Why the Journey To IPv6 Is Still the Road Less Traveled 390
alphadogg writes The writing's on the wall about the short supply of IPv4 addresses, and IPv6 has been around since 1999. Then why does the new protocol still make up just a fraction of the Internet? Though IPv6 is finished technology that works, rolling it out may be either a simple process or a complicated and risky one, depending on what role you play on the Internet. And the rewards for doing so aren't always obvious. For one thing, making your site or service available via IPv6 only helps the relatively small number of users who are already set up with the protocol, creating a nagging chicken-and-egg problem.
I'm ready....My ISP isn't. (Score:5, Informative)
My border router is more than IPv6 ready. It's already passing out IPv6 addresses internally to the few devices which are capable of them. Not that it matters to me though, my ISP doesn't support IPv6 so what's the point? Yea, I can touch my router from my laptop over IPv6, but what does that get me?
Who is my ISP? Why Verizon FIOS of course. Until they decide to support IPv6 and give out addresses to people like me who are ready to use it, there won't be any mass adoption of IPv6 by their customers.
Are their any ISP's out there which support residential IPv6?
Re: I'm ready....My ISP isn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tunnelling (Score:2)
That the point at which end users like us need to be proactive. ...or just move to a country with pervasive IPv6... :-P
Setup tunnels (like Sixxs and other similar IPv6 brokers [wikipedia.org]), open tickets at your provider asking for 6rd support [wikipedia.org], etc.
Re:I'm ready....My ISP isn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are their any ISP's out there which support residential IPv6?
My ISP (in Europe) has supported IPv6 for a few years now. A while ago I got a firmware update for my ADSL modem, and since then I've been automatically connected with an IPv6 address, as well as an IPv4 address. I didn't have to do anything on my side, and it just works. It's surprising that not more ISPs have taken the same route.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Contact the guys here [comcast6.net] about it. I helped them troubleshoot some IPv6 issues in my area and they are actually very very eager to get it right.
In fact, much as I dislike Comcast in general, they're IPv6 rollout has been pretty well handled.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for the killer app ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have Facebook and/or Google go IPV6 only for website access. You will see virtually 100% adoption of IPV6 within 24hrs ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the killer app ... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you missed world IPv6 day when they both jumped at the same time to enable their front pages? There are a lot of things that don't work right in an IPv6 only world, such as Skype but the list of things that doesn't work is getting shorter. If you take a look at the statistics it's quite encouraging to see a steady growth curve.
https://www.google.com/intl/en... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
good cite
Re:Waiting for the killer app ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Waiting for the killer app ... (Score:4, Informative)
IPv6 would help both enormously. Lower latency on routing means faster responses.
IP Mobility means users can move between ISPs without posts breaking, losing responses to queries, losing hangout or other chat service connections, or having to continually re-authenticate.
Autoconfiguration means both can add servers just by switching the new machines on.
Because IPv4 has no native security, it's vulnerable to a much wider range of attacks and there's nothing the vendors can do about them.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 would help both enormously. Lower latency on routing means faster responses.
Responses? Most of the internet traffic is streaming video, which gains speed by being cached, not having a direct connection to the server. Fess up. Most people here screaming that they need IPv6 are only interested in game ping times. Or else they really don't understand the difference between latency and "ping time."
Re: (Score:3)
IPv6 would help both enormously.
In the long term, yes. In the short term, going offline for the 93.69% [google.com] of their users who don't have IPv6 yet would certainly be seen my most as a completely dickish move - I'm pretty sure their investors would be upset, for one thing.
Lower latency on routing means faster responses.
How does IPv6 yield lower latency? If anything, the latency on IPv6 is often slightly higher than IPv4 owing to the prevalence of IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels where native IPv6 interlinks aren't available, along with larger headers slightly increasing the latency of cut-through ro
Re:Waiting for the killer app ... (Score:5, Funny)
facebook maybe. If google goes ipv6 nobody will be able to find instructions...
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook leaving the web could be a good thing, our generation's version of Eternal September [wikipedia.org] would finally come to an end. :P
Re: (Score:2)
facebook maybe. If google goes ipv6 nobody will be able to find instructions...
Both Facebook and Google already offer their services over IPV6.
Re: (Score:3)
Too long. IPV6 Youporn would drop full adoption down to 5 minutes ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If Google started boosting the ranking for sites with an IPv6 address it would become the Next Big Trend...
IPv6's day will come, but... (Score:3)
Oh, and there's a learning curve. Most people are like water... path of least resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
The main difference tech people will see is that they can't ping an IPv6 address from memory. mDNS (as in xyz.local) will become the only way to access another machine with any sanity.
Monitoring DNS at home, most services are already mixing (with a preference, but quick fallback from IPv6). So I'd say that the major websites are already primarily accessed via IPv6. You won't notice it.
It'll just take years...
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, really? I set up my IPv6 in 2008 with everybody else and can still rattle off my /48 block prefix just like an IPv4 block.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF do you need a /48 for? A /64 isn't big enough for you?
Re:IPv6's day will come, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
A single subnet? That's not enough for a lot of people.
Everybody with a guest wifi network, for instance.
Re: (Score:3)
For the average home user, there is no learning curve. One day their ISP will flip the switch and they'll just go on using the internet as before, unaware that anything changed.
Re: (Score:2)
6rd is for when you want v6 but your uplink doesn't support it, so not an issue here. The DNS lookup doesn't cause much delay.
Some operations did indeed screw up initially but others got it right first time.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like they didn't so much flip the switch as jam a penny in the fusebox.
It is coming... On Weekends... From Home... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have IPV6 at home (took some calls to AT&T Customer Support). I don't have it at work, the migration will probably start small network endpoints (phones (apparently t-mobile has already switch), and home networks).
Link local IPV6 is already fairly broadly available - it's the fe80 prefixed address on your ifconfig output. You should be able to ping other ipv6 addresses on your network (*nix to *nix).
Google's IPv6 stats page indicates this too... https://www.google.com/intl/en... [google.com] has a peculiar comb effect for the last few years. Zooming in seems to give a bit more insight. Google's count of IPv6 connections has a full 1% swing over the weekends vs the week days. Due to IPv6's addressing method, each unique device on your network appears as a unique device on the internet, vs the NATed IPv4 that we all know and love. This would also have an accelerating increase in the number of unique IPs that are visible on the weekend. I know I use more devices over the weekend (chromebook, phone, laptop, table) vs during the week.
Open to other insights, but our homes will be likely IPv6 before our offices are. (Of course aggressive tech companies like google and facebook are likely already IPv6).
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say this. Also note how far the US is ahead of the rest of the world. It's a rare scenario where the US is a world leader in something Internet. 14.5% of all Google's US connections are v6, and it's higher on the weekends. Only Belgium does better. The major US ISPs have actually been pretty good about v6 and at least TWC/Comcast offer it to all their customers, and all their provided routers do it automatically. All the other major ISPs I know about are at least testing deployment. As people s
Re: (Score:2)
If your router enables IPv6, your devices have IPv6 access - no endpoint changes necessary. Current versions of most Operating Systems actually prefer IPv6 but fallback quickly. So it is likely to be turned on transparently.
There is no INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS, there is just an IP6_ADDRESS. The firewall blocks or permits dynamically (likely stateful connection management). The /64 subnet that is routed to your network is expected to be routed to the endpoint by your router if needed (modulo firewall rule
Re: (Score:2)
I use a smaller ISP (aaisp.net) which provides IPv6 natively. The router they provided, which is a fairly common technicolor model, does all the firewalling and port forwarding you could desire with both v4 and v6 addresses. In the case of v6 it's more a case of unblocking than forwarding ports, since the internal address is global, but the functionality is all there and it works. If you didn't want to run servers internally, everything worked out of the box for outgoing v6--totally plug and play which i
and big business want to have INTERNAL only (Score:2)
and big business want to have INTERNAL only networks as well VPN's that let you get into stuff that you want to lock down to be inside only. A VPN with username / password does more then just basic firewall rules.
Adoption inverse to ip address assignment (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that in countries with many ipv4 addresses per internet user, we won't see any change soon, they still can support one ip per home. The US is one of those. It has tons of IPs. In countries without much ipv4 addresses, the companies (especially new ones, which don't sit on millions of addresses) will see the pressure, and will run a carrier grade NAT & native ipv6 approach.
My experience with IPv6 (Score:3)
I can do IPv6 from my ISP since last November. My issues so far have been:
On the other hand, IPv6 was doing fine 12 years ago, on the IPv6 backbone from the university.
Re: (Score:2)
And Amazon doesn't support it (Score:5, Interesting)
With the current incantation of Amazon Web Services (VPC),
IPv6 support is currently not available for load balancers in Amazon VPC (EC2-VPC).
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/Ela... [amazon.com]
So there goes lots of the internet....
Stupid shit (Score:2)
This has been written in a very pro-selldata approach:
For example, if the proxy that’s providing a user’s address is located in a different city from that user, then location data that could aid in targeting ads would be unusable, he said.
So, should ipv6 be enabled because it kills privacy? This article is stupid shit. I really don't like if internet protocols are designed with "targeting ads" in mind. This is where the google involvement into internet standardisation has brought us to: an internet built to spy on us. Google is not very much more than that: a company getting billions from running the most profitable internet ad network in the world (visit this [sec.gov], and search for "Advertising
hosts file (Score:4, Funny)
I would switch, but then I'd have to rewrite my hosts files.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
APK's got you covered. :P
just wait for ISP's to bill you per IP / outlet an (Score:2)
just wait for ISP's to bill you per IP / outlet and ban / lockout NAT.
Right now ISP like Comcast may a lot of outlets fees on there TV side and when TV starts to really die down the last thing you want to have is to have it like the old phones days where they made for pay / rent EACH PHONE. Right now the cell phones provides make you pay per line to use the same shared pool of data / minutes and make you pay more to unlock tethering.
IPv6 has tons of useless changes and 1 useful one (Score:3, Insightful)
Automatic address assignment: Useless. DHCP is better.
No more NAT: Useless. NAT is part of firewalls which are still needed. It's easy, and incredibly flexible.
Better multicast routing: Useless. Multicast is dead, and will remain so.
Simplified routing: Useless. This has been implemented outside IP
QOS: Useless. The IPv6 implementation is wrong for how QOS is used now.
Larger Address Space: The only useful feature in IPv6, but it was done wrong, and should be abandoned.
We need IPv8 that does things right for the internet we have *today* not the internet we thought we'd need in 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
You've clearly never had to talk someone through configuring a port forward on their router so that a file transfer over IM could work, or so they could host a game server. NAT mostly works, but it turns a lot of things that should 'just work' into a need to fiddle around with the router config.
IPv6 is good for something (Score:4, Insightful)
I quite like vastly increased difficulty of scanning the whole IPv6 Internet. As soon as Comcast fixes their business class remote access via IPv4 is going bye bye. Sick of looking at all this crap in my logs. If random fools want to spam me they are going to have to work for it.
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't being adopted because they try to solve problems that aren't really problems.
IPv6: not enough IP addresses. The problem is very real.
Rust: incompetent programmers who leak memory, which problem can be fixed at compile time (with tradeoffs that annoy some people but not others).
Both solve very real problems, you just don't see them because they are at a level deeper than you understand. Don't worry, the 'magic' will keep working, and you can keep posting, because other people will solve them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C# and Java also solve the leaky memory problem and are much more popular.
But not at compile time, and you can't use them in systems' programming on general hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be serious.
If I 'never think about it' in C++, my memory will explode in no time. If I 'never think about it' in Java, then maybe in some cases eventually my memory might explode, perhaps. That's not what 'easier to leak in Java' means to me.
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't being adopted because they try to solve problems that aren't really problems.
IPv6: not enough IP addresses. The problem is very real.
The problem with IPv6 is that alternate solutions to the IP shortage issue such as NAT are currently far less trouble and much less expensive to implement than IPv6.
Where I work we have a LOT of computers (low-mid 6 figures) behind NAT. For the most part it works pretty well.
I spoke with our network design engineer about IPv6 a few months ago and he said IPv6 isn't even on his radar at this time for the reason stated above. If he were implementing a network at a new company with no legacy technology to deal with he might go IPv6 but he doesn't see it much in established networks anytime soon.
Re: (Score:3)
>other people will solve them
Other people are solving the real problem of address exhaustion, just not in the way that the IETF intended.
Even the IPv6 enthusiasts accepted that adoption would have to be widespread before the regional registries started running out of IPv4 addresses if it were going to work as a solution. That hasn't happened and it's now just too late - don't forget this started 22 years ago when most of the host systems were still under the control of education and government institutio
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:4, Insightful)
And 99.9% of people don't care.
There are a lot of things 99.9% of people don't care about. If that's your justification...
Me personally, I'd love my end-to-end connectivity back.
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:4, Insightful)
People who think they need end-to-end connectivity for everything don't understand networking. It's not only not required, it is undesirable in most cases.
Its undesirable in _some_ cases, it's absolutely required in others. So if you have a single IP address and you have to NAT everything, you win in the "some cases" situation and you lose for "others" (even worse with CGNAT). If you get rid of NAT and stick a stateful firewall in, you get the best of both worlds and can choose the best for the situation at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So if one wants to allow a particular protocol through the firewall that is a typical carrier grade NAT rollout, how does one go about it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're behind CGN, then by definition you aren't allowed to run "servers"
Customers ought not to stand for inability to run servers. Therefore, customers ought not to stand for being stuck on carrier-grade NAT. Therefore, with more people than IPv4 addresses, IPv6 is a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
the 0.0001% of Nerd Customers ought not to stand for inability to run servers.
FTFY.
For those 0.0001%, there is AWS.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you one of those people who got suckered into believing that if you zipped the zipped zip file enough iterations you could store everything in just one byte?
There's only so much NAT can do and it's doing it now.
NAT is just bandaid (Score:2)
You know what else solves the "not enough IP addresses" problem? NAT.
It's a short-term quick hack which might make some problem seem to disappear, but creates ton of other problems.
NAT creates layers of indirection, and NAT makes machines not directly addressable.
Require hole punching and the like even for very basic functionality (like VoIP).
The internet was envisioned as a distributed network with all being equal peers, but NAT is contributing to the current assymetry of having a few key content distributor and every body else being a passive consumer.
And it's a lot less of a change than switching to IPv6.
IPv6 here. No it's no
DNS without DHCP (Score:2)
you don't even need to setup DHCP. your router just hands out prefixes, and the devices on the net autonomously decide their address by appending their mac address
If you don't set up DHCP, then how do devices on the net bootstrap enough service to be able to resolve www.example.com. into an IPv6 address? Does each machine need to run its own recursive resolver or rely on 2001:4860:4860::8844 [google.com]?
Re: DNS without DHCP (Score:5, Informative)
Anycast tells you what services are on what IP. There are other service discovery protocols, but anycast was designed specifically for IPv6 bootstrapping. It's very simple. Multicast out a request for who runs a service, the machine with the service unicasts back that it does.
Dynamic DNS lets you tell the DNS server who lives at what IP.
IPv6 used to have other features - being able to move from one network to another without dropping a connection (and sometimes without dropping a packet), for example. Extended headers were actually used to add features to the protocol on-the-fly. Packet fragmentation was eliminated by having per-connection MTUs. All routing was hierarchical, requiring routers to examine at most three bytes. Encryption was mandated, ad-hoc unless otherwise specified. Between the ISPs, the NAT-is-all-you-need lobbyists and the NSA, most of the neat stuff got ripped out.
IPv6 still does far, far more than just add addresses and simplify routing (reducing latency and reducing the memory requirements of routers), but it has been watered down repeatedly by people with an active interest in everyone else being able to do less than them.
I say roll back the protocol definition to where the neat stuff existed and let the security agencies stew.
Re: (Score:2)
Multicast out a request for who runs a service, the machine with the service unicasts back that it does.
I don't understand how this would work at Internet scale. Either I'm missing something fundamental, or you're claiming that IPv6 allows a host to port-scan the entire Internet for the DNS port with a multicast packet. Or were you referring to running a DNS server on your local subnet and discovering that with multicast? If so, how would that DNS server be automatically configured to use the DNS server operated by whatever ISP to which the machine is connected?
Re: DNS without DHCP (Score:5, Interesting)
Per-connection MTU's are a pain. You shouldn't be making that point if you think that routers having a PNAT table is a hack - having state is awful. And IPv6 has other flaws too: some headers fields are unprotected from bit-errors in transit. There is no specification as to how many extension headers I'm allowed to use. Higher layer fragments are completely unrecognisable to stateless concentrators (more so than in IPv4). UDP- and TCP-checksums are not allowed to be all zeroes (which was neat when you provided a better checksum yourself over, you know, fragments, which got ripped out).
No there's plenty rotten in the state of IPv6. And it's not just because 'interests' ripped things out.
Re: (Score:3)
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center? Small Liberal Arts College? You mean "stateless autoconfiguration", but it took until November 2010 for RFC 6106: Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration [ietf.org] to bring DNS into Neighbor Discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
"Short term"? I guess so, for some very large values of "short".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in the process of solving the one problem it's supposed to solve, they created about 14 trillion other problems, stuck their head in the sand refusing to learn from history or listen to the industries that use the technology -- *cough*DHCP*cough*, didn't give a single second to privacy or security, and finally simply gave up without ever trying when it came to any type of transition policy/mechanism.
We might as well be converting the internet to Appletalk. While they share a few characters in thei
Re:IPv6 and Rust: overhyped and unwanted! (Score:5, Insightful)
RA, aka. ICMP router advertisement. Abandoned circa 1970 as a "bad idea". It was a colossally bad idea in the 90's, and f'ing suicidally bad in 2000+. Yeah, let's trust whoever the f*** on the cable claims to be a router and send it our traffic. Oh, to protect my network(s) from that brain damage, I have to buy new switches that support "RA Guard".
They didn't like DHCP. So "no f***ing DHCP in IPv6!" DHCPv6 is a bolt-on, staple-on, and bandaid addition to IPv6. It's a horribly incomplete shadow of DHCPv4, and still requires an RA tell you to use it.
SLAAC... originally 80bit prefix plus 48bit MAC. They ignored the fact that ethernet is not the only technology in the universe. That was later amended (breaking older stacks) to 64bits. The entire purpose for the vast over-simplification of address selection (for tiny embeded systems with limit RAM/ROM/CPU) became moot 7sec into the IPng committee's existance -- IPSec shoots all three in the head, repeatedly, with artillery. Everything supports privacy extensions these days, so the logic for random address generation and duplicate address detection is there -- and rather trivial. Yet it, and SLAAC, demands the prefix-length be 64. Just to put that silliness in perspective, that's a single LAN with every ethernet device ever created (that will ever be created) in it 65,536 times over.
This leads nicely into the blindness to history... a 64bit LAN is pure lunacy. Today and likely for several decades. But we "have an infinite amount of address space." Actually, NO, it is, in fact, quite finite: 128bits, to be exact. If we carve it up with the same pez-like abandon as the early IPv4 assignments, it will be even less "infinite". Sure, we can change the way we do things "with the next ::/8", but that dooms us to live with the colossal stupid of this ::/8 for ever. Again, dooming us (and our children's great grand-children) to live with our bullshit. We did a lot of stupid things with IPv4; and we're doing them all over again with IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2: Attackers can view your entire IP space. A simple nmap scan, then choosing what zero days to use... instant pwn-ership.
That's what firewalls are for.
Let me guess, you're one of those that thinks the breaking of end-to-end communications (NAT) is an acceptable substitute for a firewall?
Re: (Score:3)
That 'simple nmap scan' is 2^48 addresses. You can't scan entire IP ranges on IPv6, you have to harvest addresses by other means.
Re:How about basic security? (Score:4, Informative)
Filtering out nmap to places you don't want it to go is EXACTLY what a firewall is for.
And your IPX comparison is also flawed. You don't need to use your MAC address, that is just one way of generating an IPv6 address. And being able to address a packet to any node on the internet directly is exactly how the internet was suposed to work. (Note that a firewall may still prevent such packet from ariving unwanted).
Re: (Score:3)
I have given up trying to educate Slashdot readers about IPv6. Like most IT people they have stuck their heads in the sand and think NAT is the end-all-be-all. As an professor of IT I keep preaching knowing IPv6 to my students because someday IT management is going to wakeup to the fact that Asia (and other places) has moved on to IPv6 and if you want to do business with them you better be running it too. Then there will a rush to get everyone on IPv6 and people with experience will be in demand. So let the
Re: (Score:2)
2: Attackers can view your entire IP space. A simple nmap scan, then choosing what zero days to use... instant pwn-ership.
Bullshit. Just use a firewall the proper way and stop using crap.
If your machines are that vulnerable you are already screwed. Hiding behind NAT and thinking you are safe is a joke.
Re:How about basic security? (Score:4, Funny)
Simple nmap scan? Yeah.
If they can scan 10,000 addresses a second they should be able to scan your home address space in not much under a million years.
Assuming you didn't do something radical, like, maybe, used a firewall.
Re: (Score:3)
Scanning IPv6 isn't as hard as you make it out to be. I look at it more like using dictionary attacks rather that sequential scans. The 1st 64 bits are known if your after a specific target. It is also trivial to know if a given /64 is even used. A tree of all known used /64 shouldn't take long to create.
The 64 bits of the host is a bit different. They could be fully random (which is rare) or they are allocated based on mac address or statically assigned. The mac addresses means that 40 bits of the a
Re: (Score:2)
2: Attackers can view your entire IP space. A simple nmap scan, then choosing what zero days to use... instant pwn-ership.
Hmm... Non-direct allocated IP on your subnet, 64 bit subnet, pwn-ership aint that trivial. Scanning a 64-bit address space (AT&T allocates a full /64 to me at home) is going to be pretty obvious at the firewall.
Welcome back to the internet of the early 1990's we all lived on the internet with real IPs, but were protected from firewalls... This whole concept of everyone on a Class C/B/A private subnet thing has only been around for a couple of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my ISP gives me a static /56 and a dynamic /64, so that's a lot of space to scan. My Windows boxes randomise addresses for outgoing connections, so you can't trivially get addresses to scan by sniffing egress traffic. And on top of that my router acts as a firewall and only allows incoming connections on whitelisted address/port combinations.
Re: (Score:3)
1. As opposed to IPv4 where practically nothing uses the pain in the ass to set up encryption
2. Yes, if I am stupid enough to have no firewall whatsoever, even locally on the machines, all they have to do is nmap an entire internet's worth of IP addresses to find the 10 or so that actually exist on my network.
3. Oh my yes, only 15 years of testing, AKA, 75% as much as the IPv4 stack in most cases.
4. Not sure what you're saying there. Issue must be local, I've had no problem using IPv6.
Re: (Score:3)
an entire internet[] worth of
Since a /64 is the default allocation, that's more like an entire internet squared worth of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The protocol has IPsec bolted-on at the socket level. However, you are correct in that nothing knows how to actually use it.
A: FIREWALL. B: A 2^64 (::/64) LAN will take a LONG time to scan. But, yes, if you know the address of the machine not protected by anything, it's a lame duck.
Less tested than IPv4, maybe. IPv6 has been around a lot longer than you may realize, and while issues are still emerging, many o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we know those are all well known and long unfixed problems with IPv4...
But you promised a list of IPv6 weaknesses.
Re: How about basic security? (Score:5, Informative)
IPSec is perfectly usable.
Telebit demonstrated transparent routing (ie: total invisibility of internal networks without loss of connectivity) in 1996.
IPv6 has a vastly simpler header, which means a vastly simpler stack. This means fewer defects, greater robustness and easier testing. It also means a much smaller stack, lower latency and fewer corner cases.
IPv6 is secure by design. IPv4 isn't secure and there is nothing you can design to make it so.
Re: (Score:3)
Which overhead do you mean exactly?
The increased address size is not really a problem, route aggregation actually makes routing ipv6 easier than ipv4.
Packet size increases a bit (20 bytes) but calling that 'too much' is simply unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting big-iron carrier/backbone grade routers and other kit that can do IPv6 just as fast as the current gear does IPv4 is expensive.
6rd (Score:2)
That why solution like 6rd [wikipedia.org].
ISP can keep their current IPv4 gear, and just offer an IPv6 tunnel that the clients can use over the IPv4 infrastructure.
No need to immediately replace all the components, and meanwhile, IPv6 is already available.
Re: (Score:3)
[citation needed] for your assertion. Been deploying IPv6 at a major ISP/carrier for 13 years now. If you bought the wrong stuff or didn't ask for IPv6, you may be right but the proper gear is out there and doesn't cost any more. I can even get IPv6 over my VPN connection.
The issue is one of mentality and training. Above someone says "turned off IPv6, problem went away". That's certainly one way to say "I blame IPv6". They didn't troubleshoot the problem. Perhaps it's a DNS problem or something else
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously not work in the Real World(tm). Companies will continue using hardware as long as it works -- not broken, don't need new features/functions not possible through software update(s), or don't need additional capacity (based on space and/or power)
(Cell providers cycle through tech due to the last two.)
Re: The answer has been clear (Score:2)
Each level is given the parent's prefix plus one or two bytes. Yes, you can announce that and it is easily summarized.
Re: (Score:2)
The workarounds are rapidly running out of steam. Add another layer of NAT and things start breaking for average users.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have fallen into a parallel reality. In mine, all of those Windows versions can and do use IPv6. Even XP if you explicitly configure it in the network settings.
I have Comcast and one day I noticed they were announcing v6 addresses. So I turned off my 6to4 tunnel. I haven't had any problems. Modem running out of RAM is a modem problem, not an IPv6 problem. Perhaps it's old or cheesy.
Re: (Score:3)
Comcast says they support it
I've been using Comcast's IPv6 for well over a year. Not one problem with it.
Maybe you should go to the Comcast HSI forum on dslreports.com and ask some questions.
Re: ipv6 (Score:5, Informative)
Windows has had IPv6 stacks since Windows 95 and Microsoft even started supplying them as of 98.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows has had IPv6 stacks since Windows 95 and Microsoft even started supplying them as of 98.
Ok so I'll wait for IPv10
Re: (Score:2)
I've had Comcast and native IPv6 since the fall of 2012, (about 6 months after they brought it up on Memorial Day). I have had no trouble with it, and about a year ago they began issuing /60 prefix delegations. An interesting thing is that since they bumped up my speed to "50Mps" (download), their speedtest website consistently shows ~41Mbps for IPv4, and ~59Mbps for IPv6. I have no idea why. Back when I was getting 20Mbps downloads, there was no significant difference.