Google Over IPv6 Coming Soon

fuzzel writes "Today Google announced Google over IPv6 where ISPs can sign up their DNS nameservers so that their users will get access to an almost fully IPv6-enabled Google, including http://www.google.com, images and maps, etc., just like in IPv4. Without this only http://ipv6.google.com is available, but then you go to IPv4 for most services. So, start kicking your ISPs to support IPv6 too, and let them sign up. Check this list of ISPs that already do native IPv6 to your doorstep. The question that now remains is: when will Slashdot follow?"

Wow!

[Atrox666]

Wow I can finally have all the advantages of IPv6 like

Until they run out of IPv4 addresses it really doesn't matter.
There are a few obscure tunneling applications to this but who cares.

Wait for it....

[growse]

Cue people who don't understand routing and generally how the internet works saying "But why can't we just use NAT? HP don't need that many IP addresses!".

Is it just me

[jandrese]

Or is that list of ipv6 capable ISPs depressingly short? All I see on there are a handful of tiny mom and pop shops and perhaps some larger foreign ISPs. Until Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, NTT, Telekom, or any other major ISPs start showing up on that list all of this IPv6 stuff is going to remain a research toy. I would use IPv6 now if my ISP supported it. I'm not really interested in setting up a complicated tunnel for effectively no benefit. That IPv6 porn site never even got off of the ground.

Re:Wait for it....

[growse]

It's not about the short-term advantage because there is no short-term advantage. However, it's going to take a long time to do. Therefore, you start to think about doing it 10 years before it all goes tits-up.

We don't have a problem *now*. IPv4 is working great at the moment. However, we (people) are incredibly bad a doing global solutions to big problems quickly, so we need to start to migrate things early.

Routers?

[Midnight Thunder]

Sweet, so I have Google doing IPv6, my OS doing IPv6, yet there are still a finger full of gateway/routers, targeted at the home market, providing IPv6 support. The only router claiming IPv6 support in their specifications is the Apple Airport. Linksys and D-Link apparently have plans, yet nothing in the user documentation. For me, if the manufacturer doesn't document IPv6 in its user document or specification on its web site, then it is as good as not supporting IPv6 - after all I doubt their support team would be any more clued in.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for IPv6, its just that I am fed up having to deal with tunnels because certain parties are dragging their feet.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wait for it....

[growse]

Oh, I know that individual users have problems now. But that's not the same sort of scale of problem of a large company requesting a new IP block from their ISP and being told 'no'. That sort of problem tends to get things moving.

Re:Wait for it....

[eln]

However, we (people) are incredibly bad a doing global solutions to big problems quickly, so we need to start to migrate things early.

Unfortunately, we're also bad at doing global solutions to big problems ahead of time, especially when there's still disagreement as to whether or not the problem even exists or is as serious as some say it is. Nobody wants to spend all the money to redo their network infrastructure when no one can give them a good answer as to when or if the changes will actually be necessary.

IPv6 will only move forward in a big way when we actually run out of IPv4 space and no one can get the addresses they need, and no one can come up with a good workaround. Until then, it will only be in use in widely scattered installations, just like it is now.

Re:Excellent for Internet2 connected institutions

[evanbd]

Why did the student have access to those records? The breach occurred when the student got the financial data. To be sure, it got worse when it spread beyond them, but I doubt there was a reason a student needed to have that data in non-anonymized form.

What's in it for me? Nothing!

[wvmarle]

see subject: spoken as a consumer/end-user/Joe Sixpack.

Looking at my Internet connection: it works fine.

Looking at my small office network: it works fine.

Does ipv6 bring any improvement in this? Not that I am aware of!

From a consumer pov there is no reason for the change. It's purely technical. And even technical there are obviously very few reasons (at least at the moment) to move to ipv6. It ain't broke, so why fix it? Why should I really care anyway? NAT works fine, and anyway I really don't want my networked printer to be reachable from the outside world, unless I very very specifically say so.

Re:What's in it for me? Nothing!

[fbjon]

Sixpacks don't really get a say in IPv6, any more than Sixpacks have say on anything else about the inner workings of the Internet.

Re:Wait for it....

[tlhIngan]

We do have problems now. Which is why every residential Internet user is having to use NAT to connect more than one device to their always-on Internet connection, and why things like VoIP boxes (that require transparent two-way connectivity) require special ways of setting them up rather than just plugging into an Ethernet port in the wall.

I don't see what that has to do with IPv6. Sure, in an ideal world, the ISP will give every residential user their fair share of IPv6 addresses they're entitled to. No, most ISPs will probably give you an entire block of IPv6 addresses, but they'll only route packets to one of them, unless you pay $5/month for more (it's too lucrative a stream of cash - like text messaging). Some ISPs give every customer 2 IP(v4) addresses for "free", and I'll bet 99% of users still use NAT on the two computers they have.

No, it's stupid to think that IPv6 everywhere will mean the death of NAT. We'll just have NATv6 to deal with instead, and all the same problems we have with NAT today, will still be present in an IPv6 world. Even if the ISP decided to give everyone their fair share of IPv6 addresses, we'll still see deployment of NATv6 boxes, and since firewalls aren't going away anytime soon (if people don't deploy NATv6), end-to-end protocols will still break.

Firewalling has improved protocol design though - I still remember the days when to play online required opening 10 TCP ports and 10 UDP ports on your PC (per game, pretty much), due to some design decisions in some libraries (DirectPlay, notably). Nowadays, it's down to usually 1 TCP port, and a couple of UDP ports, if that (STUN helps). Or heck, sometimes you just don't need to do anything at all to get online gaming to work. Though you still do see the occasional game that requires DMZ mode...

Re:The problem with IP6 is...

[Anonymous Coward]

5 minutes ago.

'ping 4.2.2.1'