Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

280 comments

By the time IPv6 is ready (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603558)

We'll need IPv8.

Re:By the time IPv6 is ready (4, Informative)

comcn (194756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603703)

That may be a joke, but in reality IPv6 is ready. My UK ADSL provider, Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net] , provide me with an entire block of IPv6 addresses. They will even route it to you natively if your router will support it, otherwise you have to use a 6-over-4 tunnel. My network uses it by default over IPv4; it's kind of neat when e-mail has IPv6 addresses in the headers. ;-)

Re:By the time IPv6 is ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603816)

don't ruin someones joke

Re:By the time IPv6 is ready (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603984)

mod parent advertisement

It can't be. (-1, Offtopic)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603568)

Nope, it wasn't.

A podcast guide? (3, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603584)

Personally, I'd rather have a written guide of some form to refer to when I implement IPv6, though I'm going to listen to this just to see how it turns out. It'll probably be just like class where I scribble furiously to write down everything the professor says.

Re:A podcast guide? (3, Insightful)

daniel23 (605413) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603717)


I agree with this, unlike a written guide a podcast has no copy'n'paste and it is much harder to follow talk than written text when the language used is not your native tongue.

Written guides for what? (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604065)

For installing IPv6 on Linux: Go to any IPv6 provider (British Telecom, Hurricane Electric, WIDE - there are plenty of them). Download the script. Enter your IPv4 address and MAC address into their web form. Run their script on your machine. You are now fully IPv6-ready. (Most Linux distros come fully IPv6-enabled.)


For installing IPv6 on any *BSD: Pretty much the same. All the *BSDs have been IPv6-ready for a long time, under the KAME project banner.


For installing IPv6 under Windows: You go to Microsoft Research and install the stack. Unless it's already on the CD - it is, for some versions of Windows.


For actually implementing an IPv6 stack? Well, for that you want the RFCs on the IETF website, and the IPv6 evaluation kit (TAHI) that is listed on Freshmeat. I didn't type all the damn information for the various testing packages into the record for nothing!


Aside from that, I really can't think of anything you could need a guide for.

IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603590)


IPv6 is a solution looking for a problem, at the moment in its current state nobody will use it, its complex , doesnt play with legacy systems (even win2k support is flaky at best) all those routers and wifi boxes that best buy are selling, most of the ISP's dont want it and dont support it let alone the users figure it out

its another "its coming" technologies thats "nearly" with us for the last 10 years and STLL nobody really cares, its like W3C validation, nice in theory but most people dont care about it and most of the html generation tools dont create it

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603643)

Solution: stop using crappy HTML generation tools then.
seriously IPv6 is just futureproofing we will eventually run out of IP addresses when each vehicle will want one, each of your kitchen appliances will want one etc.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603889)

seriously IPv6 is just futureproofing we will eventually run out of IP addresses when each vehicle will want one, each of your kitchen appliances will want one etc.

I'm just not sure that's true. It certainly seemed that way when IPv6 was invented, but since then NAT has become a regular feature on home and business networks. Add in the regular use of DHCP to autoconfigure devices to a network, and you find that there's no longer any real pressure to make the switch to IPv6. Thus it made a lot of sense when it was developed, but now it seems pointless.

The next big thing may very well end up being a space network. The problem is that a space network (likely an interplanetary network) has different requirements than either IPv4 OR IPv6. So the result is likely to be that we'll need a completely new standard to interoperate with the old standards.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

toddbu (748790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604023)

I'm just not sure that's true. It certainly seemed that way when IPv6 was invented, but since then NAT has become a regular feature on home and business networks. Add in the regular use of DHCP to autoconfigure devices to a network, and you find that there's no longer any real pressure to make the switch to IPv6. Thus it made a lot of sense when it was developed, but now it seems pointless.

It may be pointless to you, but there are many people who could deparately use it. Think of all the problems that go away when NAT is gone. Like being able to use BitTorrent or SIP or any other "push" technology without having to set up port forwarding on your router. And even when you do get it set up right, you can't run on multiple machines behind a firewall without some kind of proxy on the other side. NAT is to the Internet was segmented memory was to CPUs - a great idea to move things forward but not a good long term solution.

I'm really jazzed about the idea of having my own personal 64 bit address space on the Internet. Then again, I'm not sure that even that will be enough. :-)

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604071)

*cough* its 128-bit *cough*

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604078)

Think of all the problems that go away when NAT is gone. Like being able to use BitTorrent or SIP or any other "push" technology without having to set up port forwarding on your router.

For many (most?) people, this is a feature. That NAT firewall keeps them safe against unwanted traffic and unexpected attacks. The minor issues with BitTorrent and the like are best dealt with by Universal PnP.

There are definite advantages to IPv6, but the general populace doesn't feel any pressure to replace their equipment and service. As long as they don't feel any pressure, they're going to do what seems easiest: Stay with the status quo.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (2, Informative)

darkain (749283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604100)

UPnP brings about the same problems that the hardware/router firewalls try to protect you from... applications on your computer accessing the outside world. with exploits such as WMF (and stupid people downloading krap they shouldnt), these apps will exploit UPnP to open a port for itself, and most users would never even know. manually setting port forwarding features is more secure, but much more of a hassle for novice users.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604203)

I think the big implication of IPv6 is in cheap wireless internet communication. Imagine a cellphone that's basically a VOIP phone, with IP access everywhere. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of wireless phones around the world, such that it would break IPv4 with the way it's currently subdivided--what with some schools having more addresses than entire countries with populations rivaling that of the the most populus locations in the US.

Go to a third world country, and they might not have television (they often share televisions), inside toilets or even be able to afford food, but damned if nearly every home dosen't have one or two wireless phones... It's the same thing from the western tip of Africa to the furthest reaches of the Philipines; cellphones all over the goddamned place... Millions of 'em.

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but it seems that here in the US, pricing for data communication is, quite frankly, absurd... And what's the difference between voice and sendig an email? Voice data takes up thousands of times more bandwidth than sending an email, but it's priced at least a hundred thousand times lower, bit for bit! It's insanity, just like it was with ISPs before AOL practically forced everyone to go for unlimited minutes, for a reasonable monthly fee!

Going with IP for phones would open doors for all sorts of cool functionality. Wouldn't it be killer, for example, if your phone would allow use as a full time wireless router (bluetooth, or some other encrypted channel) for your computer or PDA, full time, and still be able to receive a call whist doing it? Voicemail could be revolutionized. It would make it affordable to use the functionality that's already built in to get stock quotes, browse the web, receive music from the provider's music store, or any myriad of things. Videomail and videophones could, for once, be possible, and accessible!

I know cell providers are scared of this, because it will relegate them to the status of electricity providers, metropolitan water, etc. They probably sit awake at night because this is their nightmare, and because it will put an end to the insane profits they experience... But the first one to offer IP cellphones at a reasonable price will slaughter the rest... I gurantee it. The only problem? IPv6 will be required, and with the built in QOS, encryption, etc, and it's the only thing that can get the technology moving world wide.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603652)

The biggest barrier is Online Games. Until WoW will work with it, it will be stuck. And half the online games won't even work with a firewall.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603657)

Just wondering is it better to fix a problem before it arises or wait until it's about to bite you. I'm thinking of the /. [slashdot.org] issue with VIN's to run out soon It wasn't really a failing of VIN as it achived what it's goals were for the required time. Can't some of the same be said about IPv6.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

cgranade (702534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603694)

It is wanted, as it solves a very pressing issue. With more and more mobile devices and embedded devices requiring their own IP addresses, we are running out of address space. Furthermore, the design of IPv4 relies upon assumptions that are no longer valid, nessesitating such ad hoc and stop gap solutions as NAT. While NAT may be useful in its own right, it should not be used solely to allow for more devices.

As for the comment about W3C validation, it always has been, continues to be and will most likely continue to be very important in the future. Without such a service, how is one to tell what XHTML, HTML, etc. actually are? Machines are not intelligent, and so we cannot be content with the tag soup that passes for HTML on most sites, but we must reqire some sort of standard for quality. I would love to see a browser that, by design, will choke on any non-validating input, since by design such a browser would be simpler and easier to maintain. Without quality control mechanisms such as W3C validation, we would have a very poor Internet indeed.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603755)

> While NAT may be useful in its own right, it should not be used solely to allow for more devices.

Umm, that's precisely why it's used. So it doesn't adhere to the purity of the end-to-end argument (in fact, it pretty much smashes it), big deal. It works, and it's the defacto standard, and it's pretty much pushed off the need for IPv6 to the unforseeable future.

NAT provides a firewall (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603833)

Umm, [adding more devices is] precisely why [NAT is] used.

Apart from that, NAT is also useful because of an inherent side effect, namely that a basic firewall comes "free" once your router has implemented NAT.

End to end useless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603936)

Extending that further, then why not allow BellSouth to charge content providers access to their network? Fuck end to end, right?

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (4, Insightful)

bigpat (158134) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604177)

big deal. It works

Ummm, no it doesn't work. It works for a few things, and breaks a whole lot of other things. You are arbitrarily limiting a whole set of end-to-end applications simply because you have no imagination. The simple fact is that I can, with my static IP, do a hell of a lot more than you can with some short leased DHCP IP behind a NAT.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (3, Insightful)

hhr (909621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603774)

IPV6 suffers from the another-technology-is-good-enough-and-cheaper problem.

Beta was superior, VHS was good enough and cheaper.

Audiofile stereo equipment is superior. An IPod is good enough and cheaper.

IPV6 is superior. IPV4+NAT is good enough and cheaper. Which is very unfortunate because IPV6 solves real problems.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603955)

I so wish that wasn't true. It would be awesome if IPV4 stopped working right now and we all had to go to IPV6. Then finally file transfers would start working well.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

darkain (749283) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604087)

Windows and Linux both come with IPv6 sollutions, as well as 3rd party firmwares for routers such as the WRT54G line (and derivitives). It isnt like VHS vs Betamax where you where forced to use one or the other, its like the difference between DVD-R and DVD+R, just get a system that does both at the same time.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

hhr (909621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604122)

Do any of the big U.S. ISP's support IPV6? I'd say no... a quick search through Comcast returned no hits.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603780)

I would love to see a browser that, by design, will choke on any non-validating input, since by design such a browser would be simpler and easier to maintain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode [wikipedia.org]

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

dozer (30790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603845)

[IPv6] is wanted, as it solves a very pressing issue.

Do you have any evidence? If so, why are adoption numbers so vanishingly small? They that IPv6 is wanted by almost nobody, probably because they don't have any pressing issues that only IPv6 solves..

While NAT may be useful in its own right, it should not be used solely to allow for more devices.

Er, that's the whole reason NAT was invented. Why shouldn't it be used that way?

Without quality control mechanisms such as W3C validation, we would have a very poor Internet indeed.

The vast majority of pages fail to validate yet the internet as a whole seems to work very well. Strict validation, while definitely nice, doesn't seem to be quite as important as you think.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (3, Insightful)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603942)

Actually NAT serves us quite well in our situation. Cellular devices (mainly from China) are the big pressing fricking issue here and for the most part cell phones do NOT need real public IP space. There are extremely far and few betweens where a cell phone from any nation needs an IP that can be pinged from the outside or otherwise accessed. Cellphones make thier own calls out to the internet and negotiate a way for the data to be sent to them. Only in the case of network present apps and say Crackberries does a private IP space make allot of sense (of which can be worked around eaisily).

IPv6 is too big & complicated and does not play well with older systems (another poster noted Win 2K support is flakey at best). Do you honestly expect older devices like cellphones to be updated by the manufacturers or even better those of us using Treo like devices where we don't just throw them away each year and get a new one. IPv6 would "work," but it's not the thing thats going to work "best" (for one good luck keeping a list of 50+ IPv6 IPs memorized).

As for W3C quality control is involved I and many others would love that kind of setup. However that would block off many people who fit into the "I can code 1337 HTML for my grandma" family, but not the "I can learn to code well" group. Hell the internet hit critical mass because of browser & network flexability and not ridgidness and "quality control." Not everyone can code HTML as well as "some" on /.

What'll likely happen is all cellphones will migrate twards IPv6 (or something like it that works better) with a NAT between all of them and the rest of the IPv4 network and as older devices running the old IPv4 stack get older and older (old cells, 95, 98, ME, 2K, old Mac OSs) we'll slowly get over to whatever new thing. IPv6 is like HD-DVD & Blue Ray. Sure they might be nice as they are for the most part they are too soon and not just right, but at least IPv6 doesn't require hardware & licencing deals that can bankrupt companies when it false starts.

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (1)

comcn (194756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603714)

doesnt play with legacy systems (even win2k support is flaky at best)

Heh, that's because Win2k is a legacy system...

Re:IPv6 isnt really wanted (5, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603976)

I'm right now struggling with the various implementations of NAT-T (IPSEC NAT Traversal) and the fact that they won't play nice together. Wouldn't be necessary with IPv6.

Ever tried to set up a VPN between two sites which both use 10.0.0.0/24 as their network range?

Ever wished you could just ssh direct to your desktop machine from home without futzing around with vpns?

So you may not want it or see the need for it, but if you understood the amount of work that has gone into making NAT the 'solution' it is today you might appreciate it a little more :p

Like Y2K? (4, Insightful)

microarray (950769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603625)

Could someone tell this uninformed person what the hype is all about? So, we run out of IP addresses, so what? Seems like a market then exists where you could on-sell your IP addresses for $$$. Prices go up too high, market forces then result in IPv6 implementation. What's the problem?

Re:Like Y2K? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603713)

In short, its the number of rules in the routers supporing the Internet. For ever IP that is not in a logical place on the backbone some set of rules need to be applied to route that rouge single address to the right place. When enough IP addresses are "sold" then all hell will break loose as all the router rules grow out of control.

Re:Like Y2K? (1)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603789)

I can't exactly on-sell my only IP address, because then I wouldn't have one. Hell, one is already too few (I want about four, but for some reason the cost of four addresses is more than four times the cost of one.)


The main benefit of significantly inflating the address space is that you can allocate enormous blocks for each subscriber, and remove most of the need for NAT.


Re: Already out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603894)

We've already run out of addresses. Chances are, you use some sort of NAT system so that you can access the internet. NAT is a dirty hack that multiplexes one IP for use by multiple clients. This hack means you don't get to participate fully on the internet.

IPv6 gives everyone in every private network an IP visible to the world. Its as if someone took NAT and made it useful.

Re:Like Y2K? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603935)

You can't sell IP's, if you do they'll be revoked.

Re:Like Y2K? (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604095)

Seems like a market then exists where you could on-sell your IP addresses for $$$. Prices go up too high, market forces then result in IPv6 implementation. What's the problem?

The way ipv4 addressing is structured. 209.112.155.123 and 209.112.155.124 are in the same block. They don't have to be next door neighbours in the real world, but they do have to be 'close' to each other from the networks point of view. That will mean they belong to the same ISP, in the same city, and quite probably a fairly small chunk of that city.

IP addresses, by virtue of the numbers that make them up have to be hooked up to the network in a specific place in order for packets to find them. They exist in 'blocks' for convenient routing. The "routing tables" that you hear about describe where to send traffic addressed to a specific block should go. For example a backbone router A might know that traffic destined for 209.x.x.x goes "thatta way"... and and another router B further down the line might know that 209.112.x.x goes "through that pipe there"... and so forth, until it finally reaches a router C that says hey that destination block is right on the LAN here!

If 209.112.115.122 were suddenly "sold" to a guy in another city all his packets would would still end up at Router C, where they would be undeliverable because the owner isn't connected directly to that router.

As a rough analagy it would be like "selling your home address", but not your home. Even if you transfer the address to a guy in china all the mail is going to end up at your door step. Sure you could make special arrangements to have it forwarded back to china (and you can do this with ip too)... but that has two repurcussions:

1) The guy in china still needs a chinese address for the forwarded mail to arrive at so he's accomplished nothing!

2) Any mail addressed to him, even from his next door neighbour is going to be shipped around the world because it won't know its supposed stay in china until it arrives at your place. The chinese post office will see the Dutch (or whatever) address on the evelope and ship it off for a round trip through Holland...

IPv6 isn't just addressing. (5, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604105)

IPv6 includes the following features that either don't exist in IPv4 or you need to install bunches of other stuff to get it to work:


  • Zero configuration of the IP stack. It's self-configuring, completely.
  • Privacy. IPv6 mandates IPSec and I believe all IPv6 stacks out there provide that.
  • Speed. IPv6 addressing is heirarchical and the headers are simpler and stacked, so much less information needs to be processed even though the headers are technically longer.
  • Mobility. IPv6 supports Mobile IP - indeed, that was a design consideration - with fully optimized routing. It's only available under IPv4 as a hacked implementation of a workaround.
  • Routing. Native IPv6 routing (as opposed to RIP-ng and OSPFv6) is designed from first principles, as opposed to being something that has evolved over time to be sub-optimal but backwards-compatiable.
  • Multicast. IPv6 mandates multicast, which will reduce bandwidth consumption on broadcasts drastically.
  • Anycast. This allows you to find a service by querying the network rather than some moron in technical support.
  • MTU feedback. Your computer won't send what the network can't carry. This means you don't get packet fragmentation, which is great for firewalls and users on networks with restricted packet size. This will become more significant as jumbo packets increase in popularity.


Tell me again why you don't need IPv6. Only, this time, say how you're going to meet these criteria whilst you're at it.

why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603628)

What's the point? We've got CIDR and NAT!

you faIl it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603636)

hobbyist dileetante

The article's an MP3, not text! Text Version? (4, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603662)

I don't want to listen to some podcaster ranting about some topic that they may or may not have a clueful opinion about. Is there a text version of that person's comments? Skimming text is not only important for deciding if the author is providing any new or useful information, it also gives you much better control over how much of your time you want to spend on the quality of information you're getting. http://www.intellectualicebergs.org/ [intellectualicebergs.org] indicates that there are two main topics and three other sections, and doesn't say how long the podcast is. I normally don't rant about Slashdot's choice of material, but this is a waste of time; I could probably do better by going to a random social event* around here and asking about IPv6 readiness.

(mid-90s silicon valley story - friend of mine was visiting a friend, the house phone rang, somebody answered it and gave some technical advice about windows. "Who was it?" "Just a wrong number, but it was an easy question.")

iam deaf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603825)


you would think of all places the Internet would level the field, i guess i lucked out
i see no transcript so i guess me and my buddies will have to look elsewhere for our IPv6 fix
while some middle class podcasters pat each other on the back on how clever they think they are in mastering Sound Recorder and LAME on their moms PC

Jay

Re:The article's an MP3, not text! Text Version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603900)

Y'know, they're going to have to come up with a podcast equivalent to RTFA.

The guy isn't some podcaster, he's a network professional who is specifically being paid by a bunch of government agencies to see how effective and safe this stuff is. You'd have a tough time finding someone more knowledgable in your state much less at a party you happen to be at, even if it is in silicon valley.

Re:The article's an MP3, not text! Text Version? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604137)

This is why I hate podcasts. Text can be indexed, skimmed, and searched with everything from Control/Command-F to Google. It can be cut, copied, pasted, and even plagiarized if you want. A sound recording has none of these advantages, and it has several disadvantages: the speaker might use a lot of "um"s and "uh"s or be otherwise unpleasant, you can only listen at a constant speed (more or less), skimming is pretty much impossible, etc etc etc. Also, you can read a lot faster than you can listen--i.e., how fast the other person can talk.

However, therein lies the rub: even though you can read faster than you can listen, anyone can talk faster than they can type. (Rough numbers: Reading, 200 wpm; talking, 100-150 wpm; typing, 30-60 wpm, plus proofreading, editing, formatting--maybe just 5-10 wpm in the end.) So, we're depending on the person with information we want to take lots of time to put the information in the most useful format for us, versus them sitting down with a mic and talking and recording in one quick and easy pass.

Podcasts, basically, are easier for the producer but much, much less useful for the consumer. It'll be very interesting to see in the next few years how all this goes.

Of course, podcasts are great for a lot of stuff--dramatic reading, music, other kinds of performance; and the ability to listen to them places where you might not be able to read, like while traveling--but for straight information-sharing, they pretty much suck.

Why do we need to be ready? (3, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603677)

I didn't bother to listen to the podcast, but luckily this is Slashdot so no one will hold it against me.

Geoff Huston's "IPv6: Extinction, Evolution or Revolution?" [circleid.com] is probably the most insightful thing I've ever read about IPv6 deployment, although the conclusion is pretty negative.

But assuming that IPv6 is worth deploying, Microsoft is way ahead in getting computers IPv6-enabled. Their work on Teredo [microsoft.com] should make life a lot easier for P2P developers.

Re:Why do we need to be ready? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603823)

I didn't bother to listen to the podcast, but luckily this is Slashdot so no one will hold it against me.
I don't the fact that you're commenting without listening to it against you.

What I will hold against you, is that by not downloading the 47MB MP3, you do not contribute to the slashdot effect.

This is a community and communities work together. Now go download that MP3!

Re:Why do we need to be ready? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603856)

I didn't bother to read your post, but luckily this is Slashdot so no one will hold it against me.

Where's the "podcast"??? (0)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603689)

The link is just to an .mp3 file. Shouldn't I need an apple product to listen to this?

Re:Where's the "podcast"??? (0, Redundant)

dzarn (760066) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603742)

3 seconds on Google [wikipedia.org]

Podcasting is a term coined in 2004 when the use of RSS syndication technologies became popular for distributing audio content for listening on mobile devices and personal computers

So, it's an open standard (RSS) encapsulating an audio file. All named after a popular portable player. Congrats on jumping the gun!

Re:Where's the "podcast"??? (1)

idonthack (883680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603762)

"Podcast" is really just a fancy word for "streaming audio".

Re:Where's the "podcast"??? (1)

jumpingfred (244629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603916)

No podcasts don't stream. You don't stream to your ipod you download and copy to your ipod.

Re:Where's the "podcast"??? (1)

Kankraka (936176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604046)

You mean fancy word for "hyperlink"

IPv6 rocks for the home (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603709)

With a traditional IPv4 network, I was running out of IP addresses, but now I can give each sofa cushion its own address.

Re:IPv6 rocks for the home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603778)

Learning how to subnet you pussy!

Re:IPv6 rocks for the home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604011)

Come on, try harder. I gave each crumb in the cracks of my sofa its own IPv6 address!

IPv6 Push (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603729)

Most people think that the consumption of IP addresses is what's going to push the move to IPv6. While this will be a major factor, most sources I've read think it will be the exponential growth of routing tables that will eventually force the switch.

Every time a segment of IPv4 addresses are partitioned, routing tables must be updated to reflect the changes. Last book I read said the number of entries were around 100K and that it would double by 2010 (may have been later/earlier, can't remember the exact details).

With this many entries the problem of managing routing tables becomes near impossible, not to mention router performance will become critical if it can handle it at all.The huge amount of IPv6 addresses will allow major aggregation to that point that most routing tables will be a fraction of what they are now. Heiarchical routing will actually be possible with IPv6.

Of course you routing hardware can be upgraded and more people can be paid to manage tables but if you're going to do that might as well make the problem go away and add a whole lot more features with a new protocol.

Background music (1)

trolleymusic (938183) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603734)

What's with the background music through the interview? Does anyone listen to this podcast regulary, is this a normal thing?

Re:Background music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603771)

Wondering if some RIAA's fellow could claim some rights about it...

Re:Background music (1)

pklinken (773410) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603799)

Yea, it's amazing.. I've heard this in newsflashes on popular radiostations, but never in an interview. Cant listen to it.

Well... (1, Redundant)

ksilebo (134470) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603746)

Direct links to a podcast at work is irritating. Guess I should look at the status bar more often.

Anywho, I'd adopt IPv6 if more straightforward and simpler guides existed, or I just can't find them.

IPv6 can be your next generation Identity card (1)

ravee (201020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603748)

Once IPv6 comes into force, there will be no derth of IP addresses. And each device including PCs can have its own unique IP address. When a person is born in this world, a tiny chip can be implanted in his body which has a unique IP address. And this can be used as his identity.

And the same way a DNS works, the IP address of the chip implanted in the persons body can be resolved to his name.

Re:IPv6 can be your next generation Identity card (1)

n.e.watson (835126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604019)

Well yes, but you know the ISPs will more than likely shortchange us with the usual single dynamic IP (if you live in the US, at least)

Spam must be controlled (3, Interesting)

humankind (704050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603754)

We can't move to IPv6 until the spam problem is solved. With the additional address space that IPv6 offers, spam will increase by a googol if the spam gangs are not stopped. More spam is stopped because of RBLs now than any other method. IPv6 would make that obsolete.

One and only one thing will stop spam. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603851)

And that is when two things happen:

1) Every valid mail server will be registered with some trusted organization and deemed to be "officially licensed" by the world email community, and be able to be authenticated by database lookup plus an encrypted key exchange challenge/handshake thingy.

2) Every one of those mail servers will only accept incoming mail that is not only recognized by the database and key exchange, but will also have to pass thru a local whitelist lookup too.

Re:Spam must be controlled (1)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603950)


We can't move to IPv6 until the spam problem is solved.
With the additional address space that IPv6 offers, spam will increase by a googol if the spam gangs are not stopped.
More spam is stopped because of RBLs now than any other method.
IPv6 would make that obsolete.


Even assuming that were true, it would just mean that we couldn't move email to IPv6.
The amount of spam being sent is unlikely to change because of IPv6.
In test after test, I've found RBLs far less effective at stopping spam than spam assassin, grey listing, or address validation, and the false positive rates for RBLs are considerable worse as well.
IPv6 would not obsolete blocking by IP, it would simply mean you need to block a larger range of IPs.
In fact, it's likely that IPv6 would make RBLs more effective, since it would be much more difficult for spammers to get new address space, as no reasonable case can be made for needing more than the minimum /64 allocation.

-- Should you believe authority without question?

Anyone watch 24? (4, Funny)

someonewhois (808065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603761)

IPv6 isn't going to work because of television. Chloe: "Jack, give me the IP Address of the workstation and I'll send you a decrypter." Jack: "Okay one sec........... Alright, got it! F as in food, E as in earth, D as in death, C as in card, colon, B as in bad, A as in apple, six, eight, colon, three, six, four, four, colon, one, two, zero, seven, colon, A as in apple..." FBI Agent breaks in: What's this? Jack? You're supposed to be dead! [shoots Jack] [Season Ends] Man oh man oh man. That's gotta be the reason why IPv6 isn't implemented yet. (Seriously, tech support nightmares)

Re:Anyone watch 24? (1)

someonewhois (808065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603770)

Oops, forgot linebreaks...

IPv6 isn't going to work because of television.

Chloe: "Jack, give me the IP Address of the workstation and I'll send you a decrypter."
Jack: "Okay one sec........... Alright, got it! F as in food, E as in earth, D as in death, C as in card, colon, B as in bad, A as in apple, six, eight, colon, three, six, four, four, colon, one, two, zero, seven, colon, A as in apple..."
FBI Agent breaks in: What's this? Jack? You're supposed to be dead! [shoots Jack]
[Season Ends]

Man oh man oh man. That's gotta be the reason why IPv6 isn't implemented yet. (Seriously, tech support nightmares)

Re:Anyone watch 24? (1, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603905)

Trying the old "i 'accidentally' made a mistake in my original post let me fix it and get double the karma" trick, eh? Yeah, we're on to you. :)

Re:Anyone watch 24? (1)

compm375 (847701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603986)

Trying the old "i 'accidentally' made a mistake in my original post let me fix it and get double the karma" trick, eh? Yeah, we're on to you. :)
because +4 Funny is worth a lot of karma...

Re:Anyone watch 24? (1)

curious.corn (167387) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603992)

There's no Karma for Funny mods. Get it over

Re:Anyone watch 24? (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604098)

Don't think half of us don't get around that by using +1, Underrated, also making us immune from M2...

Seriously, ever since I started carefully abusing my mod points, they've lasted for days rather than all getting spent at once while doing someone elses job for them.

I only mod funny to expose people more karma burn.

Why? Because it's funny to me

how about B-ISDN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603782)

That would smokin', having B-ISDN and IPv6 rolled out worldwide at the same time...

The problem is lack of hipness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603790)

People

If you really want this thing to catch on one day, trust me, just call it iPV6... [see the lowercase i?]

you'll all thank me one day...

Podcast Mini-review (2, Informative)

Da Stylin' Rastan (771797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603798)

I listened to the podcast being someone who is quite knowledgeable in IPv6 and thought that Brad did a good job of laying out the important points and stakes in terms that someone new to IPv6 can understand pretty well, and he was very accurate on his information from a technical standpoint (aside from when he talks about the implementation headaches of PKI, he was way off on that one). I also agree with him on the state of IPv6 (fun for geeks/military types now, but not business and consumer-level primetime yet)

The interviewer isn't too bright however. Also, for the love of god, please stop the mp3 after the interview before he launches on his excruciatingly bad Matrix-metaphor monologue. You *will* thank me

Overall, I'd say it's a good listen if you are curious just exactly what some of the benefits of IPv6 are, but for anyone who is even slightly knowledgeable about IPv6 it's a "Move along, nothing to see here"

-DSR

WRT54Gs IPv6 (2, Informative)

Solosoft (622322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603812)

If your WRT is running DD-WRT v23 you can run a 4-6 tunnel through the router and run RADVD on it to give your clients IPv6 address's.

Here is a IPv6 Install Guide for DD-WRT and a WRT54Gs [solosoft.org]

I would love some more people to test out my little config and tell me if there is anything they do not understand in it. It's very straight forward and uses SMB for people who have a v4 Router (not enough room for JFFS). Of course you could simply move a conf to your /jffs/ file system.
As Long as your running Linux (with ipv6 enabled) and Windows XP (run "ipv6 install") once the router is setup and running your clients get IP's automagicly. (or any ipv6 enabled OS for that matter)

Thanks :)

Re:WRT54Gs IPv6 (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603838)

Tunnel brokers are obsolete and inefficient; you should advise people to use 6to4 instead.

Re:WRT54Gs IPv6 (1)

X-Bahamut (623007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604094)

And if DD-WRT didn't suck horribly, people might run it... I'm not really a fan of routers that like to shit themselves simply due to a semi-heavy load being placed upon them.

Re:WRT54Gs IPv6 (1)

Solosoft (622322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604253)

Oh yeah ? How is it so shitty ?

I don't mind people bashing things but if your going to bash things please have somthing to back it up. By Semi-Heavy load what do you exactly mean ?
You do know there are known issues with the router such as overclocking it 16MHz (which the newer stock linksys firmware does) fixes up tons of issues.

~ # sed -n 's%.* src=\(192.168.[0-9.]*\).*%\1%p' /proc/net/ip_conntrack | sort | uniq -c
4 192.168.1.1
3 192.168.1.100
68 192.168.1.101
686 192.168.1.102
6 192.168.1.103
1 192.168.100.1

My router is handling plenty of open connections no problem and I have QoS enabled to keep everything else snappy. If I so choosed I could go and play a game of Starcraft right now with 0 lag yet im downloading 2 torrents at 100k/s each.

One thing I did was turn down the connection timeouts to about 900 seconds instead of the really high value that DD-WRT defaults too. Before I did this my machines would not drop connections quick enough and the router would literally saturate it's self with 4000 open connections.

I also made a QoS [solosoft.org] page that'll help you setup QoS on your network. It really smooths things out if it's setup correctly. Letting you keep your P2P apps open and still be able to do things like stream music and play games online.

I overclocked my router 39MHz (WRT54Gs v4) and it seems to be running amazingly quick with little downside. Although it does run slightly warmer my BEFSR41 v3 would run hotter then this is running. That doesn't include my 100mW boost on my wireless power.

I don't mind people bashing things but atleast backup your statement on why you couldn't get it to work. Then people can help you out ... maybe it's a simple command you did ... or somthing you forgot to do.

IPv6 Design Mistakes (2, Interesting)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603846)

I believe that the design of IPv6 was flawed in ways that it has inhibited adoption which could have been much more rapid. The IPv4 address space should have been a subset of the IPv6 address space. This would allow easy interconnectivity to Ipv4. The other direction, for going from Ipv4 to Ipv6 is trickier, but could involve manipulation of DNS. When a ipv4 peer requests a IP for a DNS address, the DNS server will reply with a private IPv4 address, the router/gateway associated with the DNS server will catch the connection to this IP and reroute the connection to the proper IPv6 address. It does only work with DNS addresses, yes. A special block of Ipv4 addresses should have been set aside for this purpose exclusively. Problem solved. Most people use DNS anyway. Other solutions could be devised to access a ipv6 address without DNS from ipv4, a protocol that would allow users to configure a forwarding route on the router via some utility, so that all connections to a private IP are rerouted to a specified IPv6 address. This could have eventually been built right into clients as well. This would have allowed a gradual switchover. The problem with the current switchover plan is that since there are so few Ipv6 users, there is not much incentive for websites to make themselves accessible on ipv6, but at the same time, users see no benefit from moving to ipv6, since there are not many websites avialable from it. So in order to access the internet, people need two seperate Ip configurations, people are not going to bother with ipv6 since it is pointless to them, all of the websites are on ipv4. Thus we get nowhere. It is absolutely true that there must be a gradual transition period where both protocols will be used and where both protocols must be interoperable.

Re:IPv6 Design Mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603885)

When a ipv4 peer requests a IP for a DNS address

But what happens when a HTTP peer performs a reverse DHCP lookup on a RADIUS NNTP server?

Seriously dude, your post tells me that you have *no* clue what you're talking about.

Did you perhaps mean "when an IPV4 host makes a DNS request"?

Re:IPv6 Design Mistakes (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603952)

Perhaps I did not explain clearly enough. If we have an IPv4 host on an IPv4 network, that wants to connect to say, awebsite.com. However, awebsite.com has an IPv6 address. The host would send a DNS request to its DNS server, the DNS server instead of replying with the IPv6 address, it will provide a temporary IPv4 private address (using an address block set aside for IPv4->IPv6 routing purposes perhaps) back. The IPv4 requesting host will be using a gateway server that is working in concert with the DNS server. The DNS server will tell the gateway that all connections to the temporary IPv4 address it gave to the client should be redirected to the IPv6 address for awebsite.com. The gateway/router would redirect the connection as such. This may not be a perfect solution. I do not claim to be an expert, but rather am thinking about possible solutions.

Re:IPv6 Design Mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603901)

Paragraphs are you friend.

Re:IPv6 Design Mistakes (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603991)

I think another interesting concept was IPv7 proposals. These put some additional address fields into some unused space in the IPv4 headers, if memory serves me. Each IPv4 address would basically contain a massive address space then.

The IPv4 routers would just send all of the packets right through, ignoring the additional fields. This basically allows a new address space to be layered on top of IPv4, although, it does require hosts to have upgraded software to understand the new fields.

You mean, addresses like: (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604168)

::192.168.0.1, as a substitute foe 192.168.0.1?


Hold on a moment. Close your eyes and count to three. One... Two... Three... Now, open your eyes and try, say, pinging ::127.0.0.1 and see if you can reach your loopback address. Hey! It worked! Magic, I tell ya!

Re:You mean, addresses like: (1)

louden obscure (766926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604248)

PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.041 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.040 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.048 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.047 ms
$ ping ::127.0.0.1
ping: unknown host ::127.0.0.1

mines broken already...

Try ping6 (1)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604264)

Some Linux distros don't ship with IPv6-enabled net tools, but do include distinct IPv6 versions. Dunno why, that's just so broken.

Private networks and the business case. (4, Insightful)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603922)

It has been said many times here on Slashdot, but it bears repeating.

There is no business case (yet) for IPv6. The internet was designed for resilient point to point connectivity, but the business world does not want that.

Today's security paranoid businesses want to keep their internet exposure to a minimum. Look at most companies - lots of computers behind one or two public IP addresses. Most internal hosts are firewalled, proxied, and natted INTENTIONALLY.

Sure, this creates some problems, but there are workarounds for most issues.

I keep hearing about handhelds and that millions of them will need their own IP addresses. I don't see why. I'm sure most of the wireless providers want to control the content that their subscribers can send or receive - that business model does not want a wide open network with each host directly connected to the internet.

In this type of business environment, I can't see why any business would want to throw away thousands if not millions of dollars in their existing IPv4 investment.

If you can explain a bulletproof business case for IPv6, then Mr. Chambers at Cisco may have a nice sales job for you.

-ted

Re:Private networks and the business case. (2, Interesting)

AgentGibbled (688180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604106)

Well, end-to-end connectivity would certainly make VOIP solutions considerably less hacky. Is that a bulletproof business case? Probably not, but it's an example of a useful application and it took me a couple of seconds to come up with it. I'm sure there are others if one were to actually think about it.

While I don't claim to be the world's leading expert on IPv6, I don't believe (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that it makes routers, proxies and firewalls go away. It does make NAT kind of redundant, but it doesn't seem to me as though that has much (any?) of a negative impact on security provided there is a proper firewall in place. It just means that the router doesn't need to do another lookup on each packet to figure out where it's actually supposed to go. NAT works as a stopgap measure, but it won't prevent the inevitable from eventually happening.

Re:Private networks and the business case. (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604187)

VoIP is hackey because most of the protocols weren't thought out from the start. That how ever is irrelevant in the corporate world based on the same reasons as the top post which claims corps don't want point to point and they want control. Thats true for you using your VoIP phone in your cube as well. Even if it doesn't cost them anything for you to call your 3rd cousins best friend in Timbuktu, they want full control over what you do in your cube.

Business case for IPv6 (5, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604152)

This one's easy. Firewalls don't like fragmented packets, because you can't verify subsequent parts. This means that firewalls either offer limited protection (ie: let the remaining fragments through) or re-assemble the packets themselves (which is slow).


IPv6 doesn't support fragmented packets. It forces both sides to restrict the MTU of that connection to the smallest MTU of any intermediate network component. In consequence, firewalls don't need to check for fragmentation and don't need to reserve any space for extra state information.


The practical upshot is that your bottleneck (the firewall) can handle far more connections with far lower latencies, which means B2B (business-to-business) and e-commerce network traffic can run much more smoothly and the system can manage much higher numbers of connections.


More connections with lower latencies, more business transactions. More transactions, more profit.


QED.

this just in: (2, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603953)

$PERSON makes $TRENDY style comment about $TECHNOLOGY. $EDITORS don't edit, they greenlight based on $TRENDY. Oh wait, we're talking about whether IPv6 is redundant, necessary, or useful? Thats actually secondary to the point of the accepted submission.

Does someone have a transcript? (1)

afaik_ianal (918433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603968)

I pity the poor deaf slashdotters [slashdot.org] ... Oh, and those of us who cannot download mp3s at work.

Now I'm no CCIE but I like ipv6 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14603975)

The more I get used to it and familiar with it. It's nice.

It's quite a bit more simple than IPv4. More importantly, last time I checked, the defaqult route tables were over 180,000, not just any old router can store all of that. Some of the plans for routing IPv6 based on geography will be nice and allow us to really scale the internet performance wise. No NAT, that alone dramatically simplifies a lot of things.


I think when Vista comes out the push will really begin. Comcast and other major ISPs are all readying their plans to roll it out. I for one welcome out 128bit overlords.

Why IPV6 will be accepted (5, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14603997)

IPV6 will finally get accepted when it's discovered that it's the only way to play a network game of Duke Nukem Forever.

SixXS is great for experimenting (2, Informative)

spinfire (148920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604020)

I run a dual stacked network at home using tunneled connectivity from SixXS [sixxs.net] (I live near Boston, MA, the tunnel endpoint is in NJ. This gives excellent latency performance.). With this tunneled connection came a subnet with enough IPs to last me many lifetimes. Additionally, I maintain a server with native IPv6 access including public access Jabber, NTP, and IRC. See here [isomerica.net] for more info.

IPv6 won't neccessarily get you anything you don't already have at this point, but the technology is ripe for experimenting and things work remarkably well.

IPv6 Business Case (3, Interesting)

netrangerrr (455862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14604118)

There was no business case for the transition from ARPANET's old NCP protocol to TCP/IPv4 in the 1980s - but there were technically compelling reasons. Luckily the ARPANET pioneers realized that a new protocol was needed to easily integrate the new services and applications they were thinking of deploying. Soon the WWW, e-mail, etc. exploded as they were simple to deploy on a powerful TCP/IP infrastructure. IPv6 makes it cheaper to deploy new network services and applications (like imbedded IPsec and QOS routing) by adding new extension headers to define new services. It also scales massively and offers both private networks and E2E options. You'd be amazed at how much extra code/infrastructure is necessary to get around NAT today to make many applications work.

We are currently working on a paper, with help from subject matter experts of the North American IPv6 Task Force, on HOW to get a return on investment from IPv6 technologies by adding new IPv6 based network services to enhance reliability, security, QOS, and mobility support in networks.

Coming in 3rd for Best Oxymorons of 2006... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604142)

"IPv6 Readiness"

what happened to IPV8 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14604252)

what the hell happened to IPv8?
no, really, I want to know!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...