Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet

Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet 425

nk497 writes "While it's definitely time to start thinking about IPv6, it's not time for most to move up to it, argues Steve Cassidy, saying most can turn it off in Windows 7 without causing any trouble. Many network experts argue we're nearing network armageddon, but they've been saying that for years.'This all started when Tony Blair was elected. The first time. Yep, that's how long IPv6 has been around, and it's quite a few weeks ago now.' He says smart engineering has avoided many of the problems. 'Is there an IPv6 "killer app" yet for smaller networks? No. Is there any reason based on security or ease of management — unless you're running a 100,000-seat network or a national-level ISP — for you to move up to it? No. Should you start to do a bit of reading about it? That's about the stage we're truly at, and the answer to that one is: yes,' he says."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why You Shouldn't Worry About IPv6 Just Yet

Comments Filter:
  • While I didn't experience it on my last 2 installs, I had to disable ipv6 in Fedora to get networking to work properly. I've since had it enabled no problem, but from my the perspective of most end users like me, we probably won't even notice when things start using ipv6.
    • by statusbar ( 314703 ) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:24PM (#33290850) Homepage Journal

      Many people are already using ipv6 by default without even knowing it!

      jdks-mbp:~ jeffk$ ssh jeffk@macpro.local.
      Warning: Permanently added the RSA host key for IP address 'fe80::21f:5bff:fe38:39e5%en0' to the list of known hosts.
      Last login: Tue Aug 17 14:32:43 2010

      One important reason to use it is for small devices that you really don't want to have to have a user interface to enable Static IP / Router Info / DHCP configuration on.

      Also, if you use use Apple MobileMe's Remote Desktop feature, you are using ipv6 only - MobileMe provides an IPv6 VPN to access all of your devices wherever they may be.

      So in fact there are many many users of Ipv6 out there, just not much sending packets over the un-vpn'd internet.


      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Bonjour (ZeroConf) does do this automatically. Since I just use the bonjour name (server.local, mac.local, plug.local, etc). However the problem arises with Linux when it insists on trying IPv6 first.

        I went out and spread the word about Ubuntu to my girlfriend. The install went ok. But the second she started it up the first complaint was that browsing the web was slow. So I go diggind and find out it's IPv6's fault. Apple's figured out how to make the internet not suck and use both, why the hell can't Linux

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by clone53421 ( 1310749 )

          I don't want to have to help them solve it or risk them trying to type in some "cryptic" commands on their own. (Not to mention, one suggested method didn't work).

          Let me guess... sudo rm -rf?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          I don't think ubuntu would use v6 by default unless it actually had a v6 connection...
          I have ubuntu boxes at home and at work, at home i have a v6 router with a valid v6 link running a route advertisement service and the ubuntu box will pick up an address from it and use it...
          At work, there is no route advertisement service so ubuntu boxes never pick up a v6 address or route (neither do macs for that matter)...

          The only place i can imagine it being slow in the way you describe, is if it picks up an address b

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MoldySpore ( 1280634 )

      Same here. There have been several instances where IPv6 has caused a lot of problems. I work for a local government and have 5000 new PC's being installed on my network and they are all getting IPv6 turned off on their images because it is annoying, to say the least.

      As a network engineer I am not worried about IPv6. The most that will have to be done is our main firewall and/or router will maybe eventually have to be setup to accept incoming IPv6 addresses. But for our internal network, IPv4 won't go away a

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Those PCs will sit there looking for an ipv6 router, effectively the same as an ipv4 client looking for a dhcp server... If there is nothing there to answer the request, they will keep sending it but never acquire an address and therefore never try to use the protocol in question.

        The only time you would ever have a problem is if someone installs a device that answers those requests with invalid responses (eg it advertises an ipv6 route that doesn't go anywhere, which clients then try to use and have to wait

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )

          The only time you would ever have a problem is if someone installs a device that answers those requests with invalid responses

          I think it's fixed now, but when Vista was launched it would always advertise itself as a 6to4 tunnel provider, even if it didn't have a publicly routable IPv4 address. This broke every other dual-stack machine on the local network.

  • Is there any reason based on security or ease of management – unless you're running a 100,000-seat network or a national-level ISP – for you to move up to it? No.

    What if you're writing web applications that monitor IP addresses? Shouldn't you be making sure that your regexp fits for IPv6 as well? What if you're storing IP addresses and your sanitizing your data? What if you're doing anything at all with IP addresses? Like monitoring logs for abuse? Shouldn't be preparing for the inevitable move to IPv6? What if you collect metrics so you can report to management your country by userbase? I say this because we've started to account for IPv6 in our coding and auditing.

    What if you write any sort of firmware or software for network devices?

    And if you're a consumer and you're about to purchase something that's going to last you more than three years you should probably make sure it supports IPv6 in case the computer you buy down the line can only handle IPv6 addresses allocated to it.

    Go ahead and tell your readers that it's cool, Microsoft's got it covered. I'm going to err on the side of safety whether the armageddonists are right or wrong about the ETA.

    • Going to be difficult for all those billions of LAM(ysql)P users until they gets a better way of storing them.

      Apparently support for ipv6 is "Status: On-Hold - Priority: Low". So it looks like we're all going to have to migrate to LAP(ostgres)P.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Simetrical ( 1047518 )

        Going to be difficult for all those billions of LAM(ysql)P users until they gets a better way of storing them.

        Apparently support for ipv6 is "Status: On-Hold - Priority: Low". So it looks like we're all going to have to migrate to LAP(ostgres)P.

        Or just store them in strings, which is what the MySQL software I know about does for IPv4 anyway. Just make the string field a bit longer.

    • by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @02:26PM (#33291712) Journal

      Actually I'd say that in this case "Microsoft has it covered" hits the nail square on the head, and for the reason many here bitch about MSFT in the first place...backwards compatibility. I know lots of folks here like to bitch their asses off about "all the cruft" caused by backwards compatibility, but here is a damned good reason why MSFT has it, because many businesses keep older hardware for quite awhile and MSFT by and large was and is a business OS first and foremost.

      Thanks to backwards compatibility I can give my business customers Windows 7 Pro with XP Mode and that ancient software they use in accounting keeps right on ticking. Thanks to backwards compatibility I can play most of my old games even on Windows 7 HP X64, and thanks to backwards compatibility when IPV6 is the norm those with older IPV4 stuff will be just fine, MSFT has got you covered.

      It is all about picking the right tool for the job. You want bleeding edge? Go with a Mac. Jobs HATES old tech and tosses it quicker than anybody else. Need to squeeze that last point of performance out of that server? Take Linux, strip that sucker down like a used Buick and turn it into a hot rod. Need to be able to run your old stuff as well as the new? Go MSFT, who knows businesses will hang onto older shit much longer than average folks and therefor supports it longer. Considering how many routers we have out there that won't run IPV6 and whose companies will likely never give a firmware update to (why should they? It makes you buy a new one if they don't) I'm all for backwards compatibility.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Just for perspective, a long time ago (late 1970s or early 1980s), I was talking with an IBM support person in Portland OR. According to him over 1/2 of all IBM installations in his area were still running the original DOS/360 [wikipedia.org], which had been EOL'd and dropped from support ten years before. Those folks had stuff that ran fine on their old machines, and saw no reason to upgrade hardware or software.

  • Torrenting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:14PM (#33290720)

    Torrenting is the killer app. Very unlikely all the spooks have updated to ipv6 snooping.

  • Excuse me? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by willyd357 ( 1293166 )
    Why do I feel like a Yo-Yo? One minute the sky is falling, the next it's no big deal! How about this, lets just get IPv6 implemented ASAP, and not worry about whether we need it right now or not. We're going to need it eventually, and frankly it's better to have it and not need it than vice-versa.
  • Beware (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:18PM (#33290772) Homepage
    Word on the street is that some major cable/internet providers and content delivery networks (CDNs), and I do mean major, are quickly moving to get limited availability online to major customers within the next 12 months or so, and general availability by early- to mid-2012.

    Procrastinate at your peril.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      It's not just word on the street. Comcast has been launching IPv6 tests this year. Check out Comcast's page [comcast6.net].
  • First of all, you are already using IPv6. Your computer is auto-picking an FE80 address, and every other machine on your switch could be talking to it (or attacking it) via this address. Bonus: many host-based firewalls let this right through.

    Secondly, it is easy to set up IPv6. Just get an ISP with the addresses and set up AAAA DNS records for your servers.

    Third: you need to have IPv6 working in the next year. In 2011, all v4 addresses will be assigned. Some people will be getting v6 internet addresses but

    • by Scutter ( 18425 )

      Secondly, it is easy to set up IPv6. Just get an ISP with the addresses and set up AAAA DNS records for your servers.

      Ah, now that's the tricky part, isn't it? No ISPs that service my area support IPv6. In fact, I think on my last attempt, the response was "IP what, now?" If I want IPv6, I have to do 6-to-4 tunneling, which is, at best, a hack. Unless you're in a major metropolitan area, I would bet that you'd have the same problem.

      • No ISPs that service my area support IPv6.

        Have you inquired recently?
      • My budget VPS host comes with 16 v6 addresses per server by default. But if you don't have that option, by all means use tunneling (gogo6 does it for free) to make sure everything works properly, then transition to addresses from your ISP when they are available.

      • by jandrese ( 485 )
        Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to get a consumer ISP to route IPv6 still. That is by far the biggest roadblock to implementation at this point.
      • by vlm ( 69642 )

        No ISPs that service my area support IPv6.

        For years, ipv6 folks like myself have been using tunnel providers.

        At this moment, in my highly biased opinion, your best bet if you have a static ipv4 addrs is he.net, and your best bet if you have a dynamic ipv4 addrs is sixxs.net. But your mileage may vary based, etc. I've used them both to great success.

    • I think comcast is doing limited trials of ipv6.

      But it will take time to replace all the modems, boxes ,and so on with stuff that can do IPv6.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by arkane1234 ( 457605 )

      First of all, you are already using IPv6.
      Who is? The author only said he experienced it, he didn't say he migrated to it! He's using internal addressing, which by assumption IPv4 is meant. If you disable IPv6 on your system, you are not using IPv6. This goes for both Windows & Linux.

      The whole meltdown thing and needing and IPv6 address is a little perplexing to me since you get your IP from your provider. If you receive an IPv6 address, I can almost guarantee you that there will be a layer of IPv4

  • by xerent_sweden ( 1010825 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:26PM (#33290870)
    Roll it out in the cell phones and the problem is solved! Most of the growth in the adress space is in the mobile space, so if the telecom backbone is made IPv6-compatible and all our fancy iPhones and Android phones resolve IPv6-adresses instead, we won't run out of adresses.
    • T-Mobile is already doing this testing with Nokia phones. Unfortunately, Android phones don't have support in the baseband chipset yet.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by netw3rx ( 1868036 )
      Yep, T-Mobile USA is doing this and it works for me http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta [google.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rickb928 ( 945187 )

      My G1 is addressed in the 26.112.125.... subnet. Interesting, because DNS is in the 10.177 and 10.162 subnets. So I guess I am consuming profilgately.

      It also looks like it's a /32 subnet...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Chang ( 2714 )

        T-Mobile is using IPv4 BOGONS (using IPs which are registered to others or will be registered to others).

        Which is why they are rapidly moving to IPv6 with access to IPv4 via NAT64/DNS64.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      LTE (4G/3.9G) supports IPv6 as well as 4, and Verizon (who is rolling out LTE in 30 markets this year) is actually mandating that devices on their LTE network have IPv6

  • Not yet (Score:5, Funny)

    by A Big Gnu Thrush ( 12795 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:28PM (#33290910)

    I'm still writing my Y2K compliance docs. I want to make sure they're detailed and complete before I turn them in to management. Have to get the font and formatting just right. Too soon to worry about the latest fads.

  • by toopok4k3 ( 809683 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:32PM (#33290948)
    Who the hell wouldn't like their toaster to have its own ip unique ip address?
    • Who the hell wouldn't like their toaster to have its own ip unique ip address?

      That sounds like a dangerous idea to me. Give it a unique IP address, and pretty soon it will develop its own Genuine People Personality. Next thing you know, bam! Talkie toaster. [youtube.com]

  • I realize this article is coming from a corporate perspective but from a home user's perspective, I am really getting quite a lot from IPV6. I once had to poke holes in my firewall to get at internal machines on nonstandard ports when away from home. Now that they are IPV6 enabled,, I can address them directly. I can also access my Samba shares (ISP port blocking) and the SIP protocol works much better now that NAT is not involved.

    The tunneling does add latency though so here's hoping the ISPs get native co

    • by b0bby ( 201198 )

      I once had to poke holes in my firewall to get at internal machines on nonstandard ports when away from home. Now that they are IPV6 enabled,, I can address them directly.

      Couldn't you have done this before by getting rid of the firewall? (OK, maybe you didn't get enough IPs for all your machines.) I don't want all the ports on all my home machines exposed, which is why I suspect there will be a lot of people clinging to their known NAT routers as long as possible. Once I get comfortable with IPv6 firewalls, I'll switch, but I don't want to have everything opened up until then.

    • Oddly enough I typically get a 10% lower ping through my HE tunnel than with native v4. 6to4 and Teredo are much worse though, since they really need both the v4 and v6 ends to deploy gateways to avoid your packets take bizarre routes. Not many ISPs have their own 6to4 gateways, from what I've seen.

  • You are free to decide to put ipv6 or not in your internal network.IPv6 tries to simplify internal networks too, but if you have that already solved, no big deal. But you should be ready to deal with ipv6 when talking with other networks and, specially, internet. Having already ipv6 addresses in your servers that can be accessed from internet, having in your DNS the definitions for the ipv6 ips, and being able to connect to external ipv6 sites is something that still can be done
    with time, and just b
  • by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:38PM (#33291028) Homepage

    For three big reasons.

    a: Its actually ubiquitous in the LAN these days. Both Apple and Microsoft use IPv6 link local operations very heavily, because it Just Works with nice stateless autoconfiguration and multicast.

    b: You can have things screw it up if you don't have V6 deployed, and you have to worry about V6 even if you don't 'have' V6: EG, a Windows box with connection sharing and 6to4 enabled will happily try to "share" the 6to4 connection with everyone else on the LAN, so everyone else gets a V6 address that doesn't actually work. And with Apple prefering a 6to4 IPv6 address over a V4 address, the macs on the same network will now see horrible behavior going to any dual-stacked site, as it will try V6 first, take a timeout, then revert to V4.

    c: Address space exhaustion is real, and IPv6 + DS-Lite (or even just IPv6 + IPv4 NAT) allows an ISP to get around address space exhaustion in a much cleaner way than the alternatives.

  • Network armageddon (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:38PM (#33291038)

    "Many network experts argue we're nearing network armageddon, but they've been saying that for years." Say what?
    "Network armageddon" is already here and we've been living in it for years. The horrors of NAT, the crampedness of addresses making configuration a pain, public addresses expensive, and so on. It's just not been a sudden catastrophe, it's been more like boiling a live frog by putting it in cold water and then slowly heating it.

  • by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:41PM (#33291072)

    Sure, ipv4 addresses were a little cumbersome but at least they were numbers and dots. I can type that out on the numeric keypad. 2001:0618:71A3:0801:1319:0211:FEC2:82DC is just awful. Yeah, I know you need to have more characters in there to represent the value and a larger address space means it's going to be a larger number. Keeping the old ipv4 decimal scheme would make addresses look like But I don't really see the hex as an improvement!

  • by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:42PM (#33291092) Homepage

    That it is not yet necessary to migrate is irrelevant. One may argue with the time frame (next year or in five years or ten), but nobody denies that IPv6 will eventually become commonplace, and before most of us retire. That means it is now necessary for software to support IPv6. Writing a network-using program now that does not support IPv6 addresses is like storing the year in two digits in the nineties. It will come back to bite you.

  • It won't be armageddon. Slowly parts of the Internet will be become unavailable and inaccessible to you as some sites become IPv6 only since they can't even get a valid IPv4 address. It won't be a disaster, it will be a slow loss of connectivity to the Internet as a whole.

    Turning it off is horrible advice. You won't notice much of a difference right away, not until you start getting hits in search results that you can't actually fetch when you click on them. Talking to the entirety of the rest of the hu

    • by vlueboy ( 1799360 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @02:17PM (#33291592)

      Ignoring the technology incompatibilities between v6 and v4 for a second, and just taking connectivity at heart, let's examine the effect of "isolation": your community runs out of telephone numbers for its area code. Your state creates a new area code. NEW numbers are given out to new owners; all old phone line owners remain unaffected and able to reach old phone lines and continue with business as usual with their other giant companies also using the old phone lines

      With IPv6, all new owners can talk to the old owners. The old ones already have websites that they can reach. Top sites like youtube, google, facebook and maybe even windows update with reserved IPv4 address isn't just going to magically lose it. They'll shuffle less important services to IPv6 the day they are forced to exceed their IPv4 allocation.

      Nobody is forced to "switch" to IPv6 entirely. They create DNS subdomains like the little known ipv6.google.com (if it works for you, then you have ipv6, by the way.) In the US, the government forced digital / HDTV adoption last year, but old and new channels coexist in your digital-ready cable boxes through the simple use of different channel numbers. I have no idea how many years it will take for them to force the non-HDTV channel numbers off, but I suspect that this will take as many decades as it took to implement HDTV and force it on us.

      The only people having reachability problems like you mentioned will be those in NEW address blocks from poorly developed countries. Large companies needing more IP's may have issues, but nothing their IT teams can't fix with more 10.x.x.x addresses (2^24 addresses for internal company addressing "oughta be enough for [er, OK, most companies]") Consider the address space sizes [yahoo.com]. Though IPv4 is only 16 bits smaller than the MAC address space, which is small compared to the IPv6 total of 128 bits, nobody I have every heard is saying that billions of computers out there are going to run out of MAC addresses to give out soon. Funny because wireless devices and network devices tend to have multiple macs a piece.

  • by wvmarle ( 1070040 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:46PM (#33291144)

    Is there really anything to worry about?

    Afaik all modern Linux distros are fully up to the task of IPv6. TFS mentions even Windows can do it.

    At this moment I am connecting my computers to the Internet via a wifi router/firewall - not likely this is going to change. Router is old, may not do IPv6 yet. My ISP also doesn't. But I guess the time will come that ISPs start to switch.

    Will it really make a difference for me as end-user? Is my browsing going faster? Will I get less spam in my mailbox? Will it be easier to find the information I am looking for on the net? Probably none of the above.

    At the moment I know I'm on IPv4 but on a daily basis I don't care as it just works. I don't know my IP address, it's not important to me what it is really. My home and office networks are internally IPv4, wouldn't make a difference if it's IPv6 except that addresses get harder to enter in BIND but that's one-off only. I suppose my uplink there also uses IPv4, not v6. I always approach my web site and mail server by entering an URL, not entering an IP address. Again what would I care? Let DNS take care of that part.

    Don't get me wrong I understand it's time to move on: we run out of address space, soon there are more devices/networks connected to the Internet infrastructure than that there are unique addresses to find them. But from an end user perspective... I say let the ISPs take care of that. It's their job. Get me the connection, make sure your hardware works, preferably understands both IPv6 and IPv4 (backwards compatibility; and mostly it's not broken in the first place), and use on your network whatever works best.

    There is always the talk of IPv6 will give any ISP subscriber a complete range of addresses instead of just one, so you can connect every computer, printer, whatnot directly to the Internet. I don't understand why an end user would want to connect their printer directly to the Internet. Their second computer maybe if they have one (makes torrenting easier) but then you lose the benefit of a hardware firewall in between. Simply because of security for my home network I prefer a single point of entry, not a dozen. Much easier to keep an eye on. So one external IP address is simply enough for most of us.

    So while IPv6 is important for developers and ISPs, for the end user it's not. I totally agree with this Steve Cassidi that it's simply not something to worry about. He says not yet, I'd argue not ever, unless you're developing network gear/software or work for an ISP or so.

    • by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:51PM (#33291208) Homepage Journal

      You're wrong on several counts, within 2-3 years your ISP will most likely switch you to IPv6. Can you turn it off in Windows 7 without problems in a word, no. Windows 7 has features that depend on IPv6, OS X probably does as well.

      Those who really need to worry about it, is those who do not like using ISP provided routers. Many routers do not support IPv6 unless you're running a custom build on them. Those people should be looking around for IPv6 enabled routers of switch to one that can use custom firmware to do the job.

      The other set of people who should be concerned are those running Windows XP since support there is flaky at best.

      IPv6 is here folks, my new home printer even supports it out of the box.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vlm ( 69642 )

      Will I get less spam in my mailbox?

      It's harder for a worm to propagate when 99.999% of address space is empty as opposed to being another windows box.

      Simply because of security for my home network I prefer a single point of entry, not a dozen.

      Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.

      So one external IP address is simply enough for most of us.

      How do I run a couple SIP phones, and a couple italk video conferences over a single ip address? Its a huge pain.

      • Most people will probably continue to have one ISP connected by a firewall. Instead of NAT which inherently does stateful firewalling, they'll just have a simpler stateful firewall and skip the address translation tables.

        I'd rather have no separate firewall and have the security on the hosts. Since we can't expect home users to go round configuring their firewall box, either we let incoming connections through or limit the kind of applications people can use. I suppose you could adapt UPnP, but why bother? If you don't want the connections, simply don't open a listening port.

      • by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @02:58PM (#33292096)

        It is? I run hundreds of SIP phones complete with video calling behind NAT without a problem. It only becomes an issue when you have 10s or 100s of thousands of phones.

        Why would the phones even need Internet access? You have your SIP proxy on your network which connects to your SIP provider or POTs provider depending how you like to deploy. It's a very simple setup, makes auditing really easy, and allows me to do tricky stuff like divert the video from the gate to the phone so whoever answers can choose whether or not to let them in.

        Worms will propogate as they always have, properly firewalled setups have dramatically reduced this in IPv4 and the same will happen on IPv6. I keep hearing people speak of NAT like it's not a firewall but most of those people are forgetting that most NAT devices actually are real firewalls these days unlike the early days of NAT.

        I'm not against IPv6 but I have to agree with the parent, it has to start with the ISPs before it really makes sense for the rest of us to change. ISPs are having enough trouble with current traffic levels however that I have no faith in their ability to launch anytime soon on any real scale.

  • The biggest problem with IP address availability is web sites that use SSL annoyingly needing a single IP address per site. However, in the not too distant future it will become more feasible to use SNI (virtual hosting for SSL sites basically) as web browsers out there start having more support for it and people stop using IE6, certainly on XP, and the IPv4 address problem will ease.

    Apart from that I see no reason to panic right now.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @01:53PM (#33291224) Homepage Journal

    I don't know what artificial reality you guys are living in, but IPv6 is running in many research universities worldwide, and on virtually every Linux box in the military and university community.

    The fact that it's not being provided by your local residential networks is not our problem.

  • it makes it easier to better identify unique users and devices

  • And NAT all ingress traffic to IPv4 and egress traffic to IPv6.
  • Who is this Steve Cassidy guy anyway, and how did he get a gig writing about network technologies for a magazine?

    Distilled, what this nimrod's article amounts to is:

    • The fears of IPv4 runout have been somewhat exaggerated since at least 1998.
    • Home users generally don't need to worry about runout because their little SOHO router NATs their addresses
    • The default IPv6 address for a device includes its MAC address, which Mr. Cassidy finds quaint and old-fashioned
    • The IPv6 transition/co-existence mechanism are
  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @02:29PM (#33291762) Homepage

    "This all started when Tony Blair was elected. The first time."

    Wow! Are there still people alive who remember back that far? I mean, that was before the first Harry Potter book came out, which was like forever ago!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 )

      Ummm, the first truly working IPv6 patch for Linux was rolled out for the 2.0.20 kernel. My IPv6 box at the University of Manchester was registered on the 6Bone a year, possibly two, before Tony Blair was elected. Solaris patches came out even earlier. The author clearly doesn't know their history. The rest of their arguments may be right or wrong, but I have trouble trusting arguments made by someone willing to make inaccurate claims that could have been checked with but a few seconds effort.

  • by kevmeister ( 979231 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @02:32PM (#33291798) Homepage
    TFA is bad enough, but the comments to the thread are simply stunning in the level people will go to to avoid dealing with something new. Every old obsolete or never valid saw about IPv6 is getting re-hashed. None will make any difference.

    To be very, very clear, IPv6 will happen. There is no way around it. There is almost no IPv4 address space left. The folks who are at the top of the structure that assigns addresses will run out in the middle of next year. The next tier, call Regional Internet Registries may have addresses available for another year. By the end of 2012, there will be no address space available to assign. For the gory details, see the IPv4 Countdown Page [potaroo.net]. Especially, look at Figure 35 [potaroo.net]. That is reality.

    As an end users, you may not care. Comcast is already beta testing IPv6 to its customers. I assume others are or soon will be doing so soon, but this should be mostly transparent to users as their system will only require IPv4 and that will be NATed behind an IPv6 address. But it must happen or people will not be able to get new addresses. That is the bottom line. IPv4 will remain in use for many years, but the net will start getting smaller and smaller for those who don't implement IPv6.

  • by JSBiff ( 87824 ) on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @03:53PM (#33292992) Journal

    It might not be time for residential networks and ISPs to flip the switch yet. . . but it's *definitely* time for all new home routers, DSL/Cable gateways, etc, to include full IPv6 compatibility. That way, when the ISPs decide it's time to turn on IPv6, they and their customers don't need to replace most of the hardware already deployed. IPv6 support at the vast majority of network endpoints needs to already be present before you can actually make the switch - you can't change the protocol and just force people to suddenly change.

    ISPs need to start configuring networks to run in a dual-stack mode (at least as far as the end-user is concerned - once it hits the first ISP owned router, it could be all IPv6 from that point on), so that those who are ready to use IPv6 can start using it (yeah, you can use tunnel providers or 6to4 [which is really another sort of tunnel], right now, but that usually adds additional hops and latency to your connections - basically, if you are tunneling IPv6 traffic over IPv4, why bother using it to begin with).

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser