When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?
Displaying poll results.17595 total votes.
When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?
Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings
Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings
IPv6 Addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
Just use a different base.
For instance, 5000 is the following:
in base 2, 1001110001000
in base 8, 11610
in base 10, 5000
in base 16, 1388
in base 32, 4 {28} 8
in base 62, 1 {18} 40
in base 100, 50 {0}
You might say "Oh but who is going to remember so many characters?" Well, uppercase letters + lowercase letters + numbers is 62 characters already. Plus you have several symbols on the keyboard.
Of course, 16^24 (that's the size of the ipv6 space) is so big you'll never be able to crunch it down to 5 characters, but there's all kinds of things you can do to make it smaller and more readable
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:4, Informative)
Just use a different base.
This problem was solved waaaay back in 1996 by the IETF in RFC 1924 [ietf.org].
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's a viable solution to the OP's issue ("IPv6 addresses are so long that you can't remember them"). From the RFC:
It's shorter, yes, but much harder to memorize. Especially when this address can be abbreviated to
1080::8:800:200C:417A
The author's views about his suggestion's efficiency are also... inter
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, you might want to look at the date on that RFC. The whole thing is a joke. Written by a guy who was involved with the IETF IPng working group, and was well aware of why the format was chosen to be what it is.
More to the point: use DNS.
More to the meta-point: IPv6 is already entering wide-scale deployment. I saw a Verizon report that something like 30% of their LTE traffic was over IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Well played.
I really need to look at the dates more. Might explain some of the design documents in our company...
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point: use DNS.
This response always pisses me off. What do you do when DNS is broken? What do you do when you are the guy setting up DNS services? With IP 4 it is pretty easy to remember a 4 number string long enough to transpose some addresses. It is easy enough to remember a small handful of well known DNS servers' addresses so that you can get a machine talking on the Internet or on your local network. IP 6 has a short-hand notation, but it's still a pain. Looking at the example given, when transposing that addre
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What a pity "/." is not a valid ipv6 address!
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 addresses are so long that you can't remember them long enough to read the address from one machine and type it into another.
This problem was solved waaaay back in 1996 by the IETF in RFC 1924 [ietf.org].
It was actually solved back in 1983 by RFC 882 [ietf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say "solved". The two examples they give in the RFC are "1080::8:800:200C:417A" and "+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Yp".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This might be another good reason to learn kanji or traditional Chinese as a character set. This definitely would get the amount of characters needed per slot down by quite a number.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not Simplified Chinese? Just as many characters as Traditional and much faster to read and write. (The "simplification" refers to a reduction in the number of strokes per character, not in the number of characters.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just use a different base.
Well, by remembering domain names instead of IP addresses you're basically using base 26.
Re: (Score:2)
With variable length, no less
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
DNS still works just fine and IPv6 has a built-in feature to use globally unique self-applied addresses. It is the EUI-64 standard. [ieee.org] Essentially all that happens is a system uses the network portion of whatever it is connected to and the rest is autogenerated by using the MAC address split in half with an FFFE inserted.
That is how it is in all IPv6 deployments I have seen. There is no reason to do static addressing anymore, save for servers and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
point all your machines to that box as their dns server
add your local devices to the dnsmasq box's
192.168.1.200 server.l
192.168.1.70 panapi.l
192.168.1.80 sonypi.l
192.168.1.31 mini.l
dnsmasq will just get anything that's not in
also works with ip6 addresses
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you do that?
That said., copy it to you phone. Or a flash drive, or write it to CD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
write it to CD
Inscribe it on a roll of papyrus!
Re: (Score:2)
He probably meant as a recording of someone speaking the IP adress (or grunting it if you want it encoded).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not a problem because normal people don't have to read the IP address from one machine and type it into another. They use DNS and DHCP, which were specifically intended to eliminate the overwhelming majority of instances of dealing with IP addresses directly.
I've been a networking software engineer for most of my career, so I do have to deal directly with IP address
Re: (Score:3)
Before that we had host files
Your "significant usablility problem" was thought of and dealt with before most of the readers here were born.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 sort of demands that you forget everything you know about IPv4. Once you get IPv6, you'll ask yourself why anybody still uses IPv4. For example.
There are more /48 networks in IPv6 space than there are IPv4 addresses. Everybody ought to get a /48 network which include 18 quintillion addresses. The first part of the a global unicast address is often referred to as a prefix and all your IP's will have that. The second part may be derived from you NIC's MAC. So there is some good sense to it.
You'll r
Re: (Score:2)
It's called DNS
Re: (Score:2)
How do we manage this with phone numbers? We have someone call or text us, store the received number in our cell phone's phonebook, give it a descriptive name and we forget about the number. If only we had something like this for IP-addresses... Oh, we do! It's called DNS and works fine for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Can we now please stop whining people cannot remember 128 bits?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in what way would migrating to this new thing be any easier than IPv6? In either case, it's an entirely different protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect from the sort of people who expect everyone to use a different long nonsensical password for every login and change them all every couple months?
Knowing the restrictions on a password (like "must have at least two digits, one upper case letter and a symbol"), attackers can reduce the number of attacks quite a bit.
Worse, when you change your password, and are told that the new password is unacceptable because it's too similar to your old password. That means that they're actually storing your password, and not a hash. And they think that's secure?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever noticed how all systems ask you to type in your old password during the process of changing your password? The system can store a hash, but compare to what you typed to prove you're still the real user. There is no need to have the old password on fixed media to check in this scenario.
True, but it's still stored temporarily during the password change. Which can take quite a bit of time before you manage to come up with one "secure" enough.
And that still doesn't excuse all the systems that doesn't let you use a password similar to any of your last N passwords. Then you know they keep passwords and not a hash.
The real answer... (Score:2)
Thus my answer to the poll, "never".
no more ipv4 jokes (Score:2)
all of our awesome jokes will need to be updated to keep up with the times!!
"Hey baby. Your ::1 or mine?!?"
Re: (Score:3)
I have a pretty good idea how often that joke works - and you don't need octal to keep it in single digits.
Re:no more ipv4 jokes (Score:5, Funny)
Not so quick (Score:2)
Most of the new Internet users are now mobile, people get smartphones before they get computers, the cheapest Android phone I could find around here now is $40 with a 240x320 crap screen and they'd still need a cell phone. I don't know and I've never bothered to find out what my IP address is when I'm on the phone. So I figure the Internet will continue to grow, you'll probably pay another $1/month if you want an IPv4 address and a lot of people won't bother. A lot of people don't run servers or host games
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the rerash.
People do use VoIP. And of course people don't use services that break in a NAT, they can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, mobile networks seem to be adopting IPv6, as there are sufficiently large numbers of clients that NAT breaks down. Specifically, that even the 10/8 block is too small to accommodate all the users without breaking it up into multiple separate NATed networks, with the annoyance that implies.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, mobile networks seem to be adopting IPv6,
Hum.
Not all of them. (This is Free Mobile, in France.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not so quick (Score:3)
Not until the end of time_t! (Score:2)
Class B (Score:4)
I have 65536 Ip addresses. Who wants to buy? $18 each.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll take the lot!
IPv4 adresses for sale! $25 each!
Re: Class B (Score:3, Funny)
A fellow Harvard MBA I see
What do you mean Large Scale Deployment? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a pretty large scale deployment to me.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean by Large Scale Deployment?
IPv6 being used to route a significant percentage of Internet traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China has no choice + cable TV replacements (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
In Soviet Russia, Internet traceroutes YOU! (Score:2)
I advice you to look for CJDNS package. It's IPV6, and it has some properties useful for today's Russia. And for post-Snowden USA too, I believe.
We have large-scale deployment already (Score:2)
We have large-scale deployment already.
Looking at the Google IPv6 stats [google.com], we can see that IPv6 is already used by nearly 4% of users globally. This number has more than doubled compared to one year ago. These statistics show actual enabled usage, showing that everything from end device, router, ISP and the route to Google supports IPv6.
More significantly, there are some countries that have a much higher IPv6 user share. The USA and Germany have around 8%, and Belgium already even has 20% IPv6 users, and S
Some ISPs already do IPv6 (Score:2)
I have been using native IPv6 for about three years.
Depends... (Score:2)
As the cheap, consumer-grade routers that don't support IPv6 people have in their homes die off, people will replace them with cheap, consumer-grade routers that DO support IPv6. It will be a slow process, but it will happen eventually.
At that point it will be up the ISPs to provide IPv6 support. Some (like Comcast, oddly) already do. But the cynic in me thinks we'll probably see more ISPs putting up CGNAT and charging people $14.95/month for a public IP, after they've upgraded to a business account of cour
Re: (Score:2)
Residential customers don't need public IPs. Learn to NAT, faggots
Why don't I? I NAT, but I'd like one IP so that I can be addressable on the internet. I'd like that IP to be public.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, with NAT, you have a possibility of 64512 unique devices behind the router, you can port-forward any of them, and even use UPNP should you use to (not that I would).
TBH, I like the fact that my router is the only device facing the public network (security wise).
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, with NAT, you have a possibility of 64512 unique devices behind the router, you can port-forward any of them, and even use UPNP should you use to (not that I would).
TBH, I like the fact that my router is the only device facing the public network (security wise).
I like the fact that you think it provides any security. Just ask yourself this question: when I contact a server outside the NAT, how does it get back to me? Is there any special reason that prevents someone else to do the same?
Re: (Score:3)
Just ask yourself this question: when I contact a server outside the NAT, how does it get back to me?
The packet with SRC=192.168.100.101 reaches your router on the 192.168.100.1 interface. Your router notes the destination, the destination port, the source port, and the source IP. It then replaces the source IP with SRC=[PublicAddress], and possibly the source port with an available one if multiple connections are made to that service (connections are unique SRC,SPORT,DST,DPORT).
When a packet returns from SRC:SPORT, for example slashdot.org's IP on port 80, the SRC, SPORT, and DPORT are looked up in t
Major error there (Score:2)
Stick a small office full of people behind a single address and those connection numbers really add up.
IPv6 does not change that. Don't mistake a firewall
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot that few ports are used (Score:3)
Put a hundred people behind a router and that number isn't looking so high anymore.
Do what is already happeni
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 1 public facing ip and my whole house behind it. Why would i want 20 devices with their asses hanging out on the web?
And that's all I ask. One IP, not zero. The poster I was replying to said "residential customers don't need public IPs", which I has issue with.
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what level of misunderstanding causes a person to believe that a NAT firewall is more secure than a simpler forwarding firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
All I need a single public IP for, is for my VPN endpoint.
Re: (Score:3)
Cellphones are where we see the largest adoptions of IPv6 currently
Theory versus practice. (Score:3)
A filtering firewall in theory can be made just as secure as a NAT gateway. It isn't even particularly hard to do so, but it takes marginally more work than being wide open. Doing a NAT is more complex than a secure firewall ruleset, but the circumstances are widely different
The issue comes down to failure mode. If a NAT fails to work correctly because it wasn't configured quite right, then you get no forwarding, but you are secure. If a forwarding device fails to work correctly, then you can get wide o
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 1 public facing ip and my whole house behind it.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that there are enough IPv4 addresses to do even that for everyone. There aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 1 public facing ip and my whole house behind it.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that there are enough IPv4 addresses to do even that for everyone. There aren't.
You seem to be under the delusion that every device must be directly routable. That's all this IPv6 hubbub is about, routability. It has nothing to do with having machines/services/ports available on the internet. And there is no reason for anything except routers and major servers to be routable.
Re: (Score:2)
You still need a public address in front of that NAT.
7+ billion people, along with who knows how many businesses, government entities, etc.
4 billion and change IPv4 addresses.
The rather simple mathematics involving the above numbers and the obvious conclusion to be derived from them is left as an exercise to the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Figure an average 3-4 people per household. Then figure that half the households in the world don't and won't have internet access for the next 5-10 years. Then figure that sooner or later China's gonna actually get smart about their internet censorship and put their entire population behind a NAT anyway(Out of curiosity, why haven't we just done that with an additional 1 number prefix for continent routing rather than this IPv6 shit anyway?)
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of curiosity, why haven't we just done that with an additional 1 number prefix for continent routing rather than this IPv6 shit anyway?
Because that would break backwards compatibility as thoroughly as IPv6 does without providing anywhere near as much futureproofing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 4 octets wrap up nicely into a 32-bit integer. In essence, your 0.0.0.0 address is just some number between 0 and 2^32-1. Perhaps your real address is 120936438. But you don't know or remember that, do you? IPv6 is only different in that the number you get is somewhere between 0 and 2^128-1. The problem with arguing readability of IPv6 is that it isn't intended to be readable by humans. You're not supposed to remember the number, nor are you really supposed to change it(there's no need to, your IP
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a 4 set, that's just the human-readable formatting. The actual IPv4 address is an unsigned 32-bit integer. The human-readable format splits those into octets and displays them in decimal.
Your "add an octet" would result in using 40-bit integers, which isn't a normally used size nowadays. A variant of your idea would be to use 64-bit integers and simply double the size of the existing addressing, but this would break things the same way (as everything is predicated on dealing with 32-bit addresses), and going to 128 bits allows more future proofing and allows for some convenient auto-configuration methods, as you can stick a almost-always-unique MAC address (64 bits) into half of the address, then you can just stick the 64 bit network prefix in front of that and you've got a full IPv6 address ready.
You could conceivably write an IPv6 address in the same octets format as an IPv4, but it would be absurdly long i.e. 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255, hence why they standardized on the "4 sets of 4 hex digits" format.
Re: (Score:3)
That's it. I have now officially heard that suggestion too many times.
I have seen it come in two variations. Extending the IP address from four octets to five octets has been suggested frequently. It was funny, when it was mentioned in the IPv4.1 spec published as an April's fool joke a few years back. It was funny then because it was written as a suggestion by somebody with enough of a clue to include the diagrams making it blindingly obvi
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and the company I work for has 200+ servers that need to be accessible from the world. Sure, we could do some horrible port forwarding bullshit and run services on non-standard ports and all that crap but why should we?
"Well known ports" is the dumbest part of the whole internet.
Fucking SRV records, what are they for?
Once again your sig is relevant (Score:2)
Another - the USA still has some left but still did not have enough when a cable TV company decided to use the net for transport and needed more than a million static addresses immediately - they had no choice but to go IPv6.
Re: (Score:3)
Please read your sig then back away from the keyboard.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You can port forward anything that you want to face the web.
Maybe I can, anyone who's tried to manage p2p connections knows that the general public has a lot of trouble with this or can't do it - sometimes due to multiple layers of NAT. UPnP doesn't help either because it's not enabled.
Personally, I like the added protection of my own router.
You might be interested in the added protection of a firewall then where you could block unsolicited connections.
I said this 15 years ago, and I'll say it again, IPv6 will never fly. Ever. We will all just nat and forget about it.
It's starting to fly already! Lots of ISPs have the equipment when they upgrade and it's a good alternative to multi-level NAT. Sure makes p2p connections easy.
What a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The company that bought it, removed any such protection and integrated his network into their own. Within days people started having virus problems.
I had switched a year before and the company I switched to actually gave me a 192.16
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know I will use IPv4 inside as it's easier to remember and most of my hardware can't use IPv6 anyway. (printers, switches etc)
Re: (Score:2)
The virus thing baffles me - was this Win9x? I've never seen a virus spread through open ports on a patched system, unless you include the first days of the Slammer work for MS SQL (and that was almost 15 years ago).
I see that becoming a problem for the first time since Win9x with internet-connected unpatchable appliances, but that's a future problem.
Re: (Score:2)
At one point I had 3 layers of NAT just inside my house (modem + wifi router when that was separate + VM). I was shocked how well almost everything worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is the thing. We let you on the last Internet we built, the one we started with 110 baud modems, and you messed it up.
So we already built a new Internet 2. It's here, it runs on 100 GB/s ports with 40 GB/s campuswide at all the top research universities.
And we're not letting you on it.
Now you can keep your spam and we'll go solve the mysteries of the universe while you post hate speech at each other over meaningless twaddle.
Pshaw. Call that an internet? Here on Internet 3 we have 10 Tb/s ports and 600 Gb/s installation-wide. And we get a headache when we have to think down to your level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair.
How about you have people apply for a global username? That way of the are flaming, or spam bot you can just not allow them back on?
Please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you can keep your spam and we'll go solve the mysteries of the universe while you post hate speech at each other over meaningless twaddle.
And yet the mystery of irony remains as mysterious as ever . . .
Re: (Score:2)
It is why e-mail encryption is still so clunky.
If you omit the word "encryption", your example becomes 100x times more true as it is now already.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet rarely sees radical, clean change and IPv4 is going to limp on for a long, long time.
This. Oh for some mod points, I'd have sent one this way. FWIW, I think we'll see concerted efforts to reclaim unused addresses or blocks. It'll take some serious hurt to governmental and corporate wallets before any meaningful change happens.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we still have HTTP with cookies, HTML, JavaScript and Flash rather than a new protocol.
Flash can be safely ignored, because it's going away.
That leaves HTTP, HTML, and Javascript.
A new protocol that did all the stuff as a transport protocol, markup language, and scripting language would be a bloated mess. There's a reason that the functionality is separated this way. People often use each of these technologies separately.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and what I voted as well. While a lot of newer hardware and OS's support it, and have the IPv6 stack ready, I think a major hurdle is going to be all the existing applications, whether older commercial apps and custom business apps, everywhere very rarely support IPv6. If DNS is used, then maybe no change there is needed, but any app that needs to point to a server or another PC on the network usually has an option for hardcoded IP's, and none of these apps have I ever seen use IPv6, and all have
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 is already massively deployed in the United States.
Example: all major hosting providers support IPv6.
Thank you for this informative post. I was under the impression that at least the Linux network stack and, most probably, the Win 7-8 network stack are fully IPv6 compatible. I know my router is IPv6 compatible and I had used IPv6 briefly in the past (via tunneling) out of curiosity. So, why is everyone so pessimistic? How hard can it be to just enable IPv6 if everything is ready at the user side?
IPv6 already massively deployed (Score:2)
I think the problem comes in that not every web server in the world supports ipv6. Heck, when I was setting up a personal web server, I was sort of tempted to disable ipv6 because fail2ban doesn't support it and so it represents a bit of a security hole in that a cracker can bypass the security by simply using ipv6. (But I decided to do The Right Thing for the Internet and left it on, even though no-one relies on it right now)
I'd be curious to see the results from someone who has ipv6 but NOT ipv4 in day