IPv6 Rollout Japan, China in 2005 191
Killjoy_NL writes "The digitimes have a piece that is reporting that IPv6 will be rolled out in China and Japan in 2005. Makes me wonder when the rest of the world will follow suit" We had a good piece a couple months back about the state of IPv6. CowboyNeal is ready!
China? (Score:5, Funny)
(-1, I Like Chinese)
Re:China? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:China? (Score:1)
It won't be surprised that most of the spams were sent from those infected computers (aka "Zombie")
I do agree your points that blaming East Asian for major spamming source is biased and stereotype. Most of the spams I received these days are still in English, advertising those penis enlargement stuff and "Nigerian" opportu
Re:China? (Score:1, Informative)
From the ground in East-China. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Lots of pirated and unpatched MS Windows installs.
2) Most sysadmins are in their jobs because of who they know, not what they know (and they know nil - I taught English to a class of comp-sci under-grads last year. These comp-sci majors' total computer knowledge was punching in Java from a text book and that 'Bill Gates is very rich' - which is the only interest most of them have in computers: to get rich like Bill Gates. Set an assignment like 'hit Google and find out who Steve Jobs
Re:China? (Score:2)
340282366920938463463374607431768211456 is an awfully big number. Its over a quadrillion times the number of square millimeters on the surface
Re:China? (Score:5, Insightful)
it is a big number, but remember that ipv6 address space is very sparse in the 128bit address sense. as each customer is likely to receive a
in reality the address space that can be assigned is a
dave
Re:China? (Score:2)
Re:China? (Score:2)
the sparcity of the networks gives the great autoconfig stuff, and as many ip aliases as you like.
what I wonder is what happpens when you've got mulitple sites with multiple connections. your single
dave
Re:China? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:China? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:China? (Score:2)
Even _counting_ to 2^128 is a daunting task. Actually, with current computers even counting to 2^64 takes practically forever if I'm not mistaken.
You could always put the entire galaxy into a public address space if it comes that far
Re:China? (Score:2)
2^128 is a f###ing large number...
Slashdot IPv6 (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, but is Slashdot?
Seems the idea site to have support for IPv6. Last time I checked (late last year) Slashdot didn't do IPv6.
Heck, they still use GIFs...
Re:Slashdot IPv6 (Score:5, Informative)
Last time I checked, Slashdot didn't do valid HTML either.
Invalid Tacos (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot IPv6 (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot IPv6 (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot IPv6 (Score:2)
This is so annoying to keep seeing.
IE has always handled GIF-quality transparency as well as it did with GIFs as far as I've seen.
IE *can* deal with deeper transparency with a little bit of javascript that disables the broken behavior.
IE users should expect broken behavior, anyway. It's stupid to discard advanced technology just because Microsoft isn't interested in having its users keep up.
finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:finally! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again we're still using Imperial measurements when the rest of the world is metric. Go figure that one
Adult Mac Desktops & Wallpapers [67.160.223.119]
Re:finally! (Score:2)
Enought people doing that, and someone will sell a scale at the grocery store that dislpays both metric and imperial. (like car spedometers)
Won't this (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I think it'll be good. Might throw some weight against the stone wall that's holding back the US and rollout of IPv6 in general. I'd imagine that with such largescale rollouts the hardware will get cheaper and will help drive adoption worldwide.
Re:Won't this (Score:3, Interesting)
People come out with new versions of IP occasionally. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily:
1. For the Internet
2. Ever going to be used
IPv6 is a standard
Re:Won't this (Score:1)
Reread my main point. It presumes IP6 is the next step in a logical progression and hints that marketing forces are the prime obstacle to adoption.
Relax; enjoy a refreshing beverage. No one is impuning or supplanti
Oh, wonderful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh, wonderful. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Oh, wonderful. (Score:1)
Re:Oh, wonderful. (Score:1)
Re:Oh, wonderful. (Score:2)
Other Countries slow to follow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
"I thought 127.0.0.1 was the loop back"
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:1)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
dave
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:1)
^C
--- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics ---
10 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
jon:~$ ping 127.12.34.65
PING 127.12.34.65 (127.12.34.65): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 127.12.34.65: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
--- 127.12.34.65 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.0/0.0/0.0 ms
My system is (Score:1)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
(from RFC 3330 [demon.co.uk])
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:1)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:3, Informative)
Japan is also much more densly populated, so it's more cost effective to roll out advanced wireless products there. If by "infrastructure flaws" you mean the ability to make an upgrade in a smaller area to benefit more customers, then yes Japan has fewer of those. They also have a state run telephone network that is increa
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:5, Insightful)
However, China is also getting in on the game, they have a state run monopoly though so they can set policy, might add that they also have no existing infrastructure in very large portions of their country which they will soon change but that means no upgrade, just pure new equipment.
The United States does have a flaw in their system but its debatable whether or not to call it a flaw. They have to make the largest number of people happy. End users probably couldn't care less about IPv4 or v6. Businesses small and large probably do and will fight to keep things working. Of course, many of these people don't realize their routers and switches all support IPv6 already because it has been around a long time.Basically the only reason people upgrade in the U.S. at this point is because a natural disaster or some other event occurs that destroys the infrastructure, getting a telco to upgrade is like getting a child to spinach after the proclaimed they wanted chocolate.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
One might also argue that the DoD switching would slow the progress of other parts of the country because the DoD likes to test the land first, have some time to themselves before they allow other people to use the technology they've helped create. They have real pull with the legislature so if they want people to delay they launch then it will happen.
That said, IPv6 is quite mature as is and the DoD has been usi
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
But a significant ammount of DoD traffic is sent over the public internet, which must be a large ammount of data. This data is sent via backbone providers (which are buisnesses). These providers would have to support to IPv6 to interface with DoD systems in the future. This will serve to push IPv6 to wider adoption with connected backbones and out to end users (other buisnesses or individuals.) It's a cascade ef
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:2)
Of course, they could create a vpn connection using IPv4 in which case their effect would be neglegible on the rest of the Internet.
Re:Other Countries slow to follow (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S. If there was a US city with 30 million people, they'd have 3G damn fast. Wireless and high population density go together well.
Less mature infrastructure ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Less mature infrastructure ? (Score:2)
An even better example is the way most developing nations are largely jumping straight to cell phones and avoiding setting up all those expensive copper wi
The fun will begin... (Score:3, Funny)
Present day...present time! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Re:The fun will begin... (Score:2, Funny)
Like the Metric System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:2)
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:5, Funny)
I am stunned trying to think of a response... Metric isn't backwards compatible? 1 inch = 2.54 cm... and let's see.. if I multiply.. no.. maybe.. no... you're right, you can't go back!
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:2)
Ummm, why? You need software that can handle IPv6, but that's all. My dutch ISP (www.xs4all.nl) supports IPv6 tunnels, as well as having services on IPv6 (like the 12 TB experimental news server
But more equipment? Don't think so. Don't forget that most of home networks contain just switches and modems. The actual IPv6
Re:Like the Metric System (Score:1)
I remember when... (Score:1, Interesting)
Less Addresses for US (Score:2, Interesting)
You need to ask for it (Score:3, Insightful)
I have asked several transit providers here in the USA about providing IPv6. The answer, "Nobody is asking for it".
The Tier 1 and Tier 2 ISPs will not provide IPv6 until there is a market for it.
The solution? Ask for native IPv6 (not tunnels) from your ISP. If you switch ISPs ask for IPv6 in the RFP.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You need to ask for it (Score:2)
perhaps your could point out that they are very blatently lieing to you.
*you're* asking!
I've asked my two isp's for ipv6 too, not been overly successful yet either.
dave
Re:You need to ask for it (Score:2)
Re:You need to ask for it (Score:2)
"Ipv6 is cool?"
Could someone please clarify? (Score:2)
I'm confused .. (Score:3, Insightful)
I admit ignorance, but I know that one of the reasons for converting to IPv6 is the shortage of IP addresses.
Every now and again we hear that we're just about to run out due to historically crazy giveaways of addresses, then we hear that this isn't the case.
Anyway, if an entire nation, or large group of people move over to IPv6 does this mean that the IPv4 addressed they previously held would become free, and available back in the pool for allocation?
So to gain lots of addresses all we need is say China to move to IPv6, or a country like Germany?
I maybe be misunderstanding, but I thought that this is how the IPv6 tunnels worked - all IPv6 stuff on a LAN gets tunnelled via one external x.x.x.x IP address.
With Chinas great firewall surely this means they could have a few external IPv4 addresses that are proxying things over to the internal IPv6 country?
Feel free to hit me with a cluestick if I'm confused...
In Europe IPv6 is happening also (Score:2, Informative)
Also news posted at the IPv6 Cluster [ist-ipv6.org].
By the way, a new tunnel broker is available here [euro6ix.org], also with Spanish instructions at 6SOS [6sos.org].
Short vs. longterm memory (Score:1)
Get a tunnel! (Score:2)
Don't get a tunnel! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't get a tunnel! (Score:2)
Yep, but it requires that all hosts have a routable IPv4 address, whereas with a tunnel you can have an IPv6 subnet allocated. Horses for courses.
Re:Don't get a tunnel! (Score:2)
Stop the spammers and the viruses (Score:1)
Futhermore, IPv6 is designed so that addresses can be rotated (new address every minute). This is a much nicer feature.
This is the only way to stop open relays - make the address space so big that nothing can find another computer, randomly at least
The blacklists wo
Cowboy neal is not ready (Score:2)
Slashdot has no IPv6 address. It would be pretty trivial for you to set one up too. All of my systems are on IPv6.
You don't have to wait (Score:2)
With a relatively recent setup, you should find that your default route to the 'real' ipv6 internet is 192.88.99.1, a multicast address that finds the nearest 6to4-to-native gateway. My IPv6 internal hosts can talk to the nat
Re:How many addresses? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:How many addresses? (Score:3, Funny)
however
256^6 = 2^8^6 = 2^(8*6) = 2^48 != 2^128
but
65536^8 = 2^16^8 = 2^(16*8) = 2^128
Which explains everyhing...
Japan and china are ready to roll out ipv6 because there math skills are up to scratch....
I think we better just forget about ipv6 and focus on the metric system.
Please Don't Feed This Troll (Score:2)
Check His January 11th posting - Same Content (Score:2)
You Mean This One... (Score:2)
For starters... (Score:3, Informative)
If you want a decent rebuttal of his silly argument, just go back to his previous post.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, with broadband access up in most countries, think of what the broadband will be in 10 years New broadband? [slashdot.org] who cares about 20 extra bytes?
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
twenty extra bytes per packet you mean
that's a world of difference, unless you have header compression, like van jacobsen did for ipv4
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
Those subnets can be reallocated elsewhere to give other countries time to adapt, if they will adapt.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:5, Insightful)
1. That is not a problem with the protocol. It is a problem with the hardware, which Cisco CAN fix in future revs.
2. VOIP. If every person on earth gets a VOIP cell phone in the future, you have now run out of addresses. And that doesn't even take into account non-consumer addresses, such as slashdot.org. NAT won't solve the problem, as VOIP isn't directly compatable with it. Are you now going to require that all these NAT gateways now be transparent proxies for protocols which are rather complex? Also, how would the transparent proxy handle encryption?
3. Routing tables don't list every network. Yes, there are 64 bits for networks/routing. These won't all be used immediately. They are there for the future. Given that in the past 20 years, the the amount of RAM you can get for a given price point has gone up by ~2000 times, by the time we need routing tables that have entries for all possibly networks the RAM will be cheap enough (and fast enough) to handle it.
4. Bandwidth is increasing When IPv4 was created, the expected speed of a connection for a HIGH END user (university) was ~64kb/sec. That is no longer true, as the same class of user would now be expected to have at least an OC12.
It sounds like you are trying to build a new highway that will last for 20 years, but you want to only plan on the current capacity requirements, not what will be needed in 20 (or even 10) years.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
1. A protocol that drastically increases the size and diversity of the routing table without providing a means for existing network providers to mitigate the ensuing explosion has a problem. The fact that Cisco "can" fix a problem in future "revs" doesn't mean that NSPs "can" deploy that fix.
2. If every person on Earth needs to use the Internet to communicate, they can be accomodated in IPv4 addresses using NAT. What is it about translating voices and telephone numbers over the Internet that requires di
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, you're right, Cisco doesn't support IPv6 well, lets just drop the whole thing. What a great point you have here.
2. There are too many addresses. There are 16.7 million addresses per square metre of the earth's surface, including the oceans. This is overkill. The world does not need more than the 4 billion addresses available with IPv4, and I challenge you to come up with an application that requires that many. Assuming that you can actually come up with one, it could easily be solved with Network Address Translation, or NAT as it is commonly known.
Oh, ofcourse having too-many addresses in itself is a huge problem (we might have to leave some addresses unallocated - the horror!). Yet another great point.
3. IPv6 addresses are too large. An IPv6 address is 128 bits in size - 64 bits of which are reserved for addressing hosts, and 64 bits of which are reserved for routing. One thing that is cool with IPv6 is address autoconfiguration. Take your 56-bit MAC address on your ethernet card, ask for 64-bits of network prefix, bang it together with EUI-64 and you are set. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive. Just do the math and you'll see that extreme amounts of memory are required to hold routing tables.
If you're trying to say 128-bit is too large because routing tables become too large, that's simply ignorant. IPv4 addresses are so small that they cannot easily be geographically/connection-wise allocated. This means that routing tables became large because of the complexity of IPv4 addressing.
128-bit allow much simpler addressing schemes which will actually make routing tables much simpler, and probably smaller, even though each address is a few bytes longer.
4. The IPv6 header is too large. An IPv4 header compact at 20 bytes in length, while the IPv6 is bloated at 40 bytes. That's right people, each one of your IP packets has twice as much overhead as before. While this may not sound much, IP networks have a requirement that the minimum MTU supported must be 576 bytes. That means that where you might have got 556 bytes of data in your IP packets, you now get 536 bytes. This means that downloading stuff will take 3.4% longer.
A) The fact that the minimum MTU required is 576 bytes is meaningless, real MTU's are much higher.
B) Few networks actually use all of the potential ether/link bandwidth all of the time, so a few percents of extra/lower usage don't matter much.
C) The overhead of IP packets is almost negligible anyway, and this does not change it considerably.
You are obviously a troll.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:5, Informative)
1. Cisco routers suck at IPv6.
One word: IOS 12.3.
Also, in 12.3T series, you get functionalities like stateful firewalls for IPv6. Check out Cisco's IPv6 status here [cisco.com].
2. There are too many addresses.
640 kB should be enough for everybody.
And yeah, I know Bill Gates never said that.
IPv6 addresses are too large. The problem with a 64-bit network prefix is that routing tables become massive.
This has been addressed. Summary routes are there. The IPv6 addressing structure is quite hierarchical, so even that
4. The IPv6 header is too large
Minimum MTU for IPv6 is 1280 bytes, not 576. Also, IPv6 header structure is extendable, ie the last field in IPv6 header is a pointer to an optional field. This optional field can in addition to it's own information refer to even more fields, in daisy-chain fashion. There is much bloat in IPv4 headers and lots of bit-alignment problems when building hardware to forward IPv4. IPv6 addresses these details by daisy-chaining optional headers and keeping the stationary fields simple.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:4, Insightful)
No it is not. Please do not think the future is easy to predict. Maybe I just have a pet peeve when people say "We will never need...".
Fast forward to nano-technology. You get cancer. :( You get an injection with millions of nano-bots that kill each cancer cell in your body, and you get better :) BUT! These little nano-bots all need to communicate. Well, there goes a couple million IP's for the square meter of space you are taking up.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
That said your point is certainly valid, I agree that in most circumstances saying "We will never need..." is a bad idea. Personally, I am attached to several ip addresses from my cell phone, three of my computers. The future will come with more devices connected to the Internet
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
If you compare it to 2^32 (divided into groups) of IPv4 though, it's a huge improvement indeed. So yes, 2^128 is overkill, but 2^64 in groups might not be and 2^32 is clearly too little. Those extra bytes will be well spend in my opinion.
Or shorter, your right. I'm not sure if the nanobots should be aware of the internet and use IPv6, but that's for future scientists to decide. Can't visualize a medical nanobot runnin
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2)
Just some very basic responses, since I'm to tired right now to do much research myself (but then, I don't have a paper to work on...)
1. This is true and yet dumb at the same time. My 75 MHz laptop really sucks at running modern games. Does this mean the game designers should tailor their innovation for me?
Cisco will optimize their routers when they see a business case to do so. Oddly enough, two countries d
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a Troll, and I could just mod him down, but I feel more like argueing back.
Re:IPv6: Not Ready For Prime Time (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, it was a troll.
But IPv6 has some problems. They can be dealt with. We ultimately need IPv6, and the sooner we move on to there, the better (the sooner we can all roll out new things that make good use of it).
IPv6 will still be slow going. Those who do move to it early will have problems of lack of connectivity everywhere while using it. That's not as much of a problem in places like China because as it expands to less technical people, it will be reaching those for whom connecting to the rest of
Re:Dont' worry: We (the US) won't. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IPv4 backward compatible? (Score:2)