switched to.

Re:Why is NAT so bad? (3, Interesting)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062969)

NAT is the one of the best "hack" that has ever been made for networks. I don't want to have every computer publicly accessible. Is there NAT on IPv6? How many addresses are available for v6? Using NAT, the maximum number of connected devices (sorry for not having the figures in front of me) on IPv4 = Total # of public addresses x Total # of addresses in a class A private network (10.x.x.x).
 
According to my calculations, using Class A private NAT with each address in a Class A public network comes to: 281,474,943,156,225 available nodes. That's over 281 trillion for the utilization of 1 class A IPv4 network. There are plenty of addresses if we use them properly.

Re:Why is NAT so bad? (1)

fractaloon (454371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14063002)

In fact, hiding behind NAT gives you about 17 million potential addresses. Anybody trying to get info on your computer or network has to first find the needle in the hay stack.

IPv6 offers each business client a block that's 300 million times larger than that. Suddenly the haystack is much much bigger. Home users will probably have just as much obscurity because the ISP will potentially have a block that big for it's clients.

Proponents of not switching to IPv6 because of NAT's "security" are doing themselves a diservice (sp).

When we actually run out of numbers .... (3, Funny)

bizitch (546406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062714)

The closer we actually get to REALLY running out of IPV4 numbers - the more IPV6 will become adopted

This is known as "Market Forces" - this is a foreign concept to many but it is the reality of this situation.

When NAT becomes insuffiecient to handle the demand - IPV6 will be ready to roll. Then every man, woman, child, insect and grain of sand will have its own PUBLIC address which we can then begin to exploit - YAY!

Re:When we actually run out of numbers .... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062830)

That's kinda like saying Microsoft will code a new OS once the patch level of their current system gets overloaded.

MS has done amazing things with their OS, but 2k and XP are essentially built off of NT4. Win NT4 --> Win NT5 --> Win NT5.1

My understanding is that Vista is based off Windows Server 2003 but we've seen that as Vista gets closer to release, features are dropping like flies.

Its much easier to keep adding hacks than to announce "i'm making a big change. deal with it" Plus, this is the internet, no one person can say "that's it, i'm done with IPv4" and make it affect everyone else.

I'll believe in IPv6 "penetration"... (1)

Urusai (865560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062865)

...when HDTV and digital broadcast become a reality. Right after the metric system is adopted.
 

Good ideas always make slow progress (2, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062716)

Just think of the number of systems that rely on IPv4 right now: networks, routers, cell phones, etc. There really isn't a lot of room left at the current rate of expansion. But let's face, that's how we get: complacent. The current system is working -- why bother with a new one? I believe the Romans got that way toward the end...

I read the article and it was insightful, but I didn't have a lot of background on IPv6, so I searched for some background and found this on the details [csuchico.edu] and this on implementing it in Linux [tldp.org] .

From the article: The Internet was not designed like this. It was designed to enable peer-to-peer and VoIP. In the meantime, through NAT, telecomms companies are offering VoIP but they want to bill you for it, but the Internet was not designed with any billing mechanism. When you connect to the Internet you pay anyway, so why should you pay for more services? This is the big debate. The Internet was not designed for telecomms companies, it was designed for everyone to share expensive CPU power. When you share expensive resources you can do anything.

I agree. Paying for sevrices is basically just icing on the cake for telecoms.

Re:Good ideas always make slow progress (1)

csgames (816481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062782)

ahem, have a look at the newest gen of cell phones in Asia, 100% of them support ipv6. I think these huge corporations have a goal in mind. New killer apps are on the verge of becoming "public" and telcom infrastructure has to be ready. Want it or not, ipv6 is going to happen. Speculation about "When" or "Why" is useless. Just wait and you'll see.

Not a convincing argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062727)

Sure, sure... Not everyone wants a single IP address to uniquely identifies them. What's the point of using this metric? That's the lamest argument possible. Not everyone uses the Internet 24/7/365, in fact, many users share addresses from a pool. As far as I know, the "shortage" of IP address space doesn't actually result in higher prices for me, however, a switch to IPv6 will. There has to be a more convincing argument for switching, one that involves people benefitting economically, but that isn't it.

Yes, yes yes... (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062731)

But what does it give me... Now... That I don't have already?

 

For you, nothing, for the connectivity of things, (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062968)

a whole lot of things.

Right now on the internet, "no one can tell you're a dog."

With IPv6, we'll be able to tell that you are "Spot, a lab collie mix owned by Fred C Mugwump of 123 Fourth avenue, Anytown USA" and that you should not be trying to email anyone about viagra.

Think of it as the death of Spam.

Mmmm, things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062735)

There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people.

I like the sound of that! :O

big changes (1)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062749)

I'll finally have access to the extended and color version of ASCII Star Wars via telnet at towel.blinkenlights.nl.

Population (-1, Offtopic)

Audacious (611811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062762)

Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.

A friend of mine has repeatedly stated (not that that makes it true mind you) that within twenty years the human race will decline dramatically due to robotics taking over every aspect of our lives. Without anything to do, he postulates, man will cease to have any reason to live. Thus, through apathy and despair we will begin dying out.

Personally - I don't think so. But he does have a point. That being: If mankind becomes subservient to robots would robots eventually either absorb mankind into itself or superceed mankind in favor of itself? Basically, would we become the Borg or just die out? We are already on the road to becoming the Borg. Artifical hands, feet, and hearts are just some of the things now done by robotic or (at least electrical/mechanical) items. One doctor is already experimenting on himself by planting electrodes directly into his nerves so he can have a computer store all of his movements. The robot manufacturers overseas already have robots that can wash dishes, vacuum, and even play soccer. We now have computer cpus that can build connections like the human mind builds neuro pathways.

Will we soon see the capability to download an entire human mind into computer circuitry? It is just a matter of size to store everything you know and it may not be long before what we call a soul is disected, cataloged, and possibly stored in a computer.

Of course, in my case, they'd probably download my mind and then have a hardware crash. ;-)

Re:Population (2, Informative)

Carbonite (183181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062849)

Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.

Where the heck did you get that information? We've added 750 million people in the last 10 years.

Take a look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html/ [census.gov]

1995 5,694,418,460
2005 6,451,058,790

Re:Population (1)

MrNougat (927651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062960)

I'd better get one of those life insurance policies with the robot clause, then. I need to protect my family from financial obligation when the robots come for me.

P2P file serving redundant in IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062769)

I'm not really familiar with IPv6. Can some explain how P2P will make file serving redundant?

Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (1, Informative)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062770)

This is freaking ridiculous. And there is a simple solution.

The ONLY machines that need actual IP addresses are servers and gateways.

PERIOD.

Everyone else can be NATted.

The simple solution is to NAT everyone and everything that isn't a server or a gateway to other machines. Instead of a typical University gobbling up class-Cs or even class-Bs like candy, they'd require a single class-C at most. Every other machine on campus would be NATted. AOL could have a single class-C, since its users aren't technologically literate enough to want actual "real" IPs. ISPs with a mix of non-technical and technical users (such as Earthlink) would need more, so they could sell "real" IPs to those who'd use them. ISPs which cater to geeks (such as Speakeasy) would need still more.

In such a world, we'd see a complete reversal of current trends; huge national ISPs whose user populations are mostly non-geeks would need only a scant few IP addresses, and smaller "boutique" ISPs whose users are mostly geeks would need more than AOL or MSN.

And we WOULDN'T run out of IPs this way.

I've heard the hype about every coffee percolator, Coke machine and pencil sharpener having its own IP address. That's nice. But not necessary. This whole "crisis" with us running out of IPs can easily be averted with a change in IP distribution policies.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (1)

pdawson (89236) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062867)

This is freaking ridiculous. And there is a simple solution.

The ONLY machines that need actual IP addresses are servers and gateways.

PERIOD.

Everyone else can be NATted.


And now you've totaly given into the producer/consumer model, where we're supposed to be good little consumers that just suck down whatever the large corps choose to publish. Gods forbid we should want to host anything or act as a server.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (1)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062892)

If you want to host something, your choices are legion:

1) Pay for hosting services.
2) Pay for a shell account somewhere, SSH-tunnel in, and have people connect to your machine's server through the tunnel.
3) Pay for a "real" IP.
4) Move to a boutique ISP that provides "real" IPs to all users.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (2, Insightful)

kotj.mf (645325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062895)

What if the "average" user wants to host their own content, without worrying about some external entity having control over it?

That was the original point of the Internet - not to differentiate between content/service "providers" and "consumers," but to enable redundant p2p information sharing.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (2, Insightful)

kotj.mf (645325) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062956)

Oh, and before you try to convince me that "average" users don't want to host their own content, please consider the popularity of Kazaa, Blogger, Flickr, del.icio.us, Podcasting, Myspace, and the world ending when mp3.com went tits up. There are plenty of non-geeks who want to create and share information on the net, and they're currently mostly limited to using a somebody else's machine to do it for them, because the barrier to being a "server" is so high.

Your easy solution is not so easy. (1)

Nichotin (794369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062898)

You will have a hard time making people give up their subnets, if your plan requires that. Another thing, actually paying for a public ip is what we want to avoid. I would certiantly love to have a huge subnet for free, instead of paying a two digit sum of money each month for one static ipv4 ip.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (2, Interesting)

Wishful (526901) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062933)

Except you're assuming that you force every network programmer to design their client/server programs the right way. I've lost count of the number of times my company has had a turf war over a vendor trying to force a badly designed client/server setup on us where for example , the vendors wants to directly connect to 3000 devices on our network. (oh but of course we both use the same RFC1918 space...ie all of it). So what happens......they ask me to setup 3000 static NATs. This is the kind of work that makes me pull my hair out, and its all caused by crappy choice by software designers who have no grasp of the issues faced by network/firewall people at the IP layer.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062941)

You work for DMCA, right?

This won't only kill almost all P2P schemes, but every direct file transfer between any two Internet users.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (2, Insightful)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062949)

In the original vision of the Internet everything is supposed to be a server, so we're back at square one.

Creating a system where one has to opt in to have a routable IP is treading on a slippery slope. Soon after, you might need a special permit to have a server, and before you know it we're back to gatekeepers and the telephone network.

Why shouldn't non-geeks have routable IPs? How many future Shawn Fannings, DVD Jons, or Linus Torvalds' would we lose through such restriction? The Internet should stay as connected as possible, so that the innovation and creativity at the ends stays unencumbered and free. Just think about how long it took telephone companies to implement call-waiting, *69, etc. Also check out the End-to-end Arguments in System Design [reed.com] , it's a classic.

Re:Mismanagement of the IPv4 address space (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062973)

"Period"?

Uh... no.

How about anyone that is running software that requires a peer to peer connection (and I'm not just talking about filesharing software)? And it's further worth pointing out that the only people that require such connectivity are not just the techie geekoid people. Running VoIP through NAT, for example, is a bitch and a half, and often not even possible if the end user does not have administrative rights on the NAT.

Your argument does touch on a very good reason why NAT would not be entirely obsolete even upon the move to IPv6, however.

(Also, by playing around with IPv6 extension headers and a gateway that adds or strips headers to a packet, it's theoretically possible to do routing right _THROUGH_ a NAT on IPv6).

So really, it seems that the only argument against IPv6 migration is just that people are lazy and cheap and don't want to do it right now because it'd actually require some effort.

Global connectivity? (1)

dumpsterdiver (542329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062773)

Err - how is an expansion of IP space going to bring a net free of government speech controls (not to mention physical connections) to parts of the world that are resisting? We can't even pry those things out of the hands of the US Government, much less those of Robert Mugabe or Iraq.

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062784)

Why does IPv6 make P2P any easier to implement?

Why does it remove the need for servers?

Why does it mean that we "won't need providers such as Skype anymore because we'll be able to do it all ourselves"?

I don't see how IPv6 lets you do ANY of these things. You'll still be firewalled, you'll still need servers and software vendors like Skype. In fact the only thing about IPv6 that would seem to me to help P2P is that slighly more people might end up not being NATed but that won't affect anything much.

Does this person actually know what they're talking about or are they from marketing?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Eriky (724600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062838)

I think because multicasting with IPv6 will be better. You can multicast one stream to, for example, a single server on the other side of the world. From there 1000s of ip's can read your single stream.

Re:I don't get it (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062839)

because instead of these aggrigation servises, each box on teh intarweb will be able to have its own address, and thus you'll be able to connect to them all individually. I think that P2P and skype and the like are more than just programs that say connect to that person over there, but it does allow for the removal of an extra layer of abstraction. Whether or not one would want that layer gone is another question.

Re:I don't get it (3, Interesting)

it0 (567968) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062877)

I always understood that ipv6 has the ability to send 1 packet to mupltiple persons at once. So for example if you use bittorrent, and there are 7 people connected then you only have to send out 1 packet to reach to 6 people in stead of 6 packets with ipv4.

The rest I don't know

Routers and Local Network Addresses (1)

trianglecat (318478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062814)

I didnt RTFA but... I thought that this was pretty much a moot point with the widening use of routers and NAT. A single external IP to your router that dishes out local network IPs to your coffee pot and your fridge and whatever else...

Can someone explain the value of IPv6 beyond that?

IPV6 (3, Funny)

Zlib pt (820294) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062843)

In other news, a door in germany refuses to open because some script kiddie got it's IP address and crashed the door. Officials are trying their best to open the door but they suspect the door has to be rebooted.

Are this going to be the news from the future?

afraid of change (1)

felto (912519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062848)

It seems to me most of you are just afraid of change. I personally welcome it. Of course I don't see why we can't see different proposals, it is always nice to have choices. What is so bad about having more IP addresses? Yes, it's a little more complicated, but hey it could be fun. I am sure most of you where scared when a masked man in leather walked in with duct tape, pliers, and a watermelon, but you get used to it after awhile.

Why IPv6 Is Coming (4, Insightful)

Tony (765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062871)

To all o' you people asking, "What does it give me?"

It gives you nothing. You're already on the internet.

IPv6 is going to give India and China and other high-populous countries connectivity. As it is, they don't have enough IPv4 addresses even to *nat* their country, let alone to provide real services with which NATing interferes.

And that's why you and I have very little say about the adoption of IPv6. It's gonna happen, and it's gonna happen soon (say, the next 5 years, tops). Pretty soon, those of us who remember IPv4 are going to be like 3-digit /. users-- old, out-of-date, and constantly reminiscing about the old days.

Maybe I'm just a Sick Twisted Freak (3, Funny)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062881)

When I read "But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people." I immediately invisioned billions of internet enabled sex toys.

Coming soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062911)

"By 2050 we will be nearly 10 billion people. But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people..."
... then rise up -- crush them!
Article has style of a good movie trailer.

"Gee, I guess we better take up all IP addresses before the machines get 'em!"
"What are you talking about? They're just machines!"

Address space not the biggest feature (3, Insightful)

jgold03 (811521) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062940)

Address space isn't why we should gloss over IPv6. Yeah, its nice that we can get rid of NAT, but the bigger deal is virtual circuits. IPv4 can't handle streaming data, keeping us from high-broadband technologies like TV-over-IP. IPv6 was designed to optimize routers for doing high-broadband transfers. That should be the biggest selling point of IPv6.

g0AT seX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14062944)

im more worried about g0at sex on the internet than this shit. fuck you

Big Brother? (2, Interesting)

thealsir (927362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062955)

<begin irrational? fear> Implanting an RFID chip in everybody with a unique address makes it a very easy way of tracking people...and explains why IPv6 is being pushed so hard even though it is unnecessary. Sure, NAT will handle boatloads of expansion to come, but it offers a layer of anonymity to computers behind the NAT...security through obscurity...how many 192.168.x.x addresses are out there? This way, a unique IP can be given to each computer, more unique even than MAC addresses. And it can be reached around the world. If Those Above get their way through, I see computers eventually having hardcoded IP addresses. And RFID implants with a unique IP address for everybody. </end irrational? fear>

Billions and billions (3, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062967)

"Billions and billions of devices that will service these people."

Ah yes, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan

gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

The most important change (1)

Thomas Charron (1485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14062974)

The most important change will be the fact that, when we finally actually do start transitioning to IPv6...

    Hell will have frozen over.

    Widespread adoption has been 'any time now' for years now..

    Blah.. Just think, ipv6 gets adopted, and suddenly, all those girls who looked at the fat guys will regret saying, 'When hell freezes over'..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?