×

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 ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

207 comments

Pointless? No. (4, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 7 years ago | (#18655213)

If you're going to start putting Interplanetary WAN infrastructure in place, might as well go IPv6 from the get go. Then once there are a few billion nodes scattered about the Solar System we won't have any addressing problems ;)

Re:Pointless? No. (5, Funny)

myrdos2 (989497) | about 7 years ago | (#18655277)

Exactly, someone has to be the first to roll it out. The first IPv6 device might as well be a satellite, since these are notoriously difficult to upgrade later.

Even with a stepladder.

Re:Pointless? No. (4, Insightful)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656025)

Because we all know that newly-implemented code never requires patching, and is guaranteed bug-free...

Re:Pointless? No. (4, Insightful)

user24 (854467) | about 7 years ago | (#18655489)

He has a good point. As you all know, IPv6 allows 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6 addresses, while IPv4 allows only 4,294,967,296 addresses (tinyurl.com/6gqkc). Nothing like planning ahead, eh?

Re:Pointless? No. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655663)

Besides, it meets the requirements put in place by the Grand Galatic Council.

Following international standards is a good thing and leads to interoperability and better service. Following Intergalatic standards is a better thing, as it prevents a coalition of other civilizations from destroying your planet.

Which is one more reason to hate Microsoft (Sorry. I had to).

well this is good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655221)

cause any aliens using IPv6 will be able to reach us easier.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these... (2, Funny)

Channard (693317) | about 7 years ago | (#18655261)

.. oh, wait, that'd be the Ultimate Marvel entity known as Gah Lak Tus. Not sure I'd want them to reach us easier.

Nobody uses it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655227)

Amen to that, brother.

Just in case it catastrophically fails.... (5, Funny)

m0ng0l (654467) | about 7 years ago | (#18655233)

No, testing it in space isn't pointless! If the IPv6 stack fails catastrophically, there's no one around to be hurt by the flying shrapnel!

I mean after all it might even potentially set the Earths atmosphere on fire, if it were testing on the ground!

IP in Space (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655237)

This is nothing new. The ill fated STS-107 carried a complete CANDOS pacage offering a wealth of IP protocols. In fact UoSat-12 back in May of 2000 ran an ftp server. The only thing new here is IPV6. IPV4 has been in space for a long time. You an find more about this at our website http://ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

Thank you,
your NASA team

Re:IP in Space (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656205)

"nothing new [..] The only thing new here is IPV6."

Sheesh, will you make up your mind?

redundancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655279)

So when do the plan on launching it's HSRP mate?

Re:redundancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656345)

As soon as you learn the difference between its and it's.

Not true (0, Redundant)

cjonslashdot (904508) | about 7 years ago | (#18655281)

It is not so that no one is choosing it on the ground. The US government is mandating a move to IP6, and further virtally all of the major backbone providers now implement it. Vista supports it in a huge way. The missing link is that local ISPs have not turned it on, but they will. In a couple of years you will see a very sudden and comprehensive shift to IP6. There are many large business models that depend on it.

Re:Not true (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#18655383)

There are many large business models that depend on it.

Such as?

First, what does a networking potocol have to do with a business model; And second, how can any company survive with a business model dependant on something not supported by most ISPs?



Serious questions, not sarcasm.

every internet business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655453)

think about it

Re:Not true (2, Insightful)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | about 7 years ago | (#18655481)

First, what does a networking potocol have to do with a business model;

Go look up Communication clients and services, from simple IM and Voice to remote clients and client tracking.

And second, how can any company survive with a business model dependant on something not supported by most ISPs?

Go look up, "tunneling."

Re:Not true (2, Informative)

nevali (942731) | about 7 years ago | (#18655659)

3G mobile networks utilise IPv6, AIUI; I've a feeling it's part of the specs (well, everything is specified somewhere in mobile telco land), which makes it part of the business model.

Re:Not true (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 7 years ago | (#18655757)

Such as?
  • Apple's OS X Bonjour relies on it.
  • French telecoms have it
  • Chinese telecoms have it
First, what does a networking protocol have to do with a business model
  • Apple: OS X is a cornerstone of their business model - Bonjour is a cornerstone of OS X
  • France: Great way to get govt. funding for R&D and keep a telecom business alive while you develop
  • China: Great way to get govt. funding and keep a telecom business or two alive while they develop
And second, how can any company survive with a business model dependent on something not supported by most ISPs?
  • Apple: What happens upstream, on one side of an ISP is one thing. Still lots of activity happening downstream, inside private IP address space, away from the ISPs.
  • France: Great way to keep a business alive while you develop
  • China: Routine way to keep a business alive while you develop

um, no. (2, Informative)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656019)

Bonjour does not rely on IPv6 - IPv6 autoconf was based on Appletalk autoconf, as was Apple's Bonjour (formerly Rendezvous). Bonjour works just fine with no v6 on the network.

And Apple's business model is absolutely not dependent on Bonjour: I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the term "business model." An example of a business model is:

"We give away high-quality software for free to get people to buy our hardware, where we make high margins" - that's an example of Apple's business model.

"By becoming the de-facto standard desktop environment, we encourage customers to buy applications from us which are specifically geared for that environment" - that's an example of Microsoft's business model.

Notice that neither of those models require calling out a specific technology. Any company which is completely dependent on a single technology will find itself obsolete when the next big thing is created.

Re:Not true (3, Interesting)

Kizeh (71312) | about 7 years ago | (#18656503)

Cellular carriers have looked at it very seriously for the next generation (4G?) networks, as one potential idea is to do packetized voice, and the number of addressable devices is potentially huge, and depending on how mobility is done, each device may need several addresses.

The U.S. federal government has mandated it, so anyone wishing to get into that business needs it.

That being said, my university has been running IPv6 for a few years now -- we luckily have native IPv6 feed from I2 -- and all of our routers (Cisco IOS), servers (various variants of Linux) and clients (MacOS X, Linux, Windows XP) have supported it just fine.

i'm going to ipv6 right now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655303)

and i suggest that slashdot and everyone else follow or it's going to be very lonely for me.

ok, here goes.

3...
2..
1.

Re:i'm going to ipv6 right now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656739)

Um, where are you?

ballmer@ms.com://~ $ ping 127.0.0.1
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=0.025 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.019 ms
Oh, I see you now.

This surely is bullshit! (5, Funny)

ReinisFMF (893095) | about 7 years ago | (#18655315)

Everybody knows that satellites go round faster than earth rotates. The tubes would certainly break!

Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655335)

This opens up new battle tactics in the eventually inevitable intergalactic wars. Once IPv6 is fully deployed throughout the universe, all we need to tell our enemy aliens is to direct their attacks at ::1.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655337)

While we're also waiting for the personal commuter rocket backpacks...

"no one will ever need more than IPv4"

Cisco's New Marketing Campaign (5, Funny)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about 7 years ago | (#18655375)

Cisco - we hold 100% of the IPv6 market*

Cisco - We circle the globe with IPv6 support.

Cisco - THE standard for aerospace IPv6 deplyment archetecture.

Cisco - Our IPv6 technology is rated "higher" than any of our competitors.

*in space

Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#18655377)

Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground, isn't this a bit pointless?


Why is no one running IPv6 on the ground? Well, I'll tell you why I don't run it:

  • Neither of my ISPs (work or home) supports it
  • NONE of my routers support it
  • A lot of applications I run don't support it
  • Dealing with it on apache would be a PITA, wouldn't it?


Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize? Just wrench the class A address assignments away from the current assignees (not a single one of them needs a class A block) and reallocate them reasonably. Apple does not need a class A block, Merck doesn't, HP doesn't, GE doesn't, IBM doesn't, MIT doesn't. Halliburton doesn't, and the DoD certainly does not need multiple /8 assignments. Besides, isn't the DoD largely on IPv6 now? Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Interesting)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18655607)

I agree about the downsides of running IPv6, but pulling the /8 assignments from the current assignees would be a lot of headache and trouble for not so much benefit - yeah, a couple of those could be returned easily (probably not the DoD ones - they already returned the ones they don't need anymore) (and you forgot to mention that Level3 currently owns 3 /8s due to their purchase of BBNPlanet (AS1), and that would add maybe an additional year at our current run rate, but we'll come to a point where we need to do something different.

Whether that something is IPv6 or is wide-scale NAT, or some other protocol entirely, I don't know. IPv6 implementation and deployment has been hampered by the protocol designers attempting to fix every known problem with it, rather than simply fixing the address space...

-David

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (4, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | about 7 years ago | (#18655641)

Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize? Just wrench the class A address assignments away from the current assignees (not a single one of them needs a class A block) and reallocate them reasonably. Apple does not need a class A block, Merck doesn't, HP doesn't, GE doesn't, IBM doesn't, MIT doesn't. Halliburton doesn't, and the DoD certainly does not need multiple /8 assignments. Besides, isn't the DoD largely on IPv6 now? Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.
- And who wants to deal with dotted quads when a single digit is even easier to memorise. Except that wouldn't be much good when the 11th person comes along and asks for an IP address would it? Same with IPv4. We will run out of IPv4 addresses. Maybe not today, tomorrow or even next year, but short of the annihilation of civilisation as we know it it will happen sooner or later. It doesn't matter if we liberate x hundred million unused addresses, that will only delay the inevitable by a few years or maybe a decade at most.

The real PITA then, is trying to get people to do something about this problem before it really becomes a problem. People keep commenting on the slow transition to IPv6 as if it's a failure of the protocol. No, as you implied, it's a failure of the software developers who aren't implementing it, the hardware manufacturers who aren't supporting it, and the ISPs who aren't providing it. Instead of trying to free up more IPv4 address space we should be letting it become a scarce resource to force the guilty parties to make the necessary updates so that nobody's caught short on that fateful day when we well and truly are out of IPv4 addresses. We should be taking every step possible to limit the amount of software and hardware from being deployed that we already know will be useless a couple of decades from now, instead it seems like so many people are quite happy to take their sweet time with it until alarm bells start ringing.

You'd think with things like the Y2k bug and numerous other situations which exposed the fallacies of the "it'll do for now, we'll deal with that later" ideology that the computing industry would be all too happy to see that the IP address situation was spotted well ahead of time and would be embracing the ability to future-proof their software and IT infrastructures. Instead it seems like we're going to have another case of fingers-in-their-ears-"la-la we're not listening - oh shit! we're out of IP addresses!" situation with a mad dash to half-assed implementations and slap-dash patches.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | about 7 years ago | (#18656753)

umm people dont deal with long term problems in the short term. Thats like not the capitalist way of life!

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | about 7 years ago | (#18656895)

Indeed.

What we need is someone to show them that China is leading the way in IPv6 uptake and that in 10 or 20 years when IPv4 is expended they'll take it in their stride while the West is struggling with network infrastructure failing all around us. We'll be at the mercy of communism. Sorry, I mean COMMUNISM!

This sounds like a job for Al Gore. "An Inconvenient IP Truth" anyone?

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (4, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | about 7 years ago | (#18655701)

Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.

If I may make a car analogy...

Let us say that IPv4 is the oil we get from the ground and all cars run off it. Then a small group of scientists do a study and say discover "Egads! We've only got 10 years worth of oil left!"

Everyone panics and the scientists come up with a pure ethanol based car (IPv6) that has none of the limitations of oil when it comes to making new ones (In theory we could eventually use up all our natural resources in production of corn, but that would take thousands of years so that is someone eles's problem)

However, such a switch over would cost millions if not billions of dollars spent replacing all the oil based motors, but they start the work.

Then.... Some smart ingenious mechanic finds a way to make regular engines work off 50% ethanol and 50% oil (NAT addressing) and everyone goes "Phew! Problem solved!"

However, that doesn't resolve the fact that oil is still going to run out in 20 years but by then that will be someone else's problem.

But in reality, I think the US, Canada, and Europe will switch to IPv6 when their counter parts in China and India surpass us economically in 10 to 20 years. (As in Chinese companies start buying US companies and then tell their network departments to migrate so they can communicate better)

Asia is the big pusher for IPv6 because they simply did not get any of the IPv4 to start with and NAT isn't helping them much considering they will have literally the majority of world's internet users. Unless, like you say, the big US tech companies give up the IPv4 spaces to companies in Asia I think they are on the path to complete IPv6 networks over there.

Either way... I think most of us will get IPv6 equipment when it was cheaper for the manufacture to not disable the feature in our standard IPv4 products (think built in modem or video into the mother board trend) but this might be some time from now.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

morcego (260031) | about 7 years ago | (#18655907)

I think most of us will get IPv6 equipment when it was cheaper for the manufacture to not disable the feature in our standard IPv4 products


Care to clarify that ? How it is more expensive to manufacture IPv6 equipment than IPv4 ?

Memory ? IPv6 uses less memory than IPv4+NAT.
Processing power ? Well within the limits of everything we have around. Again, IPv6 uses less processing than IPv4+NAT.
The stack itself ? Implementing IPv6 is pretty much equivalent (amount of work) as implementing NAT, if not easier. Also, there are plenty of stack codes lying around.

The only reason manufacturer would choose to disable it is not confusing clients (how can barely understand IPv4, if at all).

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | about 7 years ago | (#18656655)

...But in reality, I think the US, Canada, and Europe will switch to IPv6 when their counter parts in China and India surpass us economically in 10 to 20 years...
The main problem with your theory is that China and India are unlikely to surpass us economically in 20 years. To illustrate my point, let's compare the US and China. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] the US GDP is approx $12.5 Trillion. The Chinese GDP is about $2.2 Trillion. If the US economy had zero growth for 20 years, and the Chinese economy would have to grow at almost 9.1% per year to equal the current US GDP. Zero growth rate for the US is rather unlikely the historic growth rate is a little over 3%. And I do not believe any country has had sustained economic growth of 9% for 20 years.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about 7 years ago | (#18655775)

"Neither of my ISPs (work or home) supports it"

You dont need their support. Use 6to4. Or a tunnel.

"NONE of my routers support it"

You dont need them to. Use 6to4.

"A lot of applications I run don't support it."

Some do tho. It's wonderful to be able to ssh and scp directly into the boxes you have behind a NAT gateway without having to resort to two-stage jumps.

"Dealing with it on apache would be a PITA, wouldn't it?"

No.

"who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize?"

There's this new development called DNS you know...

"Just wrench the class A"

Mmm, like that's going to happen...

Meanwhile I sit here on a bazillion addresses, merit of having one single v4 address. Get with the times, it's not like IPv6 is rocket science anymore.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656637)

"NONE of my routers support it"

You dont need them to. Use 6to4.

"A lot of applications I run don't support it."

Some do tho. It's wonderful to be able to ssh and scp directly into the boxes you have behind a NAT gateway without having to resort to two-stage jumps.

But you still need support for this on the NAT box, right? If you're using a cheap, non-upgradable NAT router to share your single public IPv4 address, how would it know what to do with incoming tunneled IPv6 SSH connections?

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

slamb (119285) | about 7 years ago | (#18656757)

You dont need their support. Use 6to4. Or a tunnel.

You need their support even for 6to4. In one facility, I sent out 6to4 packets to the anycast address (192.88.99.1) and no packets came back. I don't know exactly what happened to the packets, but it works fine on machines elsewhere, but there tcpdump shows proto=ipv6 packets going over my real network interface to 192.88.99.1 and never coming back, so I can't access true IPv6 (non-2002::) sites. Even where the anycast address does work, 6to4 doesn't work over NAT without an alg no one's written or deployed, so you can't just get at your IPv6-only machines by using your hotel or airport's wireless connection, which is inevitably NATted and IPv4-only.

And tunnels? To where? If you have two specific sites you want to connect, sure it will work but so will an IPv4-only tunnel with reserved addresses. If you want to not have to do setup for each address pair, the tunnel would have to go to a host with IPv6 already set up that isn't too slow and is willing to forward all your traffic. Where would that be? The 6bone test network closed down, and even when it was running, their sites were high-latency, high-loss, and inconsistently available.

The problem is the ISPs. Applications are easy to fix - in fact, if you tell me how I could practically take advantage of IPv6, I pledge I will add IPv6 support for every Linux network application I use. I did it for CVS the other day - it took me about half an hour. I think much of the core router equipment has IPv6 support. In fact, some ISPs are even asking for IPv6 support in the DSL routers they bundle to consumers with the service. Not sure why...it's not like they're going to actually flip the switch and turn it on...that's not how they roll. They just like demanding features from their vendors that they'll never actually use. (Disclaimer: I work for one of those vendors. We have all kinds of features that real consumers never see, and it annoys me.)

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

vertinox (846076) | about 7 years ago | (#18655889)

Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize?

And I forgot to add... Who memorizes IP addresses anymore?

I used to back in the day, but DHCP isn't as flaky anymore so no need for static IP on the OS side and if your router setup is worth a snuff you can assign a static IP via DHCP based of your NIC's MAC address so it gets the same IP address each time. And since most people are blocking use of their DNS servers unless you are on their network also makes it pointless to know IP addresses by heart.

Everything else can go into an excel file or a sticky note on the monitor (I've got one IP address that I don't have a DNS entry for, but I use it once in a blue moon but I made a sticky note for it)

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#18655975)

Who memorizes IP addresses anymore?


People who need to configure DNS, DHCP, and apache servers, that's who.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | about 7 years ago | (#18656123)

run nslookup or ping, and then c&p.

I also don't know why you think apache needs ip addresses. It understands DNS hostnames perfectly well, in VirtualHost blocks, Listen, etc.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#18656613)

Okay, so you're telling me there is no need to know IP addresses? So, I can nslookup a hostname before a zone is configured in bind for the new domain? One can use a hostname to test against a staging server before cutting over DNS without knowing the IP address to point the hosts file at it for testing? Wow, I'd love to learn how you do that. Somehow, you are suggesting that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary on the administration and development side.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (4, Interesting)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 7 years ago | (#18655939)

While it is certainly true that there aren't a whole ton of home routers that support IPv6 yet, it's on the way. Vista installs IPv6 by default and it's a pain to get rid of it. Vista tells you you've got full IPv4 connectivity, but limited IPv6 connectivity...and I've already had one client ask me what that meant, and how he could get full IPv6. Folks will buy an IPv6 router just because it's got a bigger number...and now that Vista advertises IPv6 connectivity, people will be aware that there is a bigger number to be had.

Plus, some stupid applications insist on trying IPv6 if it is installed and wait forever for the packets to time out... A common problem I ran into with folks who tinkered under XP was massive slowdowns with Firefox after someone had installed IPv6. Remove IPv6 and everything was fine. Of course...Vista doesn't like it when you try to remove IPv6... Haven't had any calls about slowdowns yet...maybe Vista handles the stack better than XP did...

As far as "no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground"... Well, that's just not true. Many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks. You'll never see it because your modem/router/LAN live in an IPv4 tunnel...but it's there. I know I've seen Job Ads for the local hospital asking for IPv6 experience as well...though I don't know if they're actually using it yet or just preparing for the future.

"Dotted quads" may be easier for you to memorize...but I suspect this is largely because that's what you're dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Remember when you were little and it was hard to memorize addresses or phone numbers? Now that seems incredibly simple, doesn't it? Remember when you were just learning IP and wondered why you couldn't use DNS for absolutely everything (because names are so much easier to memorize than numbers). Plus, IPv6 supports a couple different ways to abbreviate [wikipedia.org] addresses...such as stripping leading 0's or replacing them with :: Which makes our old friend 127.0.0.1 something much easier to remember - ::1

And simply re-allocating the IPv4 address space just isn't going to cut it. There aren't enough addresses out there. The only reason we've been able to stay with IPv4 for so long is NAT, which causes problems [wikipedia.org] of its own. The bottom line is that we need more addresses than IPv4 has.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Interesting)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656071)

I'd challenge the assertion that "many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks" - the only ISP which has made any sort of argument that running IPv6 as a core service (rather than an edge service across the existing IPv4 core) is Comcast, and that has to do with the number of devices they're trying to manage with regard to set-top-boxes.

Comcast is nowhere near implementing this, either.

The US ISPs either run IPv6 as an edge service (in a VRF, say) or using tunneling approaches, or on limited deployments on specific hardware - but nobody's tunneling IPv4 inside IPv6 (although theoretically that'll work)

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Interesting)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 7 years ago | (#18656213)

Perhaps I am wrong... One of our larger local ISPs is rolling out its own fiber and offering a comprehensive package that includes broadband, unlimited phone, and video - and they're using IPv6 on their internal network. The end user doesn't see that though...they get an IPv4 address on their broadband router, just like with a regular cable/DSL connection. I just assumed that if a local ISP here was doing IPv6 internally that more worldwide would be doing so.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656359)

2 questions:

1) how do you know they're using IPv6 internally?

2) If I have 1000 aggregation routers connected to customers running IPv4, and two routers in my network where IPv6 is turned on, am I "running IPv6 on my internal network?"

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 7 years ago | (#18656645)

1) how do you know they're using IPv6 internally?

Because we do a lot of business with them and their clients. They offer very competitive pricing on pure bandwidth packages and their bundled price is outstanding. Plus they're a local company, which means tech support isn't outsourced yet. And they're far more reliable than the local cable company. So we wind up recommending that any of our customers looking for an ISP go with them.

All of which means that we wind up working with their installers and seeing their equipment very often. I've done work on their devices more than once and can attest that they are running IPv6 - a separate address for each interface on the device: bandwidth, video, phone. I have been told by their installers that this is typical and that their internal equipment is all running IPv6, though I have no proof of that myself.


2) If I have 1000 aggregation routers connected to customers running IPv4, and two routers in my network where IPv6 is turned on, am I "running IPv6 on my internal network?"

Yes, technically, you would be running IPv6 on your internal network. And I suppose this may be similar to what they're running. I have been led to believe that their servers (mail, web, whatever) are also running IPv6 as well, though this may be incorrect.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (2, Informative)

slamb (119285) | about 7 years ago | (#18656997)

I've done work on their devices more than once and can attest that they are running IPv6 - a separate address for each interface on the device: bandwidth, video, phone. I have been told by their installers that this is typical and that their internal equipment is all running IPv6, though I have no proof of that myself.

That doesn't mean they're running it. My MacBook right now says this:

[slamb@spiff ~]$ /sbin/ifconfig en1
en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULT ICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::217:f2ff:fe9c:84f2%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
inet 172.16.1.4 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 172.16.1.255
ether 00:17:f2:9c:84:f2
media: autoselect status: active
supported media: autoselect

IPv6 auto-assigns link-local addresses, much like the IPv4 169.255.0.0/16 addresses you see when no DHCP is running. I did nothing to set up that "%en1" address, I have never used it, and in fact it can't actually be used anywhere but on that network segment. All this means is that their equipment supports it, which is much more likely than them having upstream IPv6 connectivity and actually learning to use it.

No one uses IPv6. Your other example is equally bogus. The hospital you mentioned is probably just asking for experience with it because someone saw it in a trade magazine, similar to the people who were asking for "10 years Java experience" when Java had only existed outside of Sun for three years. Or because they know a particular person with IPv6 on his/her resumé and have made the job requirements so (s)he will be the only one who matches them. In a university- or government-run institution, that's how you get around the affirmative action people when you want to hire from within. I have seen it happen at a hospital.

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18657387)

Both are fair points, although from this description they sound like a smaller provider, as opposed to one of the really big ones (AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon...)

My contention was that the big players aren't doing this yet (although Comcast is making noises about it).

The benefits of having separate addresses for each of these interfaces should be compared to the benefit of having different TCP port numbers for different services, which goes back to part of what I see as a problem with the way IPv6 has developed: instead of merely replacing the layer-3 function, it wraps a bunch of layer 2 and layer 4 functionality into it as well, defeating some of the advantages of layering...

Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | about 7 years ago | (#18656647)

Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize?
Hehe, I had a friend who had memorized two or three CS servers.. I guess we'll have to use domain names...

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655389)

welcome our huge-ip-address-space-possesing outerspace overlords!

who's no one? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655445)

...Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground...

You mean since few AMERICAN ISPs offer it...it doesn't reflect on the REST of the world.

Ignorance is NOT bliss (4, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about 7 years ago | (#18655593)

Since nobody runs ipv6????? Sad, that so many Americans are clueless. Asia has moved into IPv6 in a big way, esp. China. They are all hoping to get a jump on it before we do. China, Japan, and even South Korea have pushed it like there is no tomorrow.

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (2, Informative)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18655669)

sort of - there's a lot more IPv6 there than here, but there are still a whole bunch of thoroughly under-implemented pieces of IPv6 (like, has anyone written an actual implementation of IPv6Sec yet?), and actual traffic rates using native v6 native v6 all the way through are exceptionally low.

If you go to one of the good latency calculators [sixxs.net], you'll see that the delta between IPv6 performance and IPv4 performance is substantial, with IPv6 performance showing as a heck of a lot worse (about twice as poor). Once this isn't the case, then an argument for widespread adoption of v6 will be more effective.

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (2, Insightful)

GooberToo (74388) | about 7 years ago | (#18656047)

Isn't that because it's tunneling IPv6 over IPv4? So of course the latency is going to be much higher. I would be hard pressed to imagine why latency would be higher for IPv4 versus IPv6 so long as it's an apples to apples comparison. If what I read is correct on the URL you provided, it's like comparing IPv4 verses IPv4 traveling over an VPN. So of course the latency is going to be higher...but one has nothing to do with the other if a fair comparison is your intention.

Please correct me if I failed to properly interpret "tunneling", as stated on that site.

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (1)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656303)

You're correct about the reason, but the implication is that there isn't the quantity of native service deployed to support the need.

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (1)

ffejie (779512) | about 7 years ago | (#18655785)

Nobody runs IPv6 -- yeah, like your rinky-dink corporate network. You know, no one, except the federal government and the 3 of the 4 largest service providers supporting them. Networx deal [telephonyonline.com].

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (2, Informative)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18655933)

None of the significant US ISPs support native IPv6 transport across an infrastructure without any IPv4 present at this time.

No government agency does either.

Evidence? Try to get OSPFv3 working without an IPv4 router-ID. Try to get encryption (IPv6SEC) working without using IPSEC (over IPv4 transport). Try getting VoIPv6 working, or looking for hardware support for multiple queues for IPv6 packets.

Networx was just awarded a couple of days ago, and specifies those services which are to be orderable over the next 15 years. It shouldn't be used as evidence of what is supported today.

-David

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (1)

GooberToo (74388) | about 7 years ago | (#18656067)

This is starting to change. More and more government projects are starting to mandate IPv6 support.

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (2, Informative)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656327)

Many governement projects treat IPv6 support as a checkbox, not as something to be actually used. There are big, big, holes in the implementations, and nobody really wants to go first...

Re:Ignorance is NOT bliss (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about 7 years ago | (#18656015)

My contract with Jeppesen ran out in Sept. Since early Feb, I have been working at Verizon Business. Please look up the players in Networx. I can tell you that very little IPv6 is currently being used. The FEDS are wanting to move to IPv6, but none of the players in Networx currently use it (they have small networks of it, but they are all IPv4 shops). Hopefully, that contract will change things.

Carl Sagan would've been proud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18655771)

The Milky Way galaxy alone has billions and billions of stars... and every one of them can be assigned billions and billions of IPv6 addresses!

ISPs Must Come First: How to Pressure Them? (1)

drgreening (594381) | about 7 years ago | (#18655807)

I tried running IPv6 and it works great within the company (Linux, Windows, Mac), but that our ISP did not support IPv6 caused insurmountable problems.

Are ISPs being pressured by anyone to support IPv6?

Re:ISPs Must Come First: How to Pressure Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656191)

I couldn't even stop mine from getting bought by Best Buy.

New meme (5, Funny)

bcmm (768152) | about 7 years ago | (#18655897)

Pretty please can we make this into a new meme?
Examples:
  • IPv6 Tested ...in Space
  • SCO Vs. IBM Leaks Exposed ...in Space
  • O'Reilly Opens Online Tech School ...in Space
  • Microsoft Opposing California Open Doc Bill ..in Space

Re:New meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656781)

That's like adding "in bed" to the end of your fortune from a fortune cookie. "Success will smile upon you today... in bed"

Re:New meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656813)

In Soviet Russia, spacecraft flies YOU!! ... in Space.

You are already are using IPv6 (2, Insightful)

AndyMcL (65518) | about 7 years ago | (#18655925)

Ever use a new cell phone? Want to watch TV? The truth is IPv4 addresses are almost gone. Not the number of hosts, but amount of allocatable new address are almost gone. Companies do not usually give back allocated addresses even when they are acquired or merge plus of course the number of hosts are ever increasing.

The practical number of usable IPv4 addresses is about 250 million. Remember there is at least one host address AND THEN gateway and broadcast when provisioning new Internet services. This is very inefficient and one reason why there is not the notion of broadcast domain in IPv6. Also companies especially early on were given large blocks of addresses. So yes there are addresses out there which can be reused, but are you going to start calling up companies and universities and ask them for addresses? Not very realistic.

It should only take just a couple of examples to see why companies already have and will have to move to IPv6:

Remembering there are about 250 million usable addresses, what if you want to IP enable 80 million cell phone customers for web, video, IM, e-mail and other services? Where are you going to get all of those addresses? How will you get about 30% of the world's useable IPv4 addresses so you can make money from the new services? You can not. This is why NTT moved to IPv6 about 4-5 years ago.

Another example could be a US cable service provider (no names - protecting the innocent) who has 40 million customers and wants/needs to roll out new IP enabled digital set top boxes so they can provide video (1 address), VoIP (1 address), and Internet data (1 address). If each customer bought all three services the ISP would need 120 million address. Do you think anyone will give up their addresses so this one provider can have about half (120 million) of all of the useable IPv4 address in the world? No. IPv6.

The fact that you do not understand how to subnet IPv6 or understand how it works is irrelevant. It is needed because of the scale of IP enabled devices and services. Should people in developing counties do without the Internet revolution because Americans have most of the addresses and we are fat, dumb, and happy (it is phase meaning complacent) because we already have the lions share of the IPv4 addresses and as such many of the services already? --Yes I know we have fallen way behind Asia and Europe in many areas.

Also, IPv6 is needed to enable more interactive use of IP enabled technologies. Sitting behind NAT devices inhibits accessibility. (I know most are saying..well duh...) But networks should be secure and accessible. Think of talking to your friend on a mobile phone and then sharing/watching with him on your and his mobile phones some of the highlights of a sports game you watched last night and are being streamed from home your home server --of course taunting him while watching because your team won.

Of course some of this can be done now, but it is more male geeks doing it manually. When it can be seamless and by the main stream, then things will really be different. We will live in a much more collaborative society. One where using technology will not create social misfits who do not know how to interact with real people anymore, but one that uses technology TO interact socially with people. When you can video conference from your mobile, PC, work, school, or living room and the clarity of visual and sound are so good it seems like the people are there, you will not longer have to do " ;-) :-) :-S :-( lol " which are poor substitutes for seeing and hearing actual emotion and reacting to it.

So what does IPv6 enable? The future.

-Andy

Re:You are already are using IPv6 (2, Insightful)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18655979)

IPv6 is one possible solution to the address shortage (which is hardly at the *dire* stage, but will be soon enough). Other solutions include widespread adoption of NAT and/or adopting some entirely different layer-3 paradigm.

The IPv6 designers have hampered adoption by insisting on solving problems which are not directly related to address size (like autoconfiguration, QoS, etc) and rolling those into the protocol - because so many of these useful features which were steadily glommed onto IPv4 have not yet been implemented in v6, those customers who need the features have no incentive to deploy it.

Examples: IPv6SEC is not yet implemented. Autoconfiguration in a truly native v6 environment (i.e. no v4 at all) doesn't have a mechanism for learning about DNS servers. OSPFv3 is substantially different from OSPFv2. The list goes on...

Re:You are already are using IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18656063)

It should be pointed out that NAT, which was initially considered a hack or a sort of "IPv4 hamburger helper", has turned out to be useful in hiding the IP addresses of the hosts behind the firewall, and in enforcing a layer of filtering. Of course you can use NAT with IPv6, too, but if everyone uses NAT then the IPv4 address space issue is much less severe.

Maybe someone should propose an "IPv5" that uses 64-bit addresses? Seems that people are having a hard time getting their heads around the huge address space of IPv6, the direct mapping of Ethernet physical addresses to IP addresses, etc.

Re:You are already are using IPv6 (1)

thegameiam (671961) | about 7 years ago | (#18656097)

IPv5 was experimental-only, thus the v6 nomenclature. There was a proposed "IPv8" which was exactly like IPv4 except for the length of the address - I think that a simpler proposal had a lot going for it...

But alas, we did not head that way...

Re:You are already are using IPv6 (1)

AndyMcL (65518) | about 7 years ago | (#18656435)

thegameiam,

NATing was a temp stop gap. Also, if you just look around, almost every home with broadband uses NAT, every company uses NAT and many companies have the operation hell of traffic being NATed multiple times throughout an Enterprise. So wide spread adoption of NAT already happened. NAT is not the answer. For a home user with a dinky network, it works. If you have a huge network with MILLIONS of endpoints, it just does not from an ROI perspective. Try tracing and capturing packets whose addresses change multiple times in both directions on a global network for an application that is not functioning and your company is losing money for every minutes (second) it is out.

Remember that there are billions of people with millions coming online in some form or fashion for the first time every year with many new companies springing up to serve them. A simple thing like an address gets important. The more private addressing you use, the less interoperable and supportable things become. Just something to think about as you play with the hair on your arm.

To the point of address exhaustion; here is a quote from an ARIN meeting last October 2006:

"....And then you see each of the RIRs, the amount of space that we currently have in /8s, ARIN having at this point the most IPv4 blocks from the IANA and, of course, the available space. It says the IANA reserved is right now 59 /8s. That number changed last week. There are now 55 /8s remaining. ARIN was issued four /8 blocks by the IANA last week, last Wednesday I think. So there really are 55 /8s remaining in the entire v4 space pool...."

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/pp m1_transcript.html#anchor_4 [arin.net]

I have seen estimates of practical allocatable address exhaustion in 2008 or 2009. Pretty darn soon! This does not mean the Internet or commerce will stop. Just new services and deployments will increasingly need to use IPv6 because there will not be IPv4 addresses for them.

Getting back to IPv6 in space.....it is good it is being tested now in space because it will certainly be used in the future. Also, I hope every router in space is Cisco, then they should work. :-)

Suggested links:
http://www.arin.net/ [arin.net]
http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm [iana.org]
http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XVIII/pp m.html [arin.net]

Best regards,

Andy

Cellphones don't need unique addresses (1, Insightful)

argent (18001) | about 7 years ago | (#18656143)

Remembering there are about 250 million usable addresses, what if you want to IP enable 80 million cell phone customers for web, video, IM, e-mail and other services?

Since every phone has a unique address (PSTN address, AKA phone number) within the cell network, you don't even need to touch 10.0.0.0. You can give every phone the address 192.168.0.2, router 192.168.0.1, and NAT them all by PSTN at your border router.

I would *prefer* to have my cellphone be something like $CARRIER:PREFIX::$PSTN:IN:OCTETS but you don't actually need this capability.

Re:Cellphones don't need unique addresses (1)

nevali (942731) | about 7 years ago | (#18656573)

Except that an awful lot of 3G (UMTS) services operate via IP, and are supposed to continue to do so (and be directly addressable from the home network) whilst roaming.

[Aside: Whilst a given phone will invariably have an MSISDN (phone number), it could have two, or three, or four, and it's not necessarily globally unique. Generally a phone won't know its own PSTN number unless it's told it by the network, and in normal useage it's only the SS7 gateways that need to care: the actual MSISDN isn't used a whole heap for call routing). About the only useful ID in this context is the MSIN (mobile subscriber identity number--the number on your SIM), but that's no more helpful to an end-user mapped to an IPv6 address than any other address would be.

I'm not entirely sure how giving every phone the same IP and NATing achieves anything beyond confusion, or what 'NAT them all by PSTN at your border router' means, let alone how it would help.]

Re:Cellphones don't need unique addresses (1)

argent (18001) | about 7 years ago | (#18656869)

Except that an awful lot of 3G (UMTS) services operate via IP, and are supposed to continue to do so (and be directly addressable from the home network) whilst roaming.

That's a nice feature, one that seems to be designed to promote IPv6, but there are techniques to implement that with NAT/PAT using asymmetrical routing.

I'm not entirely sure how giving every phone the same IP and NATing achieves anything beyond confusion

It's a thought experiment that demonstrates that you don't need 80 million IP addresses to provide services to 80 million cell phones. Obviously you would use a less parsimonious distribution of NATted addresses, and use asymmetrical routing to implement roaming.

or what 'NAT them all by PSTN at your border router' means

Doesn't matter if you use PSTN, MSIN, or anything else, just so long as it's a unique ID per phone that can be used to associate any open TCP sessions the phone has with a matching internet-routable IP and port at the border between the cell net and the public internet.

Re:Cellphones don't need unique addresses (1)

nevali (942731) | about 7 years ago | (#18657287)

That's the point, though: it has very little to do with the public Internet. IPv4 traffic is still NATted at the borders and so on as it previously has been, but IPv6 is used within the networks by the networks.

Internet hierarchy (1)

phobos13013 (813040) | about 7 years ago | (#18656031)

From what i hear, this is just an attempt to create a protocol "hierarchy" where us lowly terran-based inhabitants are forced to fight amongst the allowable IPv4 addresses, while the more affluent elite who are permitted access to the great beyond get to roll with IPv6. Fight the powers!

I wonder if that Cisco has been patched... (3, Interesting)

mnemotronic (586021) | about 7 years ago | (#18656091)

For this configuration exploit [securitytracker.com], this SNMP vulnerability [cisco.com], this IP sequence generation problem [securityfocus.com], this ICMP vuln [auscert.org.au], this H.323 problem [auscert.org.au], and this buffer overflow [auscert.org.au].

NOTE: Some of the listed problems indicate a "Cisco 3200 Catalyst", which may not be the same as the orbiting "Cisco 3200 Mobile Access Router". IANACG (I am not a Cisco geek).

If only I could hack the ISS (2, Funny)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | about 7 years ago | (#18656453)

Slightly off topic, but if there was some way I could figure out how to connect to and hack the ISS computers, I'd love to get in there and replace whatever is on the display to read simply "All of these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there".

It'd have a fun effect, to be sure.

You want IPv6 adoption? Make it reasonable. (3, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about 7 years ago | (#18656497)

Start an open site dedicated to CONTENT providers who have made their content available for IPv6 and give blue ribbon graphics to IPv6 only sites. Then.. and this is the biggest one.

Make getting address space cheap and easy!!! IPv6 is huge, why do I have pay ridiculous recurring fees to get a block? Make small allocations free, registration free and online, then just make me return a confirmation letter/call/email once every 5 years to renew. IPv6 space is monstrous, it is terrible that you have to pay outrageous fees to become a member organization and then huge recurring fees for addresses. Why do ISP's have to go through the same backflips and outrageous pricing schemes that served to reduce demand for IPv4 addresses.

Once you have major content providers onboard and make it free and easy to get address space, then ISP can advertise access to the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' internet.

Windows Vista is nativly IPv6... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 7 years ago | (#18657081)

All you need is two Vista machines, and you have an IPv6 network.

So there must be at least a dozen IPv6 networks in the world...

Retail Vista has already outsold Windows XP (N)

all kidding aside, Vista does have some improvements, but it's the first of the new generation. Like 3.0, 95, and ME... it'll be better when it's updated to 3.1(1), 98 (se), or XP(sp2) level.

Third times the charm.

In space? (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 7 years ago | (#18657265)

Good place for it.

Other than the greybeards nobody on earth seems to be using it.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...