Proposed IPv6 Cutover By 2011-01-01 398
IO ERROR writes "An internet-draft published this month calls for an IPv6 transition plan which would require all Internet-facing servers to have IPv6 connectivity on or before January 1, 2011. 'Engineer and author John Curran proposes that migration to IPv6 happen in three stages. The first stage, which would happen between now and the end of 2008, would be a preparatory stage in which organizations would start to run IPv6 servers, though these servers would not be considered by outside parties as production servers. The second stage, which would take place in 2009 and 2010, would require organizations to offer IPv6 for Internet-facing servers, which could be used as production servers by outside parties. Finally, in the third stage, starting in 2011, IPv6 must be in use by public-facing servers.' Then IPv4 can go away."
Blame the ISPs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The ping increase is meaningful only for short-range connections as with 6to4 gates being usually in places on the network backbone there's typically not a lot of additional distance to go.
I am not trying to troll right now but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I see IPv6 implemented worldwide in my lifetime, I'll be really surprised.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I must be mi
Re:I am not trying to troll right now but... (Score:5, Informative)
It is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_mapped_address [wikipedia.org]
There are even ways for reaching IPv4 hosts from IPv6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_IP/ICMP_Tr
Re:I am not trying to troll right now but... (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty much been done: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html [potaroo.net]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ok... ok... so, you're a landlord, and your tenants have trucks inside them, and these trucks have IP addresses?
Eh? Oh no, I'm sure it's me...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anytime you move from a v4 to a v6 network, your gateway automatically prepends the 2002:: prefix to make your IP a v6 address. The problem here is that you have to have a public IPv4 address for this to work. If you're inside a NAT'ted network, your private address wouldn't be translatable to a corresponding v6 equivalent.
p.s. a link [twibble.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
6to4 is a good idea that could be great but isn't because it depends on a small network of volunteers to run encapsulators and decapsulators. The volunteers would be overrun if any meaningful
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thinking too. I'm very curious to see if the rest of the world is going to ignore this if for no other reason that to show the USA that it can't tell everybody else what to do. I'm American by the way and I'm seeing an awful lot of "You can't tell us what to do!" attitudes from the rest of the world right now. I'm not saying that those attitudes are wrong, I'm just pointing out that they exist.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PROPOSED IPv6 Cutover.
Proposed.
Re:I am not trying to troll right now but... (Score:5, Informative)
He suggests charging people more for IPV4 allocations will speed IPV6 adoption and has no idea what an idiotic statement that is. He admits he doesn't care if raising the price of IPV4 allocations will simply drive smaller networks "out of business" as "they should be on IPV6 anyway". Meanwhile Google can afford it and nobody gives a shit about IPV6- they just want to use the same internet that Google is on.
He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15
He has no migration plan besides "just replace all your hardware and software". It's about as stupid as the HDTV plan, which since I cannot record HDTV without buying illegal hardware, I'm not buying either.
Seriously, does anyone think an actual migration plan for something as big as - replace the entire Internet- would be authored by a single person that nobody outside of ARIN and IANA working bodies have heard of?
He's an idiot and an asshole.
Re:I am not trying to troll right now but... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, he's not lying. You made the mistake of only looking at ARIN's numbers, which show IP usage in the Americas. Try looking at IANA's numbers [iana.org] instead and you'll see that the allocation of ~10 /8's per year is about right. So far this year, RIPE (covering Europe) has gotten 4 new blocks and APNIC (covering Asia) has gotten 5.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no *short-term* financial benefit. There's a *huge* financial benefits for people and enterprises that are able to see beyond their own nose.
>(maybe we'd PI some old
What do you think ARIN and the RIR's have been doing for the past 5+ years?
At current run rates, we're going to run out of IPv4 address, completely, in 2010 or 2011. There won't be any old
Wake up and
Yeah, that'll happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah, none. They create specs, then people half-implement them, and nothing changes.
Just like the change to digital TV. It might be a better broadcast system, but without the government forcing people to change, it wouldn't have happened otherwise. IPv6 just doesn't offer anything sufficiently valuable over IPv4, so people won't bother to change.
Re:Yeah, that'll happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, and... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the blurb, if you're not a "server" I guess you don't need an IPv6 address... then again what does that even mean? I think it would be a critical mistake to start making any actual distinction between client servers on the Internet. To me the Internet would be fundamentally different if I could no longer log in remotely, receive VOIP phonecalls, and host my family photos and a few other files - partly because these are important applications for me, and
missing one thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but the people who would need to spend money to replace routers etc evidently don't see any benefit for themselves.
Well, one thing that this might do is give router manufacturers a kick in the pants to make IPv6 work well. Come 2009, any router that isn't IPv6-capable is officially obsolete according to the IETF. I don't think manufacturers will want their hardware written off before it even hits the shelves. Maybe it will turn out to be a checklist feature that no one actually uses, but I don't expect that to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember what happened when Apple released the Airport Express with support for non-NAT'd IPv6?
I sure do. Apple screwed up an implementation and therefore no one else will ever be able to get it right.
Similarly, Nimda [f-secure.com], Blaster [symantec.com], and SQLSlammer [trendmicro.com] permanently ended the use of webservers, operating systems, and databases.
January 1st? (Score:3, Funny)
What's wrong with saying "the second weekend in February" or some similarly random date? It's a weekend so it won't interfere with business, but unlike new years day it won't mess with employees' personal lives too much.
There's a reason businesses and governments don't start their financial/tax years on the first of January, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when has corporate brass given a damn about an IT worker's personal life? It's the nature of the business that we can only do our major work when no one else is around (because they can't have their work disrupted, but apparently we can.) End-of-year is perfect because that's when ev
Re: (Score:2)
Sensible people don't leave stuff till the last minute.
Sensible people would already be running IPv6 *now* since it's been fairly well proven for many years.
Of course most business people seem to not be sensible, so this will be another Y2K style problem of leaving everything until the sky falls in and IANA says "sorry, there are no more IPv4 addresses" and then running around like headless chickens try
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 PI needs sorting out first (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the things holding back the deployment of IPv6 is the fact that IPv6 PI still isn't sorted. There has been some movement of late, but it's still not sorted. (PI = provider indepentent address space, PA = provider allocated)
Without PI, you can't do multihoming, unless you're a Ripe member (so you're multihoming on PA space). Lots of companies will only use IPv4 PI address blocks (so they're not tied to one provider), so won't try IPv6 until they can get a PI block. At work, we'd love to do IPv6 in production, but because we can't get an IPv6 PI block, we can't.
Until all the ripe regions roll out IPv6 PI, lots of companies that want to do production IPv6 just won't. It needs fixing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IPv6 PI needs sorting out first (Score:5, Informative)
Otherwise, in North America, the criteria for getting IPv6 PI space is exactly the same as IPv4 PI space, and is based on your usage of IPv4 space...and since you can count the RFC1918 space in your justification, it actually ends up easier to get IPv6 space.
Re: (Score:2)
And just how many of these PI blocks are needed? The problem is each of these needs a global routing table entry. So IPv6 does appear to have a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem with this.
While multi-homing is important for highly reliable connectivity, we need to do some better aggregating of it. PI blocks should be limited to only those businesses so large that they can't operate as part of a group collective. Smaller businesses that do need multi-homing (as opposed to redundant connect
Re: (Score:2)
What's your problem with global routing entries?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with global routing table entries is obvious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IPv4 PI has serious scaling problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Another is that fortunately many of the businesses that would want multi-homing for servers are putting them in colo space rather than on their premises, so they're ok with using provider-allocat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Show me how to actually do that from a tec
Sounds more lke a wishlist (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry, but 4 years to get every internet connected system running IPv6?! Sure it sounds great, but for a lot of folks this is going to require entirely new hardware as well as software. The budget will keep getting cut until the last minute and then they'll try to cut it all over at once. I hate to think of all the hardware that will get scrapped because the manufacturer doesn't support IPv6 without a hardware upgrade.
Then there are the folks that will find out a week before the cutover date for some reas
Re:Sounds more lke a wishlist (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now, users want to be on the Internet that Google is on. Small sites cannot add support for both networks because it's cost prohibitive. Make it cheaper for small companies to switch and more expensive for large companies not to if you need to force the issue. At this point, it'll probably be easier to come up with something interesting.
Oh and John Curran is an idiot.
I for one welcome our new Vista overlords (Score:2)
I don't mean to suggest that all technical progress must stop because people still use old hardwar
Re: (Score:2)
been there done that (Score:2, Insightful)
But if the OS is only a means to and end, and what you care about is running useful applications rather than just an OS, then you may want to run an OS that suports the applications that you run. I've seen wine, I've tried it, it is not a viable solution for most windows applications.
I've been using Linux on one of my systems fo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you serious or just burning karma? (Score:4, Informative)
NAT (ie, the mangling of IP addresses) doesn't give you any security whatsoever. Putting your box in the DMZ isn't bypassing the NAT, its just setting up a different type of NAT.
The security that you get behind your NAT device is because the device necessarily has stateful packet inspection and filtering engine...because dynamic NAT doesn't work without it...its the stateful inspection and filtering that gives you the security, not the NAT/mangling of the IP addresses.
You could stick a stateful inspection and filtering device that denies inbound connections by default in your laptop travel bag and have exactly the same level of security, without breaking useful applications like NetMeeting (admittedly dated), and other useful applications that connect directly client to client.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with your argument is that you qualify it with "not in the DMZ". Putting it "in the DMZ" (which isn't a real DMZ anyway) is still NAT, and your protection just went *poof*. NAT (ie, just mangling IP addresses) doesn't provide any prot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can do NAT but it is strongly discouraged (it's basically reserved for situations where you need to move machines between networks, rather than sharing of a single address between multiple devices). Your ISP _should_ give you at least a
IPv4 address space shortage (Score:2)
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/slides/int
(For some reason openoffice churns through that for like an eternity and they haven't yet converted it to a PDF). Anyway, the analysis is pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
comments from elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
1. Neither John Curran nor the IETF has the the authority to bring this about, thus the use of the word "must" is misleading. Even if the regional internet registries supported this with policy that placed additional IPv4 addresses out of reach of those who did not deploy IPv6, far less than half of the content providers would be impacted within the proposed timeframe. Indeed, relatively few content providers come back for more addresses. Its mostly the transit providers which connect the end users who have a growing need for IP addresses.
2. The natural course of IPv4 depletion is more likely to drive conservation of IPv4 addresses than it is to drive IPv6 adoption. Business will tend towards this path because the incremental cost of conservation is small and the benefits are immediate while the cost of IPv6 deployment is large and the benefits are remote. Conservation might sound like a good thing but its actually very dangerous. It implies injecting many additional routes into the "default-free zone," which for complex technical reasons would decrease the overall stability of the Internet.
3. Existing policy at the regional registries serves to obstruct the deployment of IPv6. For example, in the Americas at ARIN, there is an additional $500 fee to receive IPv6 addresses in addition to whatever fees you pay for IPv4 addresses. That's a nuissance. More critical is the wide swath of legacy multihomed content providers who because they are too small don't qualify for IPv6 addresses from ARIN. Those folks can't get the so-called "provider-independent" addresses they need to connect via IPv6 in a technically comperable way to how they connect with IPv4.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 works beautifully in an Intranet and LAN environment with autoconfiguration. IPv6 registries and routing are a problem however because nobody's* doing it.
*almost
Re:comments from elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
The MUST/SHOULD/MAY terminology in RFCs is to indicate levels of compliance with a specification. If this were a specification, or even a BCP (Best Current Practice) RFC [rfc-editor.org] document, then this might make sense. But it is intended to be an Informational RFC, which has no weight as a standard whatsover. So MUST/SHOULD/MAY terminology is completely inappropriate (in case you're wondering, yes I have written quite a few RFCs).
This document is an individual submission at the moment. Anyone can submit such a document; this does not indicate any level of support by the wider IETF, let alone anyone else. If the IETF were to take this on, and make it a BCP, then the terminology would indicate levels of support, and you could legitimately claim that an organization that did not comply was not providing standards-compliant service. It's possible this could embarrass an organization, but somehow I doubt it. However, if there were such a document, it might be possible for national governments to legislate compliance. Only then would it have any significant impact, but I think legislation here is unlikely and probably inappropriate.
Likely what will happen is that the regional registries will run out of address space to allocate in approximately three years from now (this is the current best estimate [potaroo.net] from Geoff Huston, who probably knows more about this than anyone else). ISPs will find it hard to get addresses after that, and a market will naturally emerge. Basically address space will become expensive. Also, there will be incentive to disaggregate currently aggregated address space, so more organizations can multihome. This will cause increasing routing table explosion in routers, and cause ISPs to need to either filter route advertisements (breaking multihoming) or upgrade routers (requiring them to spend money). And increasingly larger organizations will start to use NATs, making all sorts of applications harder to set up than they need to be. When your home NAT is behind your ISP's NAT, I suspect lots of things will break really badly. Maybe eventually the pain will get great enough that the switchover starts to reach critical mass, and only then will organizations actually allocate budget to make it happen.
There is a lot to be said in favour of moving forward in a less chaotic way that this, but I'm skeptical about the likelihood of that actually happening.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
p1. There is a scaling limit because there's only 16 bits of TCP/UDP port (and ICMP id), and fully-transparent NAT is extremely expensive to implement in hardware. (Has anybody succeeded yet?)
p2. There are additional costs associated with NAT, particularly with passive listeners on battery-operated devices, which have to keep waking up to transmit periodically or their middlebox state collapses. This really hoses the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
p1. How will deployment of IPv6 make your existing IPv4 network less useful? I don't get that. Nobody is talking about deprecating IPv4 any time soon. (The author of the I-D has taken my suggested edits to revise section 2.3.4, which is the only place where it implies that IPv4 will ever be deprecated.)
p2. Traditional IPv4 site multihoming is only going to get harder and more expensive as address conservation efforts get underway. At some point, it wo
Heh! (Score:3, Insightful)
never will happen (Score:2)
only a powerful autocratic authority can mandate such a switch
in the free market economy at large in the world, the benefits do not outweight the costs. and even if someone argued that the benefits do outweigh the costs, there is no incentive for someone to be first out of the gate. in fact, there is a penalty for that (more cost, less traffic). so it will never happen
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is so funny, I don't even know where to be (Score:5, Funny)
( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to introducing IPv6. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) We'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of the internet will not put up with it
(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many internet users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(x) The general public doesn't care about IPv6
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the internet
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of new protocols
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing hardware investment in IPv4
( ) Susceptibility of protocols like IPv4 to attack
(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of internet users
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are affected by ISPs having to switch to a new protocol
( ) Windows
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) IP protocol should not be the subject of legislation
(x) Cutoff dates suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(x) Managing dual v4 and v6 addresses is inconvenient
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and as I ask on every IPv6 story (Score:2)
NOTE TO STUPID FANBOIS: The fact that IPv4 *addresses* are also valid in IPv6 has no bearing on this. An IPv6 TCP datagram is different from an IPv4 datagram, even if they both are sent from IPv4 representable addresses.
If a tech oriented site like Slashdot cannot be bothered to support IPv6 datagrams, then how can we expect anybody else to care?
Re: (Score:2)
So the datagram [wikipedia.org] is different. I guess changing the IPv4 datagram to make it the same (or sufficiently similar) to the IPv6 datagram would be as much work as swapping to IPv6.
I guess this issue was never even thought of back in the day, but isn't it usual to start off a "structure" like this with some "version" field? Then the routers could read that first field and know what follows?
Re: (Score:2)
What about IT staff training? (Score:2, Insightful)
I name myself as an example. I consider myself relatively knowledgable about IPv4 in general. Subnetting, supernetting how-nat-works the cisco-vs-the-world layout of a datagram and all the required things to know when you work as a network enginner.
But please humor my candor here for a moment, I have no clue how IPv6 works. At all. I know what an IPv6 address looks like, and that's about it. I also have a vague superficial concept of what is a 6to4 gateway.
But I have no idea how it is scoped, how it is
IPv6 will make P2P aps super charged (Score:2)
Now the downside of not using a server will be that games are more succeptable to hacks, but good programmers can make anti-hacks. Another bad thing about c
IPv6 adoption will be lead by Asia (Score:5, Interesting)
Asia will lead, and anyone who wants to communicate with them will be forced to follow.
Re:IPv6 adoption will be lead by Asia (Score:5, Informative)
We like our
What services to change? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there some crucial service under government control (like DNS root servers or something) that could be switched to IPv6-only in such a way that other systems would have to be configured to cope with both IPv4 and IPv6, thus making a later total switch to IPv6 less painful?
Start with the clients. (Score:2)
Are not most active IPv4 addresses consumed by clients? I say start with the consumer, they'll absorb cost and are likely to buy plenty of gadgets by 2011 anyway.
Teredo (Score:2)
Really that bad? (Score:2)
In my limited experience with it as an end user I find the addressing methodolgy to be extremely unfriendly. Perhaps I'll get accustomed to it in time.
Also, I'll ask the question: why are DNS and addressing not very closely tied? If you have a DNS outage - you mine as well unplug your datacenter. Seems to me that if we had
Only the address space difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
IPv6 offers lots of tasty features because they took the opportunity to fix a lot of quirks in the IPv4 protocol while they were at it, and that offers real world advantages.
Things like host autoconfiguration and ad hoc networking, end-to-end IPSec support in the standard, larger datagram support for efficiency in fast networks.
Poor Date Choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. There will be no technical support available from vendors until they return from holiday, perhaps days later?
2. No one will be available to test, evaluate and identify distributed service outages, again for days.
3. The poor, maligned and disrespected IT staffs will have to miss the New Year's Eve parties, probably their best/only chance to hit up their drunken office colleagues and have a chance of success. Please, won't anyone think of the geek?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, I can understand that this is done so MAC addresses can be mapped into it, but come on... all of IPv4 is 32-bits. Do we really need 64-bits for local addressing?
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is that IPv6 addresses are a 2-part address. The first 64-bit part is the classification and routing. The second 64-bit part is the unique space, although literally that does not need to be. The idea is to eliminate error and complexity prone steps to map unique link layer addresses into globally routable addresses. Sure, this could have been done with a lot fewer addresses and still have enough for even the very largest networks. But then you'd have to ensure that no 2 hosts could end up with conflicting addresses. The gateway router could certainly do that, but if it gets rebooted, all the addresses might have to be changed because the map gets reset. By using link layer addresses, once the globally routable prefix is known, the host/interface addresses can remain constant even if the router is rebooted. One of the goals of IPv6 is more automatic configuration.
I think you're missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, don't fall into the all too common trap of looking at how large 2 to 128 is and thinking that ipv6 really provides that many unique addresses. You have to look at how the bits are used, the number of useable Internet addressable devices is much smaller. Perhaps even around the size you may be thinking we need. A new addressing system can provide some nice new features. Imagine the benifit of having a portable IP addres that is yours no matter what network you connect to or where in the world you move. Kind of like having a real truly portable telephone number. As all communication merges into IP address this will be both handy and important.
None of this should be taken to imply that I support the absurd cut over schedule in this thread. But there are some nice things designed in ipv6 and it will be a positive thing if the convesrion is done right, not switched over in a mad rush.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- Bill Gateways
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, nothing is enough for anyone.
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Informative)
Again? Did you just wait for a possibility to post the same junk again [slashdot.org], three years later?
No "Network Anonymiser Translation" this time, but an ethnic slur, great.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Informative)
- Home computer
- Work computer
- Laptop (private or work)
- Cellphone(s)
- Net connected appliances (TiVo, net music players, IP phones, home surveillance, alarms)
Each ideally needs its own address, and it's not hard to see how 4 bln addresses will be used up.
Solve it with NAT, you say. Sure - but actual interactivity is in higher and higher demand. Both my MythTV box and my laptop in most locations are NAT'ed. Save for my tinkering with NAT routing which is only for geeks, I can't get to my Myth box from the outside.
Another problem is the solution to the above problem - VPN. At my former job (a web consulting agancy) we were routinely given VPN access to clientsites. They were all setup with IPs in the range 192.168.X.nnn. We had no collisions of X, but we were a small firm, and it will happen.I remember hearing the same argument against using FAT32. Although your point is quite valid, I think the world will recover, and quickly.I'm no expert, but didn't the world stop using minimum MTU for anything larger that that a while ago? If an MTU is size 1500 instead, the overhead is a whopping 1.3%, or downloading an extra 51 mb on your full, uncompressed 50gb bluray movie.
Yeah, it's not free of drawbacks, but progress seldom is.
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:4, Insightful)
!) The bluray *image* may not be compressed, but the bluray *movie* is compressed to fit in 50GB
2) 1.3% of 50GB = 50000MB is somewhere around 500MB, not 50MB - you're off by a zero
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, I was with you. I hadn't given the IPv6 discussion much thought, I'm not on that end of the business. But, you lost the argument at "niggers". I'd like to see you get away with your argument style in a corporate meeting where you are making your case.
While I'm still undecided about the idea, I'm putting you off to the side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...niggers..."
Political correctness: The peculiar idea that one can pick up a turd by its clean end.
It's urban dialect [wikipedia.org]. Nothing to get excited about (nothing to write to dictionary manufacturers and insist it be included, either.)
From the consumer standpoint, a cable/DSL modem or router with IPV4 in the house / business to IPV6 out on the net will keep most of the pain (other than a financial hit) away until or unless IPV6 is actually needed on the local side of the hardware; the router can hand
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Informative)
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6.
Anything reasonably current doesn't route IPv6 in software. Yes, there's legacy stuff out there that will have to be dealt with, but there are solutions to those legacy hardware deployments that aren't terribly arduous. But it does mean people need to get started dealing with this *NOW* rather than later.
2. There are too many addresses.
Uhm...so don't use them all. I'm not sure what sort of objection this is. "Oh, we can't do that because that solution will give us more resources than we need." Oh the horrors of not having to worry about running out of addresses, I'm not sure I can deal with that problem
3. IPv6 addresses are too large.
The ISP that I used to work for advertises 7 or 8 routes into the IPv4 default-free zone. With a move to IPv6, they could easily, without breaking a sweat, move to only advertising a single route. So, an IPv6 route would have to consume more than 8 *times* the memory that an IPv4 address does for it to be a loss for the routes that said ISP would advertise. Many enterprises advertise many many more routes than that in IPv4 and could drop down to a single (or very few) IPv6 routes. Yes, the memory footprint of each individual route in routers would be bigger, but the number of them will be significantly smaller, meaning overall router memory consumption will drop.
4. The IPv6 header is too large.
Ooh, 3.4% (and that's worst case)...I'm not sure the world can handle those sorts of inefficiencies. Yes, IPv6's larger header will drop data throughput efficiencies ever so slightly. That's better than the 100% drop in efficiency you'll have when you can't get an IPv4 address at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is my main problem with IPv6. I've seen some excellent replies as to why this isn't really an issue on various technical grounds, including your reply. However it's not the technical issues that concern me.
Allow me to rephrase the objection:
3a. IPv6 addresses are too large for people.
I deal with IP addresses all the time. Few days go by where I'm not typing one into a computer for one reason or another, or reading one out over a phone to somebody. "Your in
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The questions are:
Re:not ready for prime time (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the points in that post were similarly bogus. NAT sucks because it breaks the end-to-end IP model (which also breaks IPSec). It also requires the network to handle connections and maintain state. IPv6 also uses multicast for ARP resolution instead of broadcast, which means your NIC doesn't have to deal with a packet every time someone else on your subnet wants to contact a machine that isn't in their cache.
load of crap (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet will only be "slowed down" by 3.4% if everyone uses the minimum packet size. This is unlikely, and a network won't exactly be slowed down by this amount unless it is 100% saturated 100% of the time.
Everyone needs their own IP address. You must be one of those people who think the internet is just a gateway to the web and email. The truth is the internet can be used for much more. How about two way communications instead of just "surfing the WebTV(TM) innernet tubes." It only works if everyone
Re:Question (Score:5, Funny)
(I had to make an exception to the rule in my sig for that one!)
-Peter
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all machines with IP addresses are public facing (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
All machines that have an IP address are public facing for crying out loud!
Err.. no. The PC I'm working on has internet access - I'm writing this after all - but I'm not public facing, nor are any of the PC withing the organisation I work for.
In fact, I would guestimate that a significant majority of networked PCs are in organisations which have private networks connected to the internet through a NATing firewall. Additionally all three of my home PCs are NATed through my ADSL wireless router. If this were to take place then my router would have to change to IPv6 but my three P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IPv4 works for me today and will work for me in the future.
No it doesn't, and no it won't. Right now, only the relatively rich can afford more than a handful of public addresses, so only they can afford to host the services they want (where "services" includes things like "being able to sync your smartphone's calendar with the office Exchange server", not just customer-centric applications). Also, it's all but impossible to do things like direct peer-to-peer VOIP between two random hosts behind NATted routers; you have to have a broker somewhere in the middle t