Major 'Net Players Mulling IPv6 Whitelist 158
netbuzz writes "From this week's IETF meeting in Anaheim comes word that leading Web content providers are talking about creating a shared list of customers who can access their Web sites via IPv6. The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4. David Temkin, network engineering manager with Netflix, says: 'We're looking into the same service that Google has, where we will try to track what connectivity the user has. We're in discussions with Google, Yahoo, Netflix and Microsoft to see whether it makes sense to have a shared, open source DNS whitelist service.' ISPs are not wild about the idea."
Single page story link (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&pagename=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&site=printpage [networkworld.com]
yeah also if you unplug your modem and forget... (Score:3, Interesting)
...to plug it back in again, you get "a bad experience". Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more? Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist.
How much IPv6 Hardware is there? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect one significant impediment to implementation of IPv6 on the part of most ISPs is that it would take wholesale replacement of significant amounts of hardware.
Sure, the latest model of a router may support IPv6, but the 200 or so that an ISP has may not and there may be no upgrade path for it. Just like there is no Windows Vista driver for some hardware - too old to bother with - there is plenty of hardware out there that will never support IPv6. Until this is replaced, IPv6 isn't going to happen.
I think we have finally reached the point where new hardware supports IPv6, almost universally. So now we are just waiting until the older hardware is replaced. I suspect larger ISPs are somewhat reluctant to move out millions (and possibly tens of millions) of dollars worth of hardware before they have to.
Of course, they could just raise the rates for everyone to cover it.
Re:Not a "whitelist" (Score:3, Interesting)
Just wait until the tinfoil hatters realize that by default IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration puts your globally unique MAC address in the second half of your IPv6 address...
Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure what you mean by the ISPs having their heads in their asses... Maybe you are referring to the lack of IPv6 availability. If so, at this point in the game, there is no point in offering IPv6 because there is nowhere to go. This may solve this. If there is something else that ISP could/should be doing, I would love to hear your ideas.
Re:Not a "whitelist" (Score:5, Interesting)
LOLFR, "globally unique MAC address"... riiight. No manufacturer has *ever* reused a MAC address... *snicker*
Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
How so?
If ISPs rolled out proper v6 connectivity, this whitelist simply wouldn't be necessary. That's "how so".
Maybe you are referring to the lack of IPv6 availability. If so, at this point in the game, there is no point in offering IPv6 because there is nowhere to go.
Then they shouldn't grumble and whine because people decide to workaround their broken networks, should they?
Re:Nice Try but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I want an IPv6-only connection. I want one that works. Because then I can have a global IP address that's reachable, and then I can do peer-to-peer protocols. This is much better than IPv4, where mostly my devices are behind a NAT, and peer-to-peer requires clever device-specific hacks to punch holes in the NAT. This reduces reliability, and in a lot of cases makes simple protocols that ought to work fail. I can't do iChat video with my dad because he's on the far side of two layers of ISP-inflicted NATting. And no, he can't change providers - what they have now is orders of magnitude better than what they had before my mom and several other members of the selectboard in her small town organized a local wireless ISP using an antenna at the top of a local mountain. If they had IPv6 that worked, it would be *much* better.
The problem is that right now IPv6-only connections don't work, because not enough stuff on the network is reachable. That's changing, and this is part of the change. At the recent IETF, there was a v6-only network with a 6to4 NAT, and it worked pretty well, although it turned up a few bugs in a certain vendor's IPv6 stack.
Re:Nice Try but... (Score:1, Interesting)
All openvpn needs is a path from the client to server on a single udp port.
Just a little anonymous tip