Comcast Plans IPv6 Trials In 2010 173
Mortimer.CA writes "In a weblog posting, Jason Livingood, Executive Director of Comcast's Internet Systems has stated that they're beginning public trials of IPv6; Comcast hopes 'that these trials will encourage other stakeholders to make plans to continue, or to begin, work on IPv6 in 2010 so that all stakeholders do their part in ensuring the future of the Internet is as bright and innovative as it has been in the past.' Interested guinea pigs can volunteer at Comcast6.net (FAQ). Those who have IPv6 connectivity via other means can check out their IPv6-only web presence."
ipv6.comcast.net isn't ipv6 only (Score:5, Informative)
I have no ipv6 at this location and it loads just fine here, not exactly 'ipv6 only' like the Dancing Kame ...
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmed by dig:
IPv4:
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 68.87.64.59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 69.252.76.96
IPv6:
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96
IPv6? (Score:5, Funny)
woops.
Re:IPv6? (Score:5, Informative)
Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]
It works for me.
$ ping6 ipv6.comcast.net
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2002:1159:44ef::226:48ff:fe12:a9a7 --> 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=0 hlim=52 time=235.216 ms
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=1 hlim=52 time=245.426 ms
This is through an Apple airport base station via whatever tunnel provider it uses for its IPv6 support. No manual setup, just click the buttons to turn IPv6 on and to block incoming connections.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like ipv6.comcast.net has both A (IPv4) and AAAA (IPv6) records.
$ host ipv6.comcast.net
ipv6.comcast.net has address 69.252.76.96
ipv6.comcast.net has address 68.87.64.59
ipv6.comcast.net has IPv6 address 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
ipv6.comcast.net has IPv6 address 2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]
It works for me.
$ ping6 ipv6.comcast.net
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2002:1159:44ef::226:48ff:fe12:a9a7 --> 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=0 hlim=52 time=235.216 ms
16 bytes from 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59, icmp_seq=1 hlim=52 time=245.426 ms
This is through an Apple airport base station via whatever tunnel provider it uses for its IPv6 support. No manual setup, just click the buttons to turn IPv6 on and to block incoming connections.
The 2002 prefix on your ipv6 address says you're using 6to4 address translation/tunneling. The ipv4 address at the time was 17.89.68.239. I'm not sure if its your computer doing the 6to4 tunneling or your airport. I'm thinking it's the computer as its using the 2002 address as opposed to the router doing it all in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if its your computer doing the 6to4 tunneling or your airport. I'm thinking it's the computer as its using the 2002 address as opposed to the router doing it all in the background.
The tunnel is established by the airport; I'm not running any 6to4 stuff on the LAN computers (Macbook, couple of Linux boxes, and an OpenBSD instance running in a KVM virtual machine). They just auto-configure themselves on the /64 announced by the router. The LAN computers can 'ping6' each other as well as external sites like ipv6.google.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay that makes sense. The router is actually running ipv6 dhcp and assigning stateful addresses with the 2002 prefix. The router is doing the 6to4 tunneling for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I know! What where they thinking by letting people using IPv4 also see that content?
Oh, well... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, well... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, which ADSL modem/router are you using that supports IPv6, 'cos it aint no use if my PC and my ISP support it if there's a big block in between the 2 :(
Re: (Score:2)
I'm capped too during daytime, and I always get the speed I paid for (sometimes more!), but what they call a "heavy business owner" (10GB/month), I call having to "stretch". And 50/month? I know here in Portugal we get paid less, but that seems expensive. For 60/month I can get 60Mbps down, 3Mbps up, plus digital cable TV and free calls to landline numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all ISPs in the UK have some limits on usage, either they are honest about it like this ISP or they have fair use limits, or throttle speeds or some protocols, or they get congestion at peak times and slow down. Or they are heavily subsidising heavy users from their light users and hoping that overall use doesn't increase or they'll be badly caught out
I've just taken a look at AAISPs prices and they don't seem quite as insane as they used to be but they are still very high if you have any significant
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except for a few research networks, all V6 traffic runs through the same 'tubes' as V4.
So all else being equal, V6 data rates should be no different than V4.
But all is not equal.
V6 has several refinements over V4, which tend to enhance throughput.
Will they permit NATs? (Score:2)
I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.
Besides, most IP-enabled toys wont like IP6 (Wii, VOIP boxes, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
It is very hard to block NATs even if they aren't allowed.
Trusted Network Connect (Score:2)
It is very hard to block NATs even if they aren't allowed.
Hard, but doable. An ISP can "protect the security of its network" by requiring the customer to run a "dialer" or "supplicant" [wikipedia.org] before the ISP will route the customer's packets outside the quarantine. The ostensible purpose of network access control methods [wikipedia.org] is to make sure that the operating system and antivirus signatures on customer equipment are updated and that the botnet-of-the-week isn't running. But the side effect of Trusted Network Connect [wikipedia.org] deployment is that connecting to a home-class Internet requi
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt any ISP implementing that would be an ISP for very long. That would cut out all non windows-mac users, and more importantly every user that has a cable/dsl router.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT. Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.
At which point you just sue them for invasion of privacy, not that you'll get anywhere but its a neat idea.
The other side to that is that your IPv6 router can deal with helping IPv4 devices communicate over the IPv6 backbone as long as the backbone does the proper bridging (according to the protocol) back to IPv4, which they'd surely have to if they do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT. Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.
I am pretty sure there is no difference between a "normal" and NAT packet once it leaves the router. It doesn't matter how much Comcast examines it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But there is. For one thing the TTL will be one lower than "usual". You can hide that, but there are lots of other ways to detect it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But there is. For one thing the TTL will be one lower than "usual". You can hide that, but there are lots of other ways to detect it.
The TTL will be decremented because the packet passes through a router which is performing the NAT (Linksys, Netgear, whatever). By blocking hosts based upon TTL inspection wouldn't they would preclude anyone using a home router, or more importantly, having wireless access?
Re: (Score:2)
What I am failing to understand is this: Why would they want to block NATting? What benefit does this buy the ISP? Are we talking about the ability to force customers to pay an extra fee for each connected device as they do with cable boxes? I dont see that flying with anyone who has non-computer devices, such as DVRs and game systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, TTL inspection would catch anyone using a router (NAT or not). However, you can't use a non-NAT-router with just 1 IP address anyway, so that's a bit of a theoretical concern.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with protocol-based packet inspection?
Re: (Score:2)
you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.
As I understand it, the best practice is for an IPv6 ISP to give out a /64. That's still relatively one four-billionth of the space they're giving out now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not allowed (well the police won't stop them, but it's definitely not best practice). Best practice was originally a /48, but now ISP's are allowed to cut all the way down to a /56 if they feel a /48 is too much.
You shouldn't put hosts in anything but a /64, and some don't think there should exist non-/64 unicast networks at all. Personally I believe that at least /128 should be allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say your ISP has a /32. The ISP uses a /64 for every point-to-point link between their router and your home router, and you have a /64 within your own home. Additionally, you have a second /64 reserved for you to make VoIP easier. Then, your ISP can clearly only have 1.1 billion customers.
I realise the above is a bit silly, but seriously, there are enough /64s for everyone. There is no need for a /128, no need for a /126, no need for anything but a /64.
Even if the ISP was "wasteful" and allocated each
Re: (Score:2)
I realise the above is a bit silly, but seriously, there are enough /64s for everyone. There is no need for a /128, no need for a /126, no need for anything but a /64. /64 so if you only have a /64 you either have to limit yourself to one subnet (e.g. no seperate subnet for a segregated wifi network) or configure all your machines manually (and in the case of XP configure them from the command line!)
The trouble is the ipv6 autoconfiguration mechanisms were designed arround giving each subnet a
there are enou
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is not allowed (well the police won't stop them, but it's definitely not best practice). Best practice was originally a /48, but now ISP's are allowed to cut all the way down to a /56 if they feel a /48 is too much.
You shouldn't put hosts in anything but a /64, and some don't think there should exist non-/64 unicast networks at all. Personally I believe that at least /128 should be allowed.
The first 64-bits are the "network" portion of the address, and the second 64-bit chunk is the interface portion (ie the ipv6 version of your mac address). I'm ignoring multicast for the present. For normal unicast, you can't subnet smaller than a /64. If your ISP is following the standard, they can't give you bigger than a /48 for your site.
It's also a bit of a myth that ipv6 allows for 2^128 addresses. That's not really true given the first several bits define the address type, not all of the TLAs have
Re: (Score:2)
The first 64-bits are the "network" portion of the address, and the second 64-bit chunk is the interface portion (ie the ipv6 version of your mac address). I'm ignoring multicast for the present. For normal unicast, you can't subnet smaller than a /64.
It may not be allowed, but it is widely deployed. Not with hosts in those subnets, but it is fairly popular with router-only subnets.
If your ISP is following the standard, they can't give you bigger than a /48 for your site.
If you can demonstrate need, you can get up to a /32 even as a non-ISP. Obviously demonstrating the need for such a large allocation is a bit theoretical.
Isn't that kind of wasteful? (Score:2)
Yes, I know the IPv6 address space is galactically huge, but what exactly good purpose is served by giving each customer 1.8*10^19 addresses? Seems a bit excessive, doesn't it? Wouldn't most customers be fine with 16 bits of host/subnet (obviously, there might be som), and the rest of them shouldn't conceivably need more than 32 bits of their own address space? (And if someone needs/wants more than 32-bits of addressing assigned to them, then, sure, by all means, give them 48 bits). But why, 'by default', g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea is to keep it simple, assign a standard network size that's big enough for just about anyone and assign the same size network to everyone instead of messing around with the IPv4-style "You get _one_ IP, you over there get a /28, and that guy in the corner gets a /24, Joe was an early adopter so he's got a /16 and Steve over there had some good arguments for why he should get a /20, and lucky Dan over there has a /8..." mess.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
Because you aren't supposed to ever worry about the lower 64 bits. They just magically acquire reasonable values, like in IPX.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, 4 million years from now people are going to be thinking "God damnit, why were they so wasteful with ipv6 address space? I didn't need a /56, all I needed was a /64! If they would've allocated the more efficient subnets we wouldn't have to be worrying about IP address exhaustion within the next 10 million years. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
2^64 hosts should be enough for anyone
Re: (Score:2)
As the website explains, one of Comcast's 3 transition strategies is based on DS-Lite, which essentially means a big provider-based NAT that allows IPv4 only devices such as games consoles to connect via a new IPv4/IPv6 home router (dual stack) over v6 infrastructure to an end server that is v4 based.
Re: (Score:2)
...or you could just update the firmware
Re: (Score:2)
I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.
My ISP gives me (or anyone who cares enough to activate the free option) a /64 IPv6 subnet. It wouldn't make much sense if it didn't.
I'll grant you that it'll be a while before the various gadgets (or even the software) play nice with IPv6.
what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxe (Score:2)
what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxes also start useing ipv6? they use ipv4 now.
Re: (Score:2)
I think DOCSIS 3 areas might have been assigning IPv6 addresses to cable boxes for a while now.
but this comca$t that makes you pay as high as $20 (Score:2)
but this comca$t that makes you pay as high as $20+ per tv for there hardware.
MediaCom Anybody? (Score:2)
I've been waiting for mediacom to roll out some DOCSYS 3 / IPv6 forever. This little town I happen to be in, has excellent infrastructure and is physically capable of running it -- unlike most cities. This town is dependent only on major hardware upgrades, not cable plant upgrades.
Unfortunate abbreviation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wii supports IPv6. The DS Lite doesn't. I don't know about the DSi.
Re: (Score:2)
and none of them support WPA
IPv6 only test... (Score:5, Informative)
ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr [berkeley.edu] as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test. Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
208.67.219.132 is OpenDNS.
-molo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So it's only ipv6 if your DNS provider doesn't return IPv4 records for it... It's still not a good test for IPv6 connectivity.
Yes it is. A good DNS provider won't return records when there are none. OpenDNS earns money from ad placement on their bad hostname page, so when there isn't a valid record to a hostname, they return a server of their own. An honest DNS provider is a great test for IPv6 connectivity, though.
Re: (Score:2)
ipv6.l.google.com has address 208.67.219.132
Not from here:
$ host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::93
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::63
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::67
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::68
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::69
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::6a
If you actually try to connect to 208.67.219.132 you end up at "hit-nxdomain.opendns.com" so it looks like t
You got trapped by OpenDNS (Score:5, Informative)
You got trapped by OpenDNS. OpenDNS is VERY agressive at wildcarding network failures:
132.219.67.208.in-addr.arpa. 18794 IN PTR hit-nxdomain.opendns.com.
So even though there is a valid name for ipv6.google.com (the Google DNS servers return a valid reply with a 0-size answer for an A query, and the whole data for an AAA query), OpenDNS instead goes "hey, lets wildcard it and return our server!"
This behavior is why I'm NOT a fan of OpenDNS.
Re:You got trapped by OpenDNS (Score:4, Insightful)
ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
makes assumptions about your network and its services (like DNS) which are not guaranteed to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the "OpenDNS search", which tells me that "ipv6.google.com is not loading right now" and shows me the search results for "ipv6 google".
Re: (Score:2)
Another approach is simply to do:
ping6 ipv6.google.com
This should hopefully isolate you from broken DNSs returning fake 'A' entries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
without IPv6 connectivity (I turned it off), I type ipv6.google.com in my browser address bar, my DNS lies to me, and my browser magically gets (over IPv4) the google homepage
And without IPv6 connectivity, you type a Bing or Yahoo v6-only address into your browser bar, your DNS lies to you, and your browser magically gets the Google homepage.
Re: (Score:2)
# host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68
# host www.google.com :)
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.99
www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.104
www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68
Grudgingly, impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Comcast actually does what they're saying on the tin, maybe the other ISPs will follow suit.
This just might be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but it is a difficult sell to customers. They will want to know what ipv6 enables them to do that they can't do at the moment. Being able to visit ipv6.google.com and do exactly the same things that they can do on www.google.com at the moment, and being able to see a dancing turtle at www.kame.net isn't really going to seal the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, if this relies on customers making a decision, it's dead.
Modern computers support IPv6. Modern consumer-level routers don't necessarily (mine doesn't), so the connectivity provider needs to provide and/or recommend equipment that does. Provide connection instructions that start up both IPv4 and IPv6. Leave the customer out of it, since 99% of customers don't know what IP is in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, if this relies on customers making a decision, it's dead.
Modern computers support IPv6. Modern consumer-level routers don't necessarily (mine doesn't), so the connectivity provider needs to provide and/or recommend equipment that does. Provide connection instructions that start up both IPv4 and IPv6. Leave the customer out of it, since 99% of customers don't know what IP is in the first place.
If the customer really, really wants to know what is the advantage for him.. the simple answer is continued access to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO the most likely endgame for IPv4 is the removal of public IPs from home lusers (replacing them with ISP level NAT) to give them to more profitable buisness customers.
Continued ability to use peer-peer stuff efficiantly will be the main selling point of IPv6 to home users, of course peer to peer is something ISPs want to strongly discourage.
I really really doubt that most ISPs would dare cut a customer without v6 supporting network equipment. computers and software off from the internet at this point. No
Re: (Score:2)
Are you on the same internet I am? The internet that went crazy for the "I kiss you" guy? The same internet filled with people who will sit through a sales pitch to get a $0.10 blinking LED toy?
IPv6 MUST be the best thing ever! It's like the internet PLUS TWO!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you on the same internet I am? The internet that went crazy for the "I kiss you" guy? The same internet filled with people who will sit through a sales pitch to get a $0.10 blinking LED toy?
Sorry, I'm only on IPv4. So, you're tacitly admitting that people who use IPv6 are raving lunatics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "selling point". The move to IPv6 will be transparent to Joe Sixpack pr0n downloader/web browser/emailer, and Grandma Moses. The move is required in order for them to stay in business, and provide services to their customers. Its that simple.
In more ways than you might expect. Enabling ipv6 with something like terado on windows can accidentally provide a nice backdoor through your router, and firewall. Most of the personal firewall software on the market does absolutely nothing with ipv6. You might find out the hard way that setting up ipv6 exposes your computer to a lot more than you realize.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, the same software on your PC doesn't listen on IPv6 in the first place, so it doesn't really matter that your box is v6 accessible.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, the same software on your PC doesn't listen on IPv6 in the first place, so it doesn't really matter that your box is v6 accessible.
Huh? Most of the Microsoft services listen just fine on ipv6. Are you comfortable with anyone on the ipv6 internet being able to hit your netbios ports? Even Microsoft points out ipv6 tunneling at a security risk and recommends blocking teredo traffic as the network boundary. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726956.aspx [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't enable services to listen on IPv6 unless the application explicitly requests it [microsoft.com]. Furthermore, the built-in firewall doesn't allow unsolicited inbound traffic unless you explicitly enable it.
As for netbios, it's not defined over IPv6 [microsoft.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It allows multiple clients to have their own IP addresses. Which means that you don't have any limitations you have with IPv4 while hosting stuff (bittorrent, games). If your router supports IPv6 of course, but I don't think that network appliances are the problem. Things like mobile devices (for which IPv6 would be great) are more likely to suffer because of lacking IPv6 support.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that you don't have any limitations you have with IPv4 while hosting stuff
It also means that ISPs can now charge you per computer, instead of per IP (that you then NAT to cover your whole house.)
If your router supports IPv6 of course
I have three routers, none of them support IPv6, and without specifically searching I don't know any that do (except Airport.) Often it's hard to tell even holding the box in hands at the store.
I don't think that network appliances are the problem.
Unless,
Re: (Score:2)
Having IPv6 doesn't mean that your v4 devices are going to stop working. They'll still be able to make outgoing v4 connections even when every consumer network is double-NAT'd. Most of these can then continue functioning via gateways even if the rest of the world is v6-only. You can, for example, run an IPv4 web proxy which forwards connections to IPv6 web servers. I don't think there are consumer-grade things that do this yet, but you can already get routers that handle external NAT, so IPv6 addresses
Re: (Score:2)
The selling point for Digital TV, at least in the UK was lots of extra channels.
People get the idea that if you switch to Freeview, you get 45 Channels on your TV rather than the 5 you have at the moment, so they do it.
I can't see what the selling point for the average non-slashdotter is at the moment. Their internet works fine at the moment, so they won't see any need to change it.
Re:Grudgingly, impressed. (Score:5, Informative)
I was part of the team that wrote the IPv6 portion of the DOCSIS 3.0 specs. Although DOCSIS 3.0 added a huge number of features, the two that the cable companies were most desperate for were channel bonding (so they could compete with fiber) and IPv6 support.
IPv6 has been internal testing with major cable operators for several years now. Comcast was always likely to be the first to deploy it (for reasons that I can't go into) but I expect the other major operators to follow suit within a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure I remember hearing a while back that a big american cable provider had run out of private IPs for cable boxes etc and were now using public IPs for new ones. was it comcast? If so that would be a very powerfull reason to want ipv6 support on the network before v4 addresses ran out.
Love comcast is working with it's customers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm impressed that Comcast is talking about it trials publicly and engaging customers. Many service providers run stuff in private, don't tell their guinea pigs, I mean customers that they experiment on, and then just select whatever seemed convent for the service provider. Engaging people in a trials like this, seems win/win for the customers and service providers.
Comcast still sucks (Score:3)
most routers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:
http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers [sixxs.net]
Autodiscovery will have to fully mature... (Score:3, Interesting)
For what it's worth, I signed up for the trial. Despite the level-1 tech support's crappiness, and the relative overpricing of their services, Comcast's network department does a pretty good on the backend. Our area has gone from 3mbps to 16mbps (with a 50mbps tier available) in 8 years, and has already completed the analog reclamation process in our area. Good on them for getting a head start on IPv6.
I presume they are going to want to do end-to-end IPv6 eventually, instead of assigning a single IPv6 address to my modem, and then continuing to use IPv4 NAT behind it. However, if they are going to do that, several things are going to have to change:
1. Router default settings will have to change. Out of the box, most home routers use NAT by default, and, since most people don't change the settings (based on the number of 2WIRE### SSID's broadcast to my house), they'll have to redo them for IPv6.
2. Auto discovery services will have to get better. I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them. The other 2 OSes will have to catch up, because, while a quartet of triplets is annoying but manageable to type, an IPv6 address will be a bear to copy down.
3. A debate between static and dynamic IP addresses will have to take place. Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went. It'd be akin to a routable MAC address. However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently. But there are several obvious downsides to continuing to use totally dynamic IPs.
Finally, as an aside, it's interesting to me, at least, how Apple Airport Base Stations do IPv6 routing automatically via a tunnel provider (as another commenter noted). Comcast doesn't support any IPv6, but when I'm connected to my router at home I get full IPv6 support transparently. Apple doesn't even mention this as a feature on the box, and it's not highly configurable either. So why did they spend all the effort to get it that way? Are they trying to stay so far ahead of the IPv6 curve no one will ever complain they're behind?
Re: (Score:2)
I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them.
That would be strange, since Linux uses exactly the same system as OS X (mDNS) for advertising local machines and services. You didn't disable the Avahi daemon, did you? It's generally enabled by default in new installations. You should be able to refer to any Linux machine on your local network as hostname.local, just as with OS X.
Windows is a bit behind on native support, of course, but you can install Apple's Bonjour for Windows [apple.com] software to get the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went
Why? What problem does this solve? You should be advertising machines via DNS, not by their IP address. If you move to another network, you update the DNS entry. If you're talking about mobile devices roaming between networks then I suggest that you look at Mobile IPv6. This uses IPsec (optional in IPv4, a required bit of IPv6) to update the routing tables when the machine migrates. If you have a Mobile IPv6 address, you can move the machine between networks without dropping connections. Making this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something but shouldn't you be able to just share the prefix and other configuration data using radvd/rtadvd and then use your switches to determine the MAC and thus also IPv6 address of all IPv6-enabled hosts on your network? To me it seems straightforward but maybe I'm missing something here...
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
They should be static, if they have any sense. See a blog post of mine on the subject. [visser.name]
Basically, with IPv4, if you have a dynamic address (say 5.6.7.8), and then your connection drops out, and now you are a different address (say 5.8.7.6), then the machines behind your NAT aren't affected, because they're still using a 192.168.0.x 192.168.0.1 gateway thingy.
But in IPv6, what subnet your ISP allocates you (e.g. 2001:db8:1:5678::/64) influences what machines in your LAN (i.e. what would be behind your IP
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself. As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.
You ask for www.google.com, your computer does an IPv4 lookup to the router, the router translates that to an IPv6 lookup, caches the IPv6 address, and returns a valid-looking IPv4 address to your computer. When you ask for that IPv4 address, the router knows what IPv6 address it has associated with it and handles th
Re: (Score:2)
Depressingly, the grandparent isn't an idiot. This actually was the reason that a lot of corporate networks stayed with v4 for so long, and the v6 to v4 NAT arrangement was only finalised about a year ago. The main reason for it was printers. Lots of corporate networks contain network printers that only support IPv4. If you switch the network to v6, then you either need to upgrade the printers (expensive) or provide some hack to connect to them. Another issue was CCTV cameras. Lots of companies have I
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they'd undo whatever they did to disable IPv6 in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I, for one, look forward to having a unique address for every computer. It is, after all, the original intent of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it sadly hilarious that this utterly contentless post somehow managed to get an insightful mod...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the time your 512-bit system is fully deployed, we will be communicating with parallel universes and people will be talking about how we really need to deploy a 1024-bit addressing system.
Re: (Score:2)