Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Four Root DNS Servers Go IPv6 On February 4th

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jan 03, 2008 03:40 PM
from the our-interwebs-are-all-growed-up dept.
The Internet IT Technology
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)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Four Root DNS Servers Go IPv6 On February 4th by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Four Root DNS Servers Go IPv6 On February 4th 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Routers! (Score:5, Informative)

    by arth1 (260657) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:44PM (#21900234) Homepage Journal
    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

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352)

      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.

    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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.
        • You've got your assertions pretty much backwards. Most general-purpose computers are IPv6-compatible, running either Windows XP (or occasionally Vista) or Linux or MacOS, though the user may not have a clue how to enable it or manage it and their ISP help desk may not know either. There are two different kinds of hardware that have problems with IPv6, for different reasons:
          • Home NAT/Firewall boxes, which may not be upgradeable, and which the user almost certainly didn't save the instructions for even if

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ArsonSmith (13997)
        This may beg for the question, but it does not beg the question.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by zsau (266209)
                "To sticketh" is not grammatically correct. The "to" signifies that we are using an infinitive of the verb, yet the "-eth" is a finite ending. -eth is simply the original form of the -s suffix on verbs: it marks the singular third person present tense. So "he sticketh", "John sticketh" are fine, but "have to sticketh" is not.

  • Finally (Score:2, Insightful)

    by elsJake (1129889)
    Hopefully ISPs will start to offer IPv6 as standard pretty quick, I'm getting tired of dynamic IP allocation.

    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:52PM (#21900338) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tgd (2822) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:56PM (#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.

        • 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.
        • 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.
        • 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!)

        • 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. Wi

        • 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.
        • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by tgd (2822)
            I bunch of people said the same thing but I don't want to reply to all of them.

            From the customers standpoint, the different doesn't really matter except as an inbound DNS address, however managing static IPs via DHCP is still complicated because you can't easily move machines around subnets as the leaves of your network change in terms of device concentration and data load.

            You pay more for a static IP address because once you have it, they have to adjust the network around you.

            (FWIW, I built out a number of
      • 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.
  • 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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlexMax2742 (602517) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:47PM (#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?
    • Three years after the sun goes dark.

    • 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 ser

      • Re:So when will I be able to connect? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Chris Mattern (191822) on Thursday January 03 2008, @06:13PM (#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? (Score:5, Funny)

      by discogravy (455376) on Thursday January 03 2008, @05:28PM (#21901916) Homepage
      if you're browsing by IP now anyway you're doing it wrong.
      • 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?
        • 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. :(

  • About time.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ch-chuck (9622) on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:50PM (#21900316) Homepage
    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.

    • 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. :)
      • 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.
    • 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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Denis Lemire (27713)
        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.. (Score:5, Informative)

            by Denis Lemire (27713) on Thursday January 03 2008, @05:02PM (#21901468) Homepage
            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.. (Score:4, Informative)

            by growse (928427) on Thursday January 03 2008, @05:28PM (#21901912) Homepage

            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...

  • two of 'em, eh? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shentino (1139071)
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evanbd (210358) on Thursday January 03 2008, @04:22PM (#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?

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2008, @03:55PM (#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

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

    by jackpot777 (1159971) on Thursday January 03 2008, @04:02PM (#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.
  • 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.

  • IANAIANA (Score:5, Funny)

    by PixelScuba (686633) on Thursday January 03 2008, @04:42PM (#21901182)
    I Am Not An Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

  • Mixed up acronyms (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarkGriz (520778) on Thursday January 03 2008, @04:51PM (#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?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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

    • Re:Why did they skip 64-bits? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by romiz (757548) on Thursday January 03 2008, @04:27PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Just Some Guy (3352)

        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.

        Not even close. Those bottom bits are used for the completely optional autoconfiguration feature. You're equally welcome to hand-configure hosts or use DHCP6 to assign network::1, network::2, network::3 and so on without regard to MAC.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Olmy's Jart (156233)
      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:Human readability (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gbjbaanb (229885) on Thursday January 03 2008, @05:57PM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Todd Knarr (15451)
      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 p

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.