Accelerating IPv6 Adoption With Proxy Servers 341
jgarzik writes "IPv6 presents a catch-22: the most popular web sites on the Internet
don't have any incentive to switch to IPv6 until a large portion
of their userbase is on IPv6, and their user base does not have a
large incentive to switch to IPv6 until many of the popular Internet
destinations support IPv6. My proposed solution is simple: Configure a proxy server that
serves IPv6 requests, passing those requests through
to underlying IPv4-only servers that not have yet been transitioned
to IPv6.
This article describes how to configure Apache's proxy server to fill this role, and suggests a few ideas for use."
Re:Proxy server fun (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine that's abusable. I mean, nobody would embed ads in their IPv6 proxy if it became too popular, right?
Just a thought.
Most people don't care about IPv6 (Score:5, Insightful)
That problem was IPv4 address space exhaustion.
If the problem isn't hurting people on either side (client or server), then there is no reason for them to migrate to IPv6.
For people in certain heavy net using countries (such as Japan and S. Korea) which have received a smaller slice of the IPv4 pie, then there is more incentive to move; for the vast bulk of the world there is very little incentive to move to IPv6.
What's the rush? (Score:3, Insightful)
IPv6 will take over just like anything else. When it reaches critical mass and demand forces it. Probably starting in SE Asia and moving westward.
Reverse proxy servers always open (Score:5, Insightful)
A reverse proxy server (http accelerator) must be open to the public.
However, that does not mean the server is an "open proxy"... the proxy configuration only proxies for the specific web sites listed in the configuration file.
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
That is mightily impressive and you certainly are a genious of our time.
Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (Score:4, Insightful)
- Do you use NAT (a home router)?
- Blame your IPv4-based ISP for not having enough address space for you.
- Do you run a web-hosting company?
- You probably know how expensive address space is.
Neither Japan nor South Korea had to use IPv6. They could've stuck IPv4 and NAT (something that rural broadband companies in the U.S. do, by the way), but they didn't. They chose to solve the problem rather than ignore it.Funny solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a Catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's not the solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the rush? (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this help? (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The answer to rapid IPV6 deployment is for someone to create an IPV6 only P2P network with a ferocious amount of free porn and mp3s. The next day everyone will be upgraded to IPV6.
MOD me up this is both funny and the truth!
Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Without NAT you have to have a REAL router and you then have to setup a REAL router, telling it which IP's you have attached to each interface, probably some subnetting. You can bet your average user has no idea how to setup a real router, but with NAT they can just plug in and go
Re:ISPs (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be interesting is if ISPs would assign a static IPv6 address to customers who have dynamic IPv4 addresses. If the ISP has IPv6 at all, they have a huge block of addresses, which they could trivially assign to their customers by account number. And then there would be people who would set up IPv6-only sites or sites where the IPv6 address was more reliable, because the address was free.
Re:What about dhcp? (Score:2, Insightful)
in the current incarnation, you're not allocated a single address, but rather you are allocated a subnetwork, which is currently 2^64 addresses.
Watch residential ISPs break the recommendation and grant a /128 instead of a /64 in the name of profiteering.
Re:Why would a residential customer WANT a /64? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as a comment: "some people" probably amounts to 0.01% of paying customers, and is therefore totally insignificant. Even networking professionals - who understand well why IPv6 is better - realize that IPv6 can not happen overnight, and there is really no clear need for it today. Majority of people just buy a $99 wireless router (NAT) from Linksys, and they are all set on their own Class A network. What else is there for them to ask for?
It is also understood that IPv6 shines in a lot of areas (which were mentioned more than once in this discussion.) However none of them are mission-critical, or even noticeable to the average customer. For example, IPv4 NATs are not VoIP friendly - so there are software and hardware solutions already (UPnP, STUN, TCP etc.) and they work on existing networks just fine.
If you want my guess, the star of IPv6 will never rise. It is past its time already. People were concerned about address spaces many years ago, but now it seems everyone is happy, and nobody wants to buy into IPv6.
"But," one says, "the IPv4 address space will be exhausted!" Yes, it will be. A new protocol will replace IPv4. But it may not be IPv6 at all. Who knows? I think IPv4 will be firmly with us for 10 to 20 years from now. Then we shall see. IPv6, after all, is a souped-up IPv4, and it is not all that different from its parent. Maybe something else, something better, will be needed? I'd say so. Maybe they will dump fixed 128-bit addresses, and make them variable length instead, so that new addresses may be allocated where they are needed... Maybe some other crazy scheme will be devised. But IPv6 at this time solves no real problem, and that's why it is not popular.
And if telecoms want IPv6 on their mobile phones... by all means, please do. It's just very likely that the IPv6 will terminate at Verizon's 6->4 proxy, and that's the end of it. This would be practical anyway to cache the data, since I guess majority of users access relatively small number of sites (CNN, Yahoo, MapQuest etc.) and they are mostly cacheable - and the telecom wants to insert their own ads too!
Re:Most people don't care about IPv6 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proxy server fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean the USA will not use IPv6 (because it has got 70% of the IPv4 address space, more than enough for the foreseeable future). Everywhere else has run out of IPv4 addresses, including Europe. They are rationed by price - a standard cable package with a static address costs more than twice as much here as one with a dynamic address.
the world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4,
What you really mean is that the USA doesn't need more than 3 billion IP addresses. You're probably right, but it's irrelevant to most of the world's internet users.
IPv6 addresses are too large
You may have a point, 32 bits was too small but 128 bits is overkill. However, the time to argue this point is long past. The disadvantages of a 128-bit address space vs a 64-bit address space are not as big as you claim (other posts have addressed that). IPv6 is an accepted standard now, it's time to run with it, not try to change it.