Beta

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Four Root DNS Servers Go IPv6 On February 4th

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the our-interwebs-are-all-growed-up dept.

The Internet 228

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "On February 4th, IANA will add AAAA records for the IPv6 addresses of the four root servers. With this transition, it will finally be possible for two internet hosts to communicate without using IPv4 at all. Certain obsolete software may face compatibility problems due to the change, but those issues are addressed in an ICANN report (pdf)."

cancel ×

228 comments

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

Routers! (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900234)

The main problem isn't obsolete software, but hardware. Changing routers to some that support IPv6 isn't done over night. And even if you do, and get IPv6 assigned, it doesn't help unless your provider also supports IPv6 -- else you might as well be tunelling the old way anyhow.

Regards,
--
*Art

DDWRT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900348)

Has supported IPv6 since I can remember. DDWRT [google.com] or there are alternatives [google.com] whatever takes your fancy :D

Maybe karma loss, but... (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900434)

I'm a subscriber, so maybe I'll get a break here. I've been seeing this link around slashdot for awhile. I'm curious if it is a robot that can manage to do somewhat relevant garbage around the link. Of course, could be some drone who doesn't even know English very well.

Re:Maybe karma loss, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900678)

Firstly, to answer your question, there are currently no automated processes operating within the project that I am aware of.

Secondly, I am not a drone. Last but not least, my English skills are way above average. Me fail English? That's unpossible. I do not always have the time or desire to craft thought out posts whilst carrying out my promotional duties. My master pays me only pennies per 'promotion', so I would rather post short and often.

Must go. Look after the pennies :)

New /. sig meme? (0, Offtopic)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901028)

"Me fail English? That's unpossible."

In Soviet Russia, grammar misuses you to brag about its use of you!

Re:Maybe karma loss, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21901520)

It's not a robot, it's a person actually taking the time to write that shit, because they looove their stupid myminicity flash game. Talk about a waste of time, but oh well.

Slashdot - why won't you follow links for AC posts, and then after the link in the post display the domain of the *final* site after all the forwards and redirects?? That would be super!

Re:Maybe karma loss, but... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902050)

A hit is a hit. Doesn't matter is a bot hits it or not. You'd have yourself an automated hit generator just by posting a few thousand links on Slashdot comments.

Re:Routers! (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900482)

This actually begs the question then about the current crops of routers out there, both the Cisco's and the cheap dime-store Speedstreams, etc.. All of these will have to cope and function with both IPV4 and IPV6 because as I hear it, IPV4 will not go away yet for a very long time because of legacy hardware/software platforms.

Re:Routers! (3, Informative)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900984)

This may beg for the question, but it does not beg the question.

Re:Routers! (0, Flamebait)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901364)

That's great, and what's funny is YOU didn't even know what "beg the question" meant until you had some pompous grammar nazi explain it to you, and now all of a sudden you've taken on the cause. What's your cause again? Oh yeah how dare people misuse "begs the question", of all the causes to champion...

Re:Routers! (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902120)

...and I got modded flamebait?!? Anyway, what's wrong with championing the "begs the question" correction battle? It's important to keep language consistent because it is a very good thing for language. I have educated myself through reading Slashdot grammar Nazis. While you would rather embrace your ignorance.

Re:Routers! (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900578)

else you might as well be tunelling the old way anyhow.

What's so awful about that? OK, so it's not native, but none of your apps or services can tell the difference. The advantage is that when you do get native connectivity, you've already done your testing and you're ready for the world.

Re:Routers! (3, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900722)

I ask this because I honestly don't know. How many routers on the net are embedded devices capable of receiving firmware updates to cope with the additional functionality? Or, how many full-fledged "router in a box" style server systems are capable of receiving software updates, or already support IPV6?

Re:Routers! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21902218)

Part of the problem is that, even though most routers can get software updates in the field, older models only have hardware accelerated IPv4 support. If you upgrade these routers to IPv6, they have to do everything with their puny CPU, which means the same router can handle fewer IPv6 packets than IPv4 packets.

Finally (2, Insightful)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900248)

Hopefully ISPs will start to offer IPv6 as standard pretty quick, I'm getting tired of dynamic IP allocation.

Re:Finally (5, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900338)

They don't do dynamic IP addresses because they don't have enough addresses. They do it for stopping you from running a server on your home computer. Sure you can still run a server, but it's harder to run one when your IP address keeps changing.

Re:Finally (4, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900406)

No... if that was the case, your IP would change.

IP changes, in my experience from both Comcast and Verizon FIOS, are so rare that they effectively don't happen. I've never had a change with FIOS from the day the service was fired up, and although I can't recall ever having my previous Comcast one change except when I physically moved, its possible it did once or twice.

If they want to block servers, they'd block inbound ports.

Dynamic IP addresses are used because its the only possible way to do it without having techs setting up every joe six pack or grandmothers computer.

Re:Finally (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900628)

Dynamic IP addresses are used because its the only possible way to do it without having techs setting up every joe six pack or grandmothers computer.
Hell, I find they make life simpler for us geeks too. I went into my router set up, clicked a button to say this lease is permanent and unless I change my network card (aka MAC address) it'll still get the same IP even if I wipe the system clean. Much, much simpler than setting it up manually.

Re:Finally (3, Insightful)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901806)

I think many of us geeks know that you can also use methods like DHCP to configure static IPs. What you are benefiting from here is DHCP, not your dynamic IP.

Re:Finally (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900758)

I have forced Time Warner to change my IP address by playing around with the settings on my router.

though if I use the same mac address I usually get the same IP. exceptions to this are duration between changes.

As for IPV6 my systems and internal routers can use it whenever I want. As it is now my routers broadcast both, switching won't be hard.

Re:Finally (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900772)

Obligatory "me too." I've had Verizon DSL for over 5 years now, and I think my IP has changed once in all that time. While it's technically a DHCP-assigned address, in practice DHCP nearly always assigns the exact same address when the lease is up, and you end up with a (non-guaranteed) static IP. I can't speak for other ISPs, but Verizon is good that way.

(I just wish they'd run FIOS in my hometown already!)

Re:Finally (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900804)

No... if that was the case, your IP would change.

IP changes, in my experience from both Comcast and Verizon FIOS, are so rare that they effectively don't happen. I've never had a change with FIOS from the day the service was fired up, and although I can't recall ever having my previous Comcast one change except when I physically moved, its possible it did once or twice.
My IP changes every time I reconnect. If I tell my router to drop its connection then reconnect straight away I never get the same IP. As to why my ISP do this I have no idea if it is to stop me running a home server or not, but I do know they throttle bit torrent traffic. Personally I don't mind them throttling torrent traffic if it means I can play online games with no lag.

Back on topic I would like to say that for about as long as I can remember we have been very close to the limit of IPv4 addresses. Without dynamically assigning a lot of home user IP addresses we certainly would have hit that limit a long time ago.

Re:Finally (1)

cwebster (100824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900832)

Dynamic IP addresses are used because its the only possible way to do it without having techs setting up every joe six pack or grandmothers computer.
DHCP can be used to assign static addresses and it would be transparent to the end user.

Re:Finally (1)

XenoPhage (242134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901630)

Dynamic IP addresses are used because its the only possible way to do it without having techs setting up every joe six pack or grandmothers computer.
DHCP can be used to assign static addresses and it would be transparent to the end user.
Reasons they don't :

1) Possible admin overhead (automatic assignment needs to handle non-contiguous blocks, returned IPs, etc)
2) Why waste the time on this? Is a static IP guaranteed as part of your service?
3) We can charge for static IPs!

Your argument is leaky. (2, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901598)

You do know that DHCP can assign a fixed IP don't you?

"Get IP address automatically" has nothing to do with dynamic / fixed assignment.

Re:Finally (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900424)

True, true... I don't get them tho , the number of people doing that is so low. And then you have CNAMES +/ some dynamic DNS service.

Re:Finally (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900614)

AOL is the best example. Global network, hundreds of thousands of users.
Do you really think they dont give out static ips because they dont like home servers?

Yeah some ISPs dont like servers. Some even block certain ports (25 is occasionally blocked).
It everyone had static ips though then we'd be using ipv6 a long time ago.

Re:Finally (1)

dekemoose (699264) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901290)

If I recall correctly, you don't get routable IP Addresses from AOL, you get stuff in the 172.16.0.0/12 address range. Net requests are then all run through some form of proxy or NAT out to the real net.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900696)

I just set up a publicly available server on my home DSL account last week. I'd known how for years, but never bothered. I went to dyndns.com. Signup took a couple of minutes. Picking out a subdomain took a couple more. Altering the httpd.conf to have a VirtualHost matching my new DNS name took another minute or two. Adding a port-forward rule to my router took another minute. Downloading an installing the DynDns IP Update client took a couple minutes.

Total time spent: under 10 minutes.

The only caveat here is in the port-forward setup. If the ISP is all Nazi about blocking servers, don't use port 80 or 8080. Just tell your router to forward incoming requests on port 8081 to port 80 on your server machine. After that, it just runs.

Re:Finally (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901254)

What makes you think they are going to start giving you a free static IP just because they transition to IPv6? Right now most providers charge for a static IP, they have no reason to give away a revenue stream.

Re:Finally (1)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902212)

for one , my ISP doesn't give me the opportunity to pay them for a static ip.

Pave way for 128-bit registers? (2, Insightful)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900250)

First of all--this is great news. We need breaks from the past like this. Maybe we'll see computers natively handle 128-bit words. UUIDs are already there. I'm sure the custom networking hardware already has it down, but this could be something that drives it. 128-bits seems like overkill for addressing, but it could be put to use as well.

So when will I be able to connect? (4, Insightful)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900280)

So when will this mean that I can actually use IPv6 for connecting to servers?

Like, when will I be able to open my browser window, type in an IPv6 address, and connect to...say..google?

Doesn't mean it's all IPv6. (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900340)

It could just reverse lookup google's IPv6, and then go through IPv4.

Re:Doesn't mean it's all IPv6. (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900428)

Yeah, but when could that happen? Seems to me that part of the 'transition process' would be to start people using IPv6 addresses instead of IPv4, even if the actual "behind the scenes work" is done on IPv4.

And actually, something else occoured to me. When will we be able to request an IPv6 IP from our ISP, so we don't have to deal with having Dynamic IP's?

Re:Doesn't mean it's all IPv6. (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900656)

All the IPv6 sources I know give away ips like cookies.
If your ISP is fairly decent (aka your not on a budget plan) then when they switch to v6 they should also give them away.

We wont really know what policies ISPs make until they get off their lazy asses and give us ipv6. :(

Re:Doesn't mean it's all IPv6. (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902210)

I don't know, but I just wrote an email to mine asking about it. If everyone starts bugging them, it might get something done. It would help to hint that you might move to a competitor if they get IPv6 support first. (Assuming you have more than one available.)

Also, write to "the other guy", and tell them that you might switch if they offer IPv6. Balking about things here on Slashdot don't do much; writing to companies and backing it up with you wallet does.

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900738)

Three years after the sun goes dark.

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21901202)

When NAT stops working. So never. Perhaps it could be legislated in the USA as part of some kiddie porn tracking law, but other than that going to IPv6 is just an extra short term expense for most businesses.

I think it is more likely a 2nd network will emerge with gateways between v4 & v6. But again it seems there needs to be a compelling benefit for businesses to change (ISPs).

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (2)

dmayle (200765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901844)

Right now.

No, really.

There are tunnel brokers who will give you an IPv6 address now, and tell you how to create an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and keep it up. I've got one public server already set up on IPv6 by tunnel.

Some ISPs are starting to offer native IPv6, as well. My ISP from when I lived in France, Free.fr, offers 30Mbit/2Mbit ADSL with unlimited calling to 40 odd countries with 300 odd channels for 29.99 Euros. They just added IPv6 addresses for those who request them. Makes my Optimum Online service look like the absolute crap it is...

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (3, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902508)

Right now.

No, really.


You appear to have misspelled your answer: the correct answer is "Real soon now. Not really."

Google has no IPv6 address to connect to. Nor have most other major net sites. IPv4 is still the only way to connect to almost all of the internet.

Chris Mattern

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (4, Funny)

discogravy (455376) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901916)

if you're browsing by IP now anyway you're doing it wrong.

Re:So when will I be able to connect? (1)

rwyoder (759998) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902194)

So when will this mean that I can actually use IPv6 for connecting to servers? Like, when will I be able to open my browser window, type in an IPv6 address, and connect to...say..google?

dig www.google.com any aaaa

Pretty tough to connect via IPv6 to a server not advertising an IPv6 address.

If you want to use IPv6, you need to do one of the following:
  • Get an ISP offering IPv6.
  • Use IPv6 Anycast.
  • Get a tunnel broker.
I currently use Anycast. I've used a tunnel broker in the past, but with a dynamic IP, Anycast is less fuss. The easiest way to do the 2nd or 3rd choice is to get an Apple AP.

on the nature of rape (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900298)

This is completely OT, but I"m having an argument about the nature of rape. The other party are trying to convince me that it's about control, not sex.

I explained to them that men want sex. Men also want TVs. Some men, if they can't afford a TV or don't want to pay for it, will steal the TV. Similarly, some men, if they aren't offered sex by a lover, can't afford it, or don't want to pay for it, will rape.

The other party couldn't grasp this.

Taking the TV without the consent of the owner of the TV is not about wielding control over the owner, it's about getting a TV.

Having sex without the consent of the owner of the body is not about wielding control over the owner, it's about getting sex.

How simple is this? It's about an abhorrent means to an end.

It's completely ruining work into rape prevention that there's this feminist refusal to acknowledge that it's natural for men to have a strong drive for sex, and that some men do not apply that drive appropriately.

"I want sex."

"No, you want control."

All further counselling is based on convincing the man of something that's not remotely true. Placed in denial, the potential rapist who has gone to seek help is no less likely to rape, and the convicted rapist is never rehabilitated.

Need examples? Hell, only last week a drunk girlfriend at a party was nearly "taken advantage of". You think the man was doing it to control her, rather than to get his rocks off?

About time.. (5, Funny)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900316)

Great, now we can soon get on with the job of assigning static ip addresses to all our toasters, refrigerators, furnaces, thermostats, tv sets, electric hairdryers, etc.

Re:About time.. (0, Flamebait)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900392)

Err, I've already done that by using NAT with a 10.0.0.0/16 subnet. That gets me plenty of IPv4 for all the IP capable devices in my house.

Re:About time.. (2, Insightful)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900964)

That's odd, I can't seem to ping your toaster... Its almost like a route doesn't exist... Unfortunate!

You and your kind (those ignorant of IP networking and the concept of true end to end connectivity) may enjoy non-routeable addresses, but I happen to like the flexibility that incoming connections permit.

I could rant about all the things your lousy NAT setup breaks but arguing about this over and over again is just getting tiresome.

Re:About time.. (0, Flamebait)

DoktorSeven (628331) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901140)

And why the hell would anyone want a route to his toaster? With NAT, you specify exactly what you do and do not want exposed to the outside world. You can make it completely invisible if you want, or certain ports, or fully and completely open. With v6, you've unnecessarily exposed something that you don't exactly want open, and would have to firewall every single device connected to your "wonderful" new world of everything connected to v6.

Just because it's SHINY AND NEW and allows you to give every TV, toaster, camera, and dildo in your house an IP address doesn't make it better. Intelligent use of v4 with NAT is just fine.

Re:About time.. (5, Informative)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901468)

What is so difficult about adding a default rule to your firewall that blocks all incoming connections to your subnet and then adding rules specifically for the devices and services that do require incoming connections?

ie) deny ip from any to 2610:78:ad::/48

With NAT you are eliminating the possibility of incoming connections, with IPv6 you can deny connections all you want but can allow incoming connections where required or desired. Sure you can setup a port forwarding rule to allow a service for a given machine, but what happens when you need the same service to go to more than one host? You know need to accommodate for that by changing the incoming port on your real IP.

Not to mention all the issues raised by protocols that embed IP's that are not routable within the protocol themselves (take the SIP protocol for example). Work-arounds need to be put in place for many protocols on an individual basis in a NAT'd environment. This is a pain in the ass that would be highly unnecessary in a post IPv4 world.

If you're so fond of the kludge that is NAT, nobody is stopping you from using NAT with IPv6 in combination with a non-routable unique-local prefix (fc00::/7).

Dragging your feet on adoption of a superior technology that works for every situation in favor of a broken setup that happens to meet YOUR rather limited requirements is delaying progress for the rest of us. ;)

Generally speaking the consumer world isn't ready for IPv6 yet anyway (Too many Windows machines with limited IPv6 capabilities)... but I still get annoyed with all the anti-IPv6 commentary by those that have not fully investigated the specifics.

Just the personal pet peeve that is looking forward to moving behind the network design of choice for the 1980's.

Re:About time.. (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901484)

With v6, you've unnecessarily exposed something that you don't exactly want open, and would have to firewall every single device connected to your "wonderful" new world of everything connected to v6.

At least v6 gives you the flexibility. Only an idiot would leave everything open. The idea is that you have an implicit deny for the entire network that you have and then only poke holes when you need them. At least then everything's routable. NAT is a kludge. Nothing more. It needs to die a swift death.

Re:About time.. (3, Informative)

growse (928427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901912)

Everyone, lets all hold hands and repeat now:

Firewalling and NAT are different things...
Firewalling and NAT are different things...
Firewalling and NAT are different things...

Re:About time.. (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902126)

Well there are more people in the world than there are IPv4 addresses, and in many countries, there are more cell phones than people. It would be quite reasonable to have every cell phone ultimately having its own IP address. Add to that your work and home computer, your work and home telephone and so on, and you see why we need more IP addresses.

Re:About time.. (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901300)

You both have points, but why the hell do you need to access his toaster or would he need to access yours? NAT gives him the flexibility to decide which outside connections get forwarded without a separate set of firewall rules for the internal and external networks. Despite the totally internetworked ideal some people have, people will still use NAT with IPv6. It won't be for lack of addresses, but for (ab)using the lack of routing in place of a proper addition of firewall rules.

There are other nice things about NAT, too. You can achieve many tricks with NAT, ARP tricks, and tunnels for failover redundancy, transparent proxies, and load balancing. Having multiple machines appear on one IP can make things convenient depending on your goals and methods.

IPv6 gets rid of one big reason for NAT, but it's still going to have uses.

Re:About time.. (1)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901530)

Agreed. Some people will still have a use for NAT in a post IPv4 world, however there is a big difference between having the flexibility to use NAT when appropriate vs NAT shoved down your throat because you're stuck with a single dynamic IPv4 address from your ISP.

People have different requirements for different networks. Surely I don't need to connect to his toaster, but there are many real world requirements that simply are not well addressed with IPv4+NAT.

Re:About time.. (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902430)

That's odd, I can't seem to ping your toaster... Its almost like a route doesn't exist... Unfortunate!


Feature, not a bug. I seriously don't *want* you accessing my damn toaster and the fact that you don't have a route to it suits me just fine.

Chris Mattern

Re:About time.. (1)

l8f57 (652468) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900632)

My furnace does have an IP address (and domain name): http://www.freymond.ca/templogger/ [freymond.ca]

Re:About time.. (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900716)

With IPv6 I think everyone in the world could have enough ips for one per atom in your body with plenty left over for any population increases.

2^128 is a very very big number. :)

Actually (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900972)

If you were attempting to assign an IP to every molecule in the atmosphere, starting at the surface of the earth and working up, you'd only cover a thickness of 2.5 centimeters:

2^128 / 6.02E23 = 5.16E14 moles of IP-addressable gasses

5.16E14 * 22.4 = 1.226E16 liters worth of IP-addressable gasses at STP

1.226E16 / 1000 = 1.226E13 meters cubed of IP-addressable gasses at STP

1.226E13 / 5.1E14 = 0.024 meters height if you spread that volume over the surface of the earth.

Re:Actually (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901248)

12.26 petaliters of ips* aint bad. ;)

* at STP of course.

Re:About time.. (1)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901078)

2^128 = 3.40282367 × 10^38, says the Googles.

This page says [jlab.org] "A 70 kg body would have approximately 7*10^27 atoms." So enough for all the atoms in all the people on Earth.

Re:About time.. (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900784)

I want to be able to configure my Christmas lights via SNMP. Each and every single bulb, individually.

Sure, you may laugh now and recommend a controller-based architecture with different instance IDs for each bulb, BUT SOMEDAY IT SHALL BE SO!!!!!!!11

Re:About time.. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901556)

You don't need IPv6 to give every light bulb you own its own IP address. You just need to use a private address space. The biggest one is 10.*.*.*, which should be plenty for any (relatively) sane person.

You should do it that way anyway, or else somebody is going to hack into your Christmas ornamentation and do evil things.

Re:About time.. (1)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901358)

There are some people who don't even have their own public ip address. These people are surfing by sharing the same ip address with thousands of other people and only thing they have in common is that they don't live in the USA and they have the same ISP.

Re:About time.. (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901498)

Forget that! I'm not letting every script kiddy hack into my toaster! It took me years to find the right setting, and I don't let anybody else touch it!

Re:About time.. (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901958)

Now we will know where you live.

IPv6:IPv4:: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900330)

Real People:Niggers

MOD PARENT DOWN (0, Redundant)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900516)

If I hadn't just spent my mod points on something else besides a topic I figured I'd want to post in, I'd have slammed you for flamebait.

Please keep such racism off of /., thank you.

two of 'em, eh? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900380)

With this transition, it will finally be possible for two internet hosts to communicate without using IPv4 at all

Well, I guess that IPv6 transition is coming along nicely.

HAR HAR HAR.

Yeah, when slashdot drops it's IPv4 address, then I'll believe in this IPv6 nonsense.

Re:two of 'em, eh? (3, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900608)

Actually, v4 and v6 are quite independent. A single host can have BOTH at the same time.

I'd hope /. keeps its v4's at least until my college switches to v6.

I think it's backward compatibility IIRC.

Re:two of 'em, eh? (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900808)

Yeah, when slashdot drops it's IPv4 address, then I'll believe in this IPv6 nonsense.

OK, admit it... how many of us would go figure out how to run IPv6 if it was required to get a /. fix?

Re:two of 'em, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21902444)

People get upset when Microsoft drops support for some proprietary 15-year-old file formats, but they won't believe that a new protocol is for real until support for a 1981 RFC is completely dropped?

Uh, yeah, right. Backwards compatibility isn't always a bad thing. (UTF-8 comes to mind.) As an IPv6 supporter, I think that dropping IPv4 support too early is about the only way in which the IPv6 transition could go any worse.

Best IPv6 Read ever (not the article) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900390)

But the off topic link I'm making to the wikipedia page...

IPv6 [wikipedia.org]

common to see examples that attempt to show that the IPv6 address space is absurdly large. For example, IPv6 supports 2128 (about 3.4×1038) addresses, or approximately 5×1028 addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion people[1] alive today. In a different perspective, this is 252 addresses for every star in the known universe [1] - a million times as many addresses per star than IPv4 supported for our single planet. These examples, however, have an underlying and inco

Re:Best IPv6 Read ever (not the article) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900554)

this is 2^52 addresses for every star in the known universe

Glad to hear it. Now Alpha Centauri can finally get off my back about when they'll have access to Earth pr0n.

No, wait, not THAT game server... (3, Funny)

jackpot777 (1159971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900512)

I'm just hoping the Enemy Territory server I play on doesn't move too quickly to the switch to IPv6. It took me ages to load their map rotation, but it's a good selection and their bots are a nice challenge. It has taken me months already to remember the 216.27.112... wait, is it 112.48, or 48.112 at the end? And that 27 doesn't look right. It ends in :27962, I know that. Or is it :27964?

Ah crap, I forgot the number again.

Damn you, progress.

Re:No, wait, not THAT game server... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900770)

The 1980s called, they've got something called "/etc/hosts" for you to try out.

Re:No, wait, not THAT game server... (1)

the_cowgod (133070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902108)

There's also a really nifty new system called DNS.

For some reason many gamers (or game server admins) don't seem to realize its possible to use DNS. A few years back, I was running a Medal of Honor server and would confuse the hell out of people by telling them the server address was, for example, moh.mydomain.org. A number of folks wouldn't accept that at all and insisted on using the actual IP address.

Re:No, wait, not THAT game server... (4, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900872)

Don't worry, you'll have no trouble remembering the new address. It's b439:88fa:31d3:0507:613a:426c:99ba:02e2 .

Re:No, wait, not THAT game server... (2, Informative)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901210)

Sorry, thats not a valid IPv6 unicast address. The unicast block is 2000::/3 so 2000: - 3FFF. ;)

Also IPv6 addresses can be compressed if they contain contiguous 0's.

ie) 2610:0078:00ad:0001:0000:0000:0000:0001 -> 2610:78:ad:1::1.

Worry not though, this is what DNS is for... Humans need not memorize IP addresses.

Re:No, wait, not THAT game server... (4, Funny)

teslatug (543527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902062)

Indeed, just as easy as the new emergency number [youtube.com]

Why did they skip 64-bits? (1)

Besna (1175279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900638)

I'm just curious. I know that the 128-bits are not meant to be densely filled, but surely somewhat thought of 64 bits before 128 was settled on. Given the same principle of sparse assignment, will 256 be far off?

Re:Why did they skip 64-bits? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900812)

The idea with IPv6 is that the address space will be large enough that we will never have to transition to a 256-bit (or greater) address space. Rather than build an "intermediate" 64-bit address space, the intention was to prevent any future exhaustion of IP addresses by using a very large space.

will 256 be far off
Given that IPv6 would provide over 10^28 addresses for each of the 6.5 billion inhabitants of Earth, I think it will be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

But the intention with IPv6 was not merely to create an exhaustively large address space, but to fix a number of problems with IPv4, make routing simpler, etc.

(Whether or nto IPv6 achieves those intentions is a separate question.)

Re:Why did they skip 64-bits? (4, Interesting)

romiz (757548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900892)

I belive that they skipped the 64-bits address to be able to fit the 48-bit MAC (Level 2) address inside the IP (Level 3/4) address, and thus avoiding the need for the router to use ARP to find the MAC address corresponding to a local IP address.

Re:Why did they skip 64-bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21901282)

Not sure if you are kidding or not, but I am sure someone could use the explanation... the reason is they want this to be the For Real end all solution to IP address space issues. There is not only an IP address available for every person and every gadget they own in their home, but also for every dirt particle on their property as well. You can find some of the comparisons with a google search, but seriously unless we start giving electrons IP addresses or go intergalactic, this should be Good Enough, despite how comical such proclamations often look in hindsight.

A large part of the reason IPv4 even became scarce is because some of the founding institutions on the Internet took entire "Class A" blocks of addresses which means they took up 16 million in one shot! From what I understand, some later gave up parts of these huge blocks, but in general the way the IPV4 scheme was designed, it generally had allocation blocks that were far too large for the typical organizations scooping them up- it was designed with research labs, government orgs, large corps, uni's, etc in mind, not for millions of small e-commerce and personal sites. I forget if IPV6 solves this problem from a design standpoint (I no longer sysadmin, and haven't read up on the nitty gritty details), but this address space is so large that even taking up blocks 16 mil at a time should not matter. 64 bits is in the quintillions, which sounds like a lot until we start injecting mosquitos with internet accessible sensors. 128... should just get the job done once and for all.

In fact, the space is so large that IP Scanning in theory will no longer be feasible, at least from the standpoint of someone over the internet just looking for random IPs that are alive and then port scanning them for open/vulnerable ports.

Also, IIRC, the 128-bitness makes routing a whole shiatload easier. I read up on this stuff a long time ago when IPV6 was new, but routing tables will become far simpler, making Cisco's life easier.

IPv6 is where all the good porn is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21900646)

IPv6, the net of the free. IPv4, the net of the plebs.

Er... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21900650)

What about A6 records? Aren't those the ones that were to support aggregation and renumbering?

Re:Er... (2, Informative)

Olmy's Jart (156233) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901292)

Deprecated. Alone with ip6.int, bit fields for reverse look-ups, and site local addresses. Nice ideas that didn't work out in practice.

Re:Er... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21902080)

site local addresses are really simple thanks to the IPv6 ip abbreviation, example:
host1: ff80::1
host2: ff80::2
host3: ff80::3
(ff80 is a reserved local space as 192.168.X is for IPv4)
also in a local network machinesconfigure itself as ff80::MAC where MAC is their MAC address

really complex, uh?

Irony (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901020)

The irony in all this is that neither Cisco or any of the developers of IPv6 compliant OSs (Microsoft, Apple, Kernel.org, for example) actually have AAAA records themselves.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21901926)

netbsd and freebsd do.

IANAIANA (5, Funny)

PixelScuba (686633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901182)

I Am Not An Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

Mixed up acronyms (4, Funny)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901332)

Certain obsolete software may face compatibility problems due to the change, but those issues are addressed in an ICANN report
Wouldn't that be handled better with an ICANT report?

IPv4 ~ IPv6 eqiv (0)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901438)

every ipv4 address has an ipv6 address already so no need to worry about anything, ipv4 works with ipv6 and ipv6 works with ipv4....

Re:IPv4 ~ IPv6 eqiv (1)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902048)

The addresses work, the protocols are different, however, so there is more involved in switching to IPv6 than prefixing the address with ::ffff:.

Human readability (2, Interesting)

ddoctor (977173) | more than 6 years ago | (#21901920)

So, we've got lots of IPv6 addresses, thus we can assign static IP's to everything. Catch: IPv6 addresses aren't very readable/memorable. I can remember all of the IPv4 addresses on my network, but I wouldn't remember the v6 ones.

So, what's the solution there: well there's DNS and DHCP... man I hate DHCP. What if my local DHCP server or DNS server goes down? And, then I try to ping it to diagnose... oh, if only I could remember its address!

What about web hosting providers? Dear Hosting Support, can you please change my www IP to 2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7334? Much easier to screw up then if I say 66.35.250.151.

Also, IPv6 means we can throw away NAT... which is good, because NAT sucks, and its basically only there because we don't have enough IPv4 addresses. But, hang on ... so every machine I have on my local network has a public IP address. Great. Do I really want that? Yes, I have a firewall; yes, its secure... but its still more secure to have every machine (except 1) completely non-addressable from the internet.

I know a lot of less secure networks would be screwed if every machine was publicly-addressible. They may have a poorly-configured or nonexistent firewall, and are only getting a semblance of security by using NAT.

Don't get me wrong, IPv6 is definitely a good idea; the address space rocks, and there's a whole host of other benefits. There's just a bunch of simple, practical issues that IPv4 solves better.

*ducks* This has got to be flamebait on a place like /.

Re:Human readability (3, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902298)

IP addresses:
I can't remember my IPv4 addresses without looking them up, so I'd be no worse off than with IPv6. You'll get older too son, then you'll agree with me :)

As for web hosting providers, they won;t ever have to 'change your IP address', they'll just have to tell you it in the first place, then you're done.

In both cases, IPv6 supports auto-registration so you won't have to fiddle with it anyway. As the IETF says [ietf.org] "Since IPv6 addresses are too long to remember and EUI64-based addresses are too complicated to remember, they are not suitable for such identifiers"

IIRC you don't need DHCP anymore with stateless autoconfiguration.

NAT:
think for a moment what NAT does. All you have is your router attached to the internet, and all your computers connected to the router. Unless you explicitly allow incoming connections to pass through, your PCs are "firewalled" at the router.

If you have IPv6, you'll still have the router. I hope that all router manufacturers will be shipping them with incoming connectivity disabled by default, just like it is at the moment. Then, you'll be no less secure with IPv6 than you are today.

You will have the benefit of being able to "DMZ" as many of your PCs as you like, not just one of them. This is best of both worlds.

I think IPv6 will be a good thing, if it ever happens. I can't see that happening anytime soon though, there's too much infrastructure out there.

ipV6? (1)

markass530 (870112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902012)

Can anyone try and give a quick ipV6 (benefits?) overview for someone who (relative to the rest of the world) is smart & computer savvy, but has ADD like a mofo, and is (relative to most slashdotters) network stupid.

Re:ipV6? (2, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902326)

  1. Makes address allocation a lot simpler. Most of this comes from the expanded address space having a lot more blocks available for allocation without having to play games with the bits.
  2. Allows the address sub-netting hierarchy to mirror the physical routing structure. This makes the routing tables smaller and simpler, which makes life easier for the routers.
  3. Address prefix independence. Fancy term for not having to reconfigure all your machines just because you've moved to a new netblock. This is part and parcel of the previous item, actually.
  4. Things like IPSec were designed into the protocol from the start, rather than being bolted on afterwards as they were for IPv4. Makes VPNs and such a lot easier to configure and get running. The packet headers were also redesigned based on experience with IPv4, so routers have an easier time handling them and don't have to work so hard to do common things.

Drove to the Levy (1)

GottliebPins (1113707) | more than 6 years ago | (#21902118)

Yeah, February 4th 2007, that was the day the internet died. I remember it like it was yesterday... Now where did I put my teeth? ;)

modm up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21902146)

numbers. The loos take a look at the Backwards. To the Are just way over diseases. The She had no fear contaminated while *BSD is dying Yet so that you don't the rain..we can be states that there Which gathers (7000+1400+700)*4 includes where you as one of the Profits without , a proud member BUWLA, or BSD all; in order to go unpleasant election to the Take a look at the see. The number FreeBSD continues The mobo blew paper towels that the project of challenges that
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>