Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed IPv6 Cutover By 2011-01-01

Comments Filter:
  • AFAIK most ISPs in Switzerland don't offer IPv6. So organizations would need to use 6to4 or tunnel using a tunnelbroker. While possible it just doesn't issue any pressure to ISPs. So we are replacing NAT with 6to4... Not exactly sure that's the point of having IPv6.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm sure Switzerland's ISP's are neutral on IPv6.
    • What's the problem with 6to4? The only downsides I can think of is encapsulation so you waste a bit more bandwidth compared to native connectivity.
      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.
  • by techiemikey ( 1126169 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @08:55AM (#20084473)
    who is this guy and why does he control what happens with my internets?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deftcoder ( 1090261 )
      He sounds like an author of fiction to me...

      If I see IPv6 implemented worldwide in my lifetime, I'll be really surprised.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AGMW ( 594303 )
        What I don't understand is why the IPv4 address space isn't mapped conveniently into the IPv6 address space (the first set of addresses ... ie 000.000.000.. ... then you can run both "internets" side by side. The major intenet trucks etc could be upgraded first (as required or as h/w gets old and needs replacing anyway), etc, until it is your choice if you want to see or use an IPv6 address, if you do, you just need to upgrade your end, and if you want to wait a bit, that can be your call!

        But I must be mi

    • who is this guy and why does he control what happens with my internets?

      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)

      by notnAP ( 846325 )
      Oh, just some guy who probably owns alot of stock in Cisco.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by halcyon1234 ( 834388 )

      PROPOSED IPv6 Cutover.


    • by mrsbrisby ( 60242 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:01AM (#20085393) Homepage
      I know John Curran as a troll on the PPML who brings up "IPV6 internet cutoff" every so often. He ignores all of the reasons why IPV6 isn't ready, and loudly proclaims people on *this Internet* (ipv4) are just holding back progress of his *other internet* (ipv6) which nobody is on.

      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 /8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers)

      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.
      • by Percy_Blakeney ( 542178 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @03:17PM (#20091079) Homepage

        He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15 /8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers

        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 [] 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Remind me again what authority the IETF actually has?

    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.
  • And when can I get IPv6 addresses for myself?
    • And when can I get IPv6 addresses for myself?

      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)

    by badfish99 ( 826052 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:00AM (#20084541)
    This is a great plan for switching over to IPv6. It's full of things that everyone MUST do. It's just missing one thing: if everyone ignores the plan and does nothing instead, how is it going to be enforced?
  • by Mike1024 ( 184871 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:03AM (#20084557)
    You would think scheduling a big upgrade for the middle of the holiday season would be asking for trouble.

    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.
    • by Scutter ( 18425 )
      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.

      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
    • You would think scheduling a big upgrade for the middle of the holiday season would be asking for trouble.

      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
    • This way the techs will have to upgrade the system earlier in 2010, to make sure they can have Xmas off.
  • by gagravarr ( 148765 ) * on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:05AM (#20084587) Homepage

    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)

      by igjeff ( 15314 )
      Uhm...perhaps you're under a different RIR than I am, but my company has PI IPv6 space (North America), and working great (within the constraints that we're not fully deployed for IPv6 internally, yet, but that's in progress...we can ping6 from our border routers and such, so we've got the first building blocks in place and are moving forward with more).
    • by Skapare ( 16644 )

      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

      • This is nuts. IPV4 PI's exist, and are used. If they are not available for IPV4 under the same terms then IPV6 will not fly.

        What's your problem with global routing entries?
        • by Detritus ( 11846 )
          What are you going to do? Threaten to hold your breath until you get your way?

          The problem with global routing table entries is obvious.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by macdaddy ( 38372 )
            The size of the routing table is only pertinent IF you take a full table. There are very few reasons for any dual-homed non-SP entity to need a full table. All they need is a default route from each peer. If it's a matter of wanting to more efficiently steering traffic destined to a specific peer onto that peer's link then you can either use a route-map and a list of that peer's larger prefixes to adjust the MED or weight or you can simply ask your peers to send you only their routes (trivially easy for
        • IPv4 PI space is seriously non-scalable, and you can't simply duplicate it in IPv6. Tried to buy any Class-C swamp space lately? One thing that has slowed the explosive growth of demand for IPv4 PI for multihomed customers is the lack of IPv4 space (and RIR address-conservation policies), and IPv6 will "fix" that.

          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)

        by Spazmania ( 174582 )
        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 connectivity to one provider that has multi-homing) can group together to use a common PI block divided into subnets and thus use cause one route entry for the lot of them.

        Show me how to actually do that from a tec
  • 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

    • by mrsbrisby ( 60242 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:12AM (#20085549) Homepage

      I don't think we're going to be able to do a clean cutover to IPv6 until most hardware/software vendors start shipping systems that require both IPv4 and IPv6 configuration to complete installation.
      That's nice. We're going to need two things bigger than that:
      • A way to upconvert IPV4 and ASN routing information so that I don't have to call my upstreams and ask them for permission to use IPV6 addressing and routing. A good start would be to make it mandatory to ASN holders at the end of a year. They can have an extension so long as any of their upstreams aren't ready (to protect smaller networks) but peer groups get penalized - say 500,000$USD for the first year.
      • Something actually interesting that's IPV6 only so that end users will actually want.

      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.
  • Lets not forget to mention, this mandatory switch to ipv6 will finally kill of all of those pesky users who find their old hardware and Win98 perfectly adequate to their needs and have not rushed to buy everytime Bill released a new O.S. And, of course, all of the existing home routers, since manufacturers will be more inclined to sell a new ipv6 router than release a firmware fix for each and every old model.

    I don't mean to suggest that all technical progress must stop because people still use old hardwar

    • The fact that people can still buy software and hardware that does not support IPv6 is exactly why we need strict timetables. We need to show that this is happening - soon, and that it is no longer acceptable for software developers and hardware manufacturers to sit on their hands pretending that everything is OK. The longer we hold off switching to IPv6 the worse the problem will be. Of course you can't just a flick a switch overnight, but getting a concerted effort across the IT/computing industry to make
  • Yes - it's a real thing, so the timetable is pretty good. rea-7.ppt []

    (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.

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
      I always understood IPv6 could coëxist with IPv4, so why would a complete switch be required?
  • by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:12AM (#20084695) Homepage
    This has been a hot topic on a number of lists. Some observations:

    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)

      by MikeBabcock ( 65886 )
      When I as a good netizen went to look at getting my own IPv6 block for work, I realized it was way too much hassle, despite enough blocks obviously being available. Convincing our upstream provider(s) to give us blocks would require them bothering to go through that same hassle.

      IPv6 works beautifully in an Intranet and LAN environment with autoconfiguration. IPv6 registries and routing are a problem however because nobody's* doing it.

    • by Fzz ( 153115 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:00AM (#20086221)
      Yes, I agree with you. In particular, people often get confused by what MUST means in documents like this.

      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 [] 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 [] 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.

  • Heh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sheriff_p ( 138609 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:14AM (#20084709)
    I love how the guy uses the word 'must' and 'Internet' in the same sentence!
  • unless someone takes over the Internet at large like China or Iran control their networks/ societies

    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
  • by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:21AM (#20084815)
    Does the IETF even realize the scope of this project? Ignore everything else and just look at every ISP in the world....all of them....the big ones and the mom-and-pop shops.

    Now every single one of them must have routing gear (and all the associated monitoring equipment) capable of IPv6, and the ability to manage the massive address space. I know ISPs right now that can barely handle their IPv4 infrastructure that has been in place for a decade. Now you are asking them, in the space of a few years to throw out their existing infrastructure and move completely to IPv6? That's rich.....

    If the ISPs don't convert (or can't quickly convert) then no one else will.

    • by redirect 'slash' nil ( 1078939 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:36AM (#20085863)
      Your post advocates a

      ( ) 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!

  • And as I ask on every IPv6 story, is it possible to access Slashdot using IPv6 datagrams?

    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?
    • by AGMW ( 594303 )
      Ah ... OK. I think that maybe answers my question I posted above

      So the datagram [] 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?

    • by jandrese ( 485 )
      Really, a big issue is that ISPs simply aren't ready for IPv6. You can set up tunnels, but at that point you're just complicating things for no real gain. I say the IPv6 switchover is dead in the water until you can ask your ISP for an address and hook up your dual stack machine to their interface and go.
  • 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

  • When everyone gets their own IP addys and don't have to use stupid NATS, then people can log directly onto the other computers during the login sequence instead of using servers as a go between. For games this will result in something unheard of: a 2x speed up in ping times. Instead of client1->server->client2, you'll have client1->client2.

    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:38AM (#20085035)
    The biggest problem with IPv4 is that the way addresses were distributed totally screwed over Asian countries. There are single Universities in the US that have more assigned IP addresses than pretty much the entire Asian continent! There are places in China that now sit behind six layers of NAT.

    Asia will lead, and anyone who wants to communicate with them will be forced to follow.
    • by Aerion ( 705544 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @11:44AM (#20086943)

      There are single Universities in the US that have more assigned IP addresses than pretty much the entire Asian continent!
      I think that there is actually a single University (or, shall we say, "Institute") that has that many IPs. But plenty of corporations or other organizations own Class A's as well.

      We like our /8. Four static IPs for each student ... a /16 for each dorm (with one exception -- my dorm gets two). And, more infuriatingly, I'm sure, a /16 for each fraternity. Is it fair? Fuck no. But dem's da breaks. I wouldn't count on reallocation of IPv4 addresses any sooner than I'd count on a move to IPv6.
  • by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @09:43AM (#20085131)

    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?

  • Aren't they starting on the wrong side? As previously discussed here, changing all public facing servers requires significant upgrades of very costly enterprise hardware. Making big complex companies change in a scant 5-6 years... right. All the legacy crap laying around, all the $100K Cisco/Foundry/Juniper routers that will need hardware upgrades.

    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.
  • Unless your DSL router happens to be the latest Apple Airport Extreme, chances are your DSL router is a huge bottle neck in your IPv6 experience. Most 4to6 tunneling solutions only work if you don't have any NAT going on. Microsoft came up with Teredo [] as one solution to dealing with IPv6 tunneling in the presence of a NAT. Naturally Microsoft only offers an implementation for their MS-Windows platform. If you want it for any other platform then there is the open source implementation known as Miredo []. I wou
  • I keep reading a bunch of comments about the larger packet sizes, address size pool and their implications. However we rarely hear of the potential benefits of using IPV6 - are there any?
    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
  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday August 02, 2007 @10:52AM (#20086081) Journal
    Why do these articles only end up being commented about IPv6 improved address space?

    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)

    by OgGreeb ( 35588 ) <> on Thursday August 02, 2007 @12:18PM (#20087533) Homepage
    Why does every technical standards organization plan intensive, complicated and pervasive changes for midnight January 1st, when:

    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?

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...