IPv6-only Hosting Won't Make Sense For Years 173
rawagajah writes "World IPv6 Day this Wednesday will shake out any bugs for websites running on IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. However, cloud server provider ElasticHosts points out that IPv6-only websites are still a long way off — they only make sense after access is overwhelmingly IPv6 capable. In the meantime, the market in IPv4 space will presumably only grow, benefiting the IPv4 hogs..."
SNI and other alternatives (Score:2)
This is why I generally support the big guys, Google et. all, when they go out and state they will no longer support older browsers. Not only is it good for security and designers, but it's good for server admins. With apache2 and IIS supporting SNI on all browsers, except XP SP2, it's time to move on. I really don't feel like playing the domain games of yesteryear with IP addresses.
2.5 cents
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I generally support the big guys, Google et. all, when they go out and state they will no longer support older browsers.
The problem as I understand it in the case of IE is that MS considers the SSL implementation to be part of the OS not part of the browser and as such they won't implement SNI in IE on XP.
People are far more reluctant to upgrade their entire OS than to merely upgrade their browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both have the same problem, as the issue is in Windows XP's SSL implementation, which all browsers use rather than doing it internally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that you are correct. My mistake.
A handy test for SNI compatibility can be found here (https://sni.velox.ch/)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I made a mistake too, I forgot Chrome uses Windows crypto stuff (I should have remembered that - dealt with that weeks ago - installing private certs and stuff).
Anyway in theory SSL is good. In practice it's better than nothing, but:
1) Most people just click through the warnings.
2) Governments (and naughty hackers) can get browser trusted CAs to sign their CA certs, and most browsers by default will not warn you. China's CNNIC's cert is signed by Entrust (there may be more).
3) Governments can get Micr
Re: (Score:2)
Real developers use available APIs
Real developers know it's a compromise, using the OS libraries means there is less duplication (which means less ram use and only one place to fix stuff when a problem is discovered) but it also makes it harder to be consistent across platforms and means you are at the mercy of the OS vendor regarding fixes and updates. In particular said OS vendor may use such features as an opertunity to ram a new major version down your throat.
Regardless of the merits of platform libraries VS rolling your own though I th
Re:SNI and other alternatives (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you really think there isn't a "cluster fucking 35 different versions of shit and different libraries" on your windows box?
If you really believe that, I would like to invite you to check out %windir%\WinSxS; it is part of a mechanism designed to resolve traditional Windows DLL hell but can become VERY bloated over time It's where system libraries are actually stored and then are linked to from other directories. Due to the past DLL hell, it is rare that anything ever gets deleted from WinSxS in order to prevent DLL hell by inadvertantly deleting a library that might be marked by the registry as unused, but is actually relied upon by a seldom-used app. So, what happens is as you install and upgrade your various applications, system drivers, and whatnot, a ton of files often get written to in WinSxS when installers don't check for dependencies - how many times have applications forced installs of components you know are already in place? Why does this happen? Because all too many release engineers don't understand system administration, how the OS works at the low level, so they don't know how to check for preexisting components. Why is this? Because hiring managers are all too focused on specific tool (Rational Clearcase and Clearquest, Installshield, Visual Studio, Ant, Eclipse, or a specific language, etc) and not on what really matters, i.e., system administration, coordinate development and QA, manage the build platform and a build a clean net, etc. Too much emphasis is based on knowing a specific application, rather than the process and ability to learn a tool quickly. Individual tools are relatively easy to learn very quickly; system administration and basic scripting skills are relatively difficult to pick up quickly. I never focused on learning all the tools out there; I learned the individual tools as I needed to, so my installers were always rock-solid because I knew the requirements for the underlying system, and my installers didn't force unnecessary component updates which bloat a system.
So, your Windows vs. Linux argument is kind of moot; you may not realize it, but even though you might not see libfoo.so.0.2.1, libfoo,so.0.2.1 and libfoo.so.0.4.1 (and a symlink from libfoo.so.0.4.0 to libfoo.so.0.4.1 since it's compatible and the install creator decided to save you space but not break your system in the process) in /usr/lib on Windows, but if you have installed and over time upgraded various applications you easily have 5 to 10 different copies of various libraries - often identical versions, cluttering up WinSxS.
Check these out:
http://www.ghacks.net/2010/07/24/the-winsxs-folder-explained/ [ghacks.net]
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2008/09/17/what-is-the-winsxs-directory-in-windows-2008-and-windows-vista-and-why-is-it-so-large.aspx [technet.com]
Unix-based systems are easy to clean, maintain, and if you do break /usr/lib, very easy to fix in comparison to Windows. Now tell me - after reading those articles, if you have the Unix experience you claim to have, after learning how Windows deals with various library versions, which system is better and more logical? Don't get me wrong; Microsoft has done a fantastic job making Windows a hell of a lot more stable than it used to be, but this "fix" is still a major hack which doesn't fix the root problem: shitty release engineers not developing and adequately testing installers until they're rock solid.To work around install developer incompetence, we have come to a point where WinSxS may contain gigabytes' worth of old cruft that is no longer used on a Windows box.
Re: (Score:2)
I figure there's at least a 50% chance the GP is simply trolling. If not, well his statement is ignorant enough that he might get modded Funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SNI and other alternatives (Score:4, Insightful)
"it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now."
We've had a decade to do a nice orderly IPv6 rollout. The problem is no one will spend the time/money to do it until it is absolutely unavoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
"it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now."
We've had a decade to do a nice orderly IPv6 rollout. The problem is no one will spend the time/money to do it until it is absolutely unavoidable.
This.It wouldn't make a difference, as it would just mean everyone would continue doing nothing, and legitimate users would just pay more.
/27 for free on my home network and I enjoy not having to use NAT and I am using the addresses (well more than 16 of them). Now why should I have to pay an extra $30 for my net connection because the rest of the Internet providers haven't performed due diligence with this issue (and since my ISP has also been IPv6 ready since 2002 they are obviously do
My ISP gives me a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely a good 5 to 6 years to do a nice orderly IPV6 rollout instead of the mess we are in now.
More time isn't what is needed. They've already had lots of time (nearly a decade).
So I say my proposal would buy us the time we need to fix the above problems and make the IPV6 transition a nice slow methodical orderly change over rather than the "Oh shit what are we gonna do?" mess that we have now.
That's the only way it's gonna happen. Like many other problems (pollution or fossil fuel) that cost a lot of money to fix just to get back to nominal, it's not gonna be dealt with until stuff starts actually breaking.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean another 5 years on top of the nearly 13 years that ipv6 has been around?
Re: (Score:2)
What's really bad is that everyone is using at least 256 IPs per announcement, because otherwise, many ISP just ignore the route announce, to save on the precious memory of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I don't understand the problem, but in my mind it has nothing to do with available address space and everything to do with equipment cost. My ISP is a cable co-op, so what you pay is directly proportional to what you get. For my $50 I'd rather have increased bandwidth than a brand new room full of Cisco switches that isn't going to make things 'better' for me at this moment.
Our annual letter basically said that the plan was to upgrade to IPv6 when we need to upgrade the "big iron" in the next few ye
Re: (Score:2)
"less than 30% of IPV4 was being utilized"
We're approaching 3 billion users and there's only 4.3bil addresses total, not including inefficiencies from smaller subnets or reserved ranges. I would say there's very few un-used addresses.
"If the unused addresses were to be put back into the pool it would give us most likely" Few months. This has been discusses many times, even by the president of ARIN.
"The hogs want to sit on them and then sell them for a fat profit" You can't sell them, you can only return t
Re: (Score:2)
Just like old browsers, IPv4 only clients will continue to haunt us for years to come. It depends a lot on your audience, Game! [wittyrpg.com] for example sees something like 10-20% IE users (all versions combined), the rest using Firefox, Chrome or Opera. But if you look at the cross-section of browser usage in big companies, you'll see something closer to 80% IE usage (and primarily IE6/IE7 at that).
I predict that once XP goes off extended support, people will finally start migrating away from it and IE6 will die with i
Re: (Score:2)
IE(-based browsers) and Safari on XP (the only browsers that use the windows library) isn't the only SNI problem, Android 2.x is also a problem.
I guess by the time XP is gone the Android phones will be gone too. But it was really stupid to see these people not include SNI support.
might be good for specialized uses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, it doesn't really matter if your non-internet-facing servers are v6 or V4, since they'll only serve local adresses ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why this article is misleading...
Of course v6 only won't make sense for years. It won't make sense until 99% of the internet is dual stack or v6 only- how long that takes is an economics problem. Whats important is that servers/hosting is dual stacked during the transition. When you're looking for hosting services native dual stack will soon be a requirement. Its not right now, but it will be very soon. This really isn't very complicated- dual stack your public servers as quickly as possibly (really n
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dual stack hosting does make sense right now, what is slashdot [ipv6-test.com] waiting for ?
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from adding maintenance costs, how much sense does it make ? IPv6-only clients are a small market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because by doing it in an calm and orderly fashion now you save yourself a lot of panicking, firefighting and half-assed last-minute "fixes" in the future?
I actually suspect there will be a future market for IPv6-to-IPv4 proxy services for companies stuck with shitty ISPs that wake up late and realize they need their servers to be accessible through IPv6 yesterday. Just pay another company that has IPv6 access to proxy all IPv6 HTTP/SMTP/whatever requests to the company's IPv4 server for that service (and k
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect NAT64 will be around for a long long time to keep IPv6 people talking to IPv4 only hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a catch 22 with IPv6 deployment. There is little point in deploying v6 on your servers unless you belive there will be a significant number of V6 only clients in the next few years (or whatever your "major upgrade" cycle is) and noone will want to deploy clients that cannot access v4 servers while there a significant number of v4 only servers.
Now the question is will the global v4 pool running out break this catch-22? I suspect the answer is no since clients without public v4 address are likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding the IPv6 "bugs"...Unless he's referring to the general issue of lack of anonymity built into IPv6 (due to unique IP addresses),
That would be wrong. Any IPv6 client I know of can generate addresses either from something static (the MAC-address of the network card, a fixed configuration or whatever) or an automatically and randomly generated string, giving you the same anonymity if you so desire. I believe win* defaults to the latter and linux to the former, but switching is easy.
Anyway, even with a statically configured computer you can always claim that someone else must have used that IP address/someone else used the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question: Inside the firewall, what benefit is IPv6?
There are a number of benefits, mostly related to having a globally routeable IP address. E.g, if your company merges with another, there will be no need to reassign hosts or create bridges in the new, joined network. You also save the administration of internal IP addresses, the DHCP server, perhaps a print server.
For me, it means that when I work from home I can directly ssh to my work computer (started with wake-on-lan) if I need something from it. That makes it much easier to git pull/push changes, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Small but growing, leaving it off until the market grows too large to ignore is going to guarantee you won't be ready when the time comes.
Re: (Score:2)
Then wait until market is large enough, minus the time it takes to do add the IPv6 support. Switching to IPv6 will only get easier after you wait until everybody else has figured out all the problems, and all the hardware is supporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Small, but growing. There will soon be economic pressure for v4 addresses, and it won't take too many people moving to v6 make it worthwhile to maintain dual stack servers.
First hand experience on this one- if you're already using best practices for web hosting, adding v6 addresses is stupid easy, and requires no re-work to your backend. Why _wouldn't_ you add v6, even to capture (or keep from losing) 1% of your traffic?
Right now the reason is: horribly misconfigured dual stack clients will fail when access
Re: (Score:3)
Because a lot of people don't care about 1%. When Firefox had a market share of 5%, there were still plenty of sites that didn't support it.
Also, people moving to IPv6 doesn't mean they can't reach IPv4 sites anymore. As long as they can reach them through some NAT service, the IPv4 web hosts will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they should get up to date like the W3C [ipv6-test.com] have.. oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the W3C is the one who standardized IPv6... oh, wait they have fuck all to do with the Internet Protocol standards. On the other hand, the real people behind the IPv6 standard, the IETF [ipv6-test.com], does have a website that is IPv6 ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the people who developed the standard use it, that's life changing knowledge!
Instead, let's look at some of the W3C's "Mission" [w3.org] statements:
Web for All - The social value of the Web is that it enables human communication, commerce, and opportunities to share knowledge. One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability
Web on Everything - The number of different kinds of devices that can access the Web has grown immensely. Mobile phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, interactive television systems, voice response systems, kiosks and even certain domestic appliances can all access the Web
This is just one of the groups that I'd have expected to have IPv6 addresses by now. Facebook and Amazon don't either..
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook does, actually, at http://www.v6.facebook.com./ [v6.facebook.com]
> ping www.v6.facebook.com
Pinging www.v6.facebook.com [2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=169ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Reply from 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3: time=170ms
Ping statistics for 2620:0:1cfe:face:b00c::3:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in mil
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the people who developed the standard use it, that's life changing knowledge!
Which was the point. Why do you point out the W3C? And why do they need an IPv6 record to accomplish their goals? I'm pretty sure you can have web for all and web on everything at this point without an IPv6 record.
This is just one of the groups that I'd have expected to have IPv6 addresses by now.
Good for you?
Facebook and Amazon don't either..
Facebook does. But why either one need them when less than 1% of their users will be using the IPv6 version, is the better question.
Makes sense for several years already.... (Score:2)
It makes sense for several years already, as a lot of "firewalls" (eg, that nice Great Chinese Firewall) and various other such country-wide blockades to the Internet, do not have a single bit of understanding of IPv6, and as long as they remain that way, IPv6 will work like a charm......
Next to the other thing for home users: everything becomes accessible, instead of having to get IPv4 addresses from your home ISP (which generally they won't do, but indeed there are cases where they do), or getting a priva
Beside the point (Score:2)
For a website owner working together with a hosting provider that still has plenty of IPv4 addresses, why would you even want to move to IPv6-only? Especially when so many in the world aren't even running dual-stack? The only good reason that I've heard so far to set up an IPv6-only website is for testing purposes (You can't see this site unless you have IPv6!).
On the other hand, soon there will be plenty of people and organizations in the world, starting in Asia, that will be IPv6-only. Not because it's
Re: (Score:2)
soon there will be plenty of people and organizations in the world, starting in Asia, that will be IPv6-only
They might go massive IPv4 NATs first. Especially since:
1) it makes control of the population easier.
2) it makes P2P harder
3) it makes it harder for users to set up their own servers
What tech people see as problems, would be considered benefits by some governments and organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
And it certainly won't be more reliable. There are still lots more bugs to be found. For example: how many years did it take for the ISC to reduce the number of security holes and bugs in their IPv4 DHCP server? So you really think the dhcpv6 servers will be much bet
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 won't have DHCP servers for most people. DHCP6 is a for odd cornercases.
1% is a whole lot (Score:3)
I disagree (Score:2)
At some point, connection quality on IPv4 will be worse than connection quality on IPv6 for a significant amount of people. Their CGNAT may be overloaded. They may run applications which don't work correctly behind CGNAT.
When this point is reached, dual stacked hosting will be an advantage over IPv4-only hosting. Search engines may start to weigh in IPv6-reachablilty of sites. When this happens, you'll want to be with a hoster which supports IPv6 already.
Chicken-and-egg continues (Score:2)
Web hosts will still not support ipv6 because there aren't enough customers for it to be worth it. ISPs will not support ipv6 because there aren't enough web hosts to be worth it. Everyone sits around waiting for somebody else to move first, in a classic deadlock pattern.
Money is a powerful motivator (Score:2)
The deadlock will be solved by the market for IPv4 addresses that everyone seems to think is so horrible. The unused IPv4 addresses will get sold off first. As prices go up, even currently used IPv4 addresses start looking like a juicy money-making opportunity. Hosts that can migrate without much pain will get paid to do so. ISPs and vendors who want their business have an incentive to make the process even less painful. Gradually, the cost of IPv4 will go up, the cost of IPv6 will go down, and people will
Re: (Score:3)
Or gradualy the routing tables will get out of the reach of the routers at some places, and IPv4 will completely stop working.
There are many problems with auctioning IP addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Force the issue (Score:2)
One thing we really DON'T need on the net is an IP version of the real-estate bubble. The best way to make the transition happen is to set a hard cut-off day. On X day at midnight, all IPv4 allocations are rescinded.
Of course, what sort of traffic you run on your own LAN is your own business, but if you want to traverse the public internet, you'll need to use v6.
Actually, I can see IPv6-only for NEW systems (Score:2)
There is a simple way to make this happen FAST (Score:2)
Re:sell it (Score:4, Informative)
Right now most residential ISPs don't offer IPv6 period.
We arn't even at the "getting customers to buy into it" phase yet, we are at the "getting it available" point. Which is (and I know this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten already) quite sad considering how much the ipv4 problem has been known about and a solution available.
What is really sad is... (Score:2)
What is really, really sad is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What's not so sad is that there's no need for classes anymore. It's all online now. Yes, you should be teaching yourself. Most of what you need to know you'll end up learning outside the classroom, anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Even then it probably won't.
Until IPv6 is available to most residential users, it's gonna make more sense to buy ipv4 addresses at high prices than to switch to ipv6 where the huge majority of the internet can't actually get to your site.
The problem here isn't the web hosts, it's the residential ISPs who are _still_ dragging their feet on this.
Re:Right... (Score:4, Informative)
Comcast is rolling out IPv6 right now in the US. http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net]
They have had a beta rollout for the past year to work out the issues.
Customers in Denver, CO are currently getting IPv6 to their homes right now.
Hopefully they'll start rolling it out in the San Francisco bay area soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah nice - I was wondering if any of the US ISPs were doing this yet.
My (ordinary, residential) ISP is also fully native IPv6 to the home (and has been for about a year I think, though I only just got a native-IPv6-capable router in the last few months). I live in the Asia-Pacific RIR (APNIC) area though (Australia) so I think IPv6 deployment here is probably somewhat ahead of in North America, simply because we are due to run out of IPv4 addresses quicker than all the other regions. Several major national I
Re: (Score:2)
No, this does not surprise me.
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs won't upgrade because there isn't any IPv6 content. No content is being migrated to IPv6 because there's no ISPs supporting it.
Those who think there is no market incentive for IPv6 should be asking themselves why so many major content providers and ISPs are taking it seriously.
ISPs will upgrade because they have no other viable cost-effective choice. Running huge NATs at ISPs is expensive, pisses off customers needing a real address for their gear to work right and adds insane CALEA requirements.
Content providers will upgrade because they want the fast-path to the customer bypassing ISP NAT. They also benefit by having access to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to make sense when we run out of fucking addresses.
Of course there is the definition of "RUN out" to consider. IP addresses aren't like oil, we don't use them up. When demand exceeds supply then (provided the RIRs don't mess things up too much) they will simply become more expensive causing the least profitable uses to be sacrificed.
I'm betting the first thing to be sacrificed will be public IPs for people on normal home broadband plans (mobile broadband seems to be using private IPs already)
Re: (Score:2)
My WISP (I am a fixed installation) doesn't have real addresses for me, so I'm there already. It does prevent me from playing some games and such, but the latency isn't that great anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks. While that suits many average users, I would change ISPs if they did that to me. (NB. both my home ISP and my mobile phone have proper public IPs at this stage, and in fact my home connection is full native IPv6/v4 dual stack already, though I do understand that's a rarity for a residential ISP)
You're completely right though, of course. I foresee an awful period of horrible double-NATtedness for most home connections in the not too distant future.
Re: (Score:2)
And the cynic in me tells me it's not going to be our home broadband plans. There are after all 4 billion IPv4 addresses. Even if we say half of those go to servers and shit, the top 2 billion residential users would have no problem paying their way to an IPv4 address. It's going to be third world countries or countries with massive growth like India or China who'll get stuck on IPv6-only Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
There are after all 4 billion IPv4 addresses
It would intially seem that way. However when we look at the 256 /8 blocks we see that many of them are not normal IPv4 addreses.
1 block is assigned to local identification /8)
1 block is assigned to private use (there are also private use blocks elsewhere but only one is a full
1 block is reserved for local loopback
16 blocks are allocated to multicast
16 blocks are practically unusable because they were never defined as either unicast or multicast and IIRC windows won't accept them as addresses
So there are on
Re: (Score:2)
I have no plans ever to switch my home network to IPv6 unless someone can make a compelling case as to why that would make any sense at all.
Yup. Unless you are a business and have to figure something out more complicated than "the addresses of my machines have all changed", there isn't much reason in playing around with ipv6 until your ISP actually starts cooperating. I mucked around a little just to get some familiarity (and truth is, I actually don't like how ipv6 works), but once I got stuff communicating it got kinda dull.
Re: (Score:3)
I use IPv6 (alas via a tunnel here). IPv6 gets rid of DHCP, which is nice, but also lets me ssh directly to any of my machines here. So I can ssh to my wife's machine to fix her machine (often that the old box has too much flash running), and git pull those changes I forgot to push from my home computer. Very convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the highest level, it means you don't need 3rd party "services" to connect to other people, or even to connect to your own machines when you're away. The implications of that are game changing.
You know you can do all of that already if you actually want to, right?
You're still going to want 3rd party services to communicate your IPv6 address to friends (or even to your other devices probably). Unless you want to drive to their house and read it out manually. I hope I never have to read out or scribe an IPv6 address manually :/
Re: (Score:2)
uTorrent is reporting a few peers with v6 addresses, so I'm guessing I have v6 access. Didn't do anything at all for this, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Either your ISP is supporting IPv6, or your OS is using a tunnel. Windows Vista and 7 by default do by try 6to4 and teredo tunnels if the ISP doesn't assign an ipv6.
Linux users can just install miredo to have a teredo tunnel. It is nice to use ipv6 capable DNS, such as OpenNIC; do these and you'll get 10/10 score at http://test-ipv6.com/ [test-ipv6.com]
More ISPs should be supporting dual stacks by now, that means an ipv6 capable DNS and assign both ipv6 and ipv4 to clients. That will ensure a transparent switchover and eas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's most likely a tunnel ... easy to find out: just find out what your IPv6 address appears to be and do some Googling. Teredo and 6to4 have distinct prefixes that are reserved for those uses, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it's 2002.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that it will be a hell of a lot easier to turn on IPv6, than to set up a 4to6 encapsulating NAT so you can reach IPv6 hosts even though you only have IPv4.
With 6to4 and RFC 3068 it ought to be a checkbox or two to turn on IPv6 on your router, if your router doesn't suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think what will happen is that ISPs will have IPv6 working, and if the CPE can't do anything useful, they will set up web cache/proxies for their customers so that they can access IPv6-only web sites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And there's the same problem with nobody buying the IPv4 2.0 kit because nobody uses IPv4 2.0
And it doesn't have the built in cool stuff which nobody has worked out that they want yet (Mobile IPv6 + ubiquitous IPSec means no more half-arsed VPN software - hooray!)
And who wants the knowledge base to stay the same? If there's a better way to do things, lets do it!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a way to do it. Assign the extended IPs to the internal networks, while keeping the original IP as the public one. That way, the old routers would still be able to route it correctly.
A longer version:
Extend the IP address by 4 more bytes, up to 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 (for example), place the additional bytes somewhere in the packet header where the old routers do not really look (options for example). So, old routers will see 1.2.3.4 and deliver it correctly to the ISP/company that has it and has the new
Re: (Score:2)
There are benefits to IPv6-only. Among them, no RIAA or MPAA snoops (at least for a few years).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for my ISP to offer IPv6. No, I do not want to use a tunnel because of two reasons:
1. Since there are no exit points inside my country, the connection will be slower
2. When the ISP actually starts offering IPv6, the tunnel configuration will not work for it (so I can't prepare for it now) and I might actually have new computers with newer OSs by that time, so configuring the old ones might be pointless.
Also, maybe by the time the ISP offers IPv6 some OS will support NAT for it (NAT has more uses
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. If IPv6 is a good answer to address space limitations, why are we not already using it?
Because we haven't needed it yet, as IPv4 addresses were still available. And still are, apart from in the APNIC region.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the IPv4 packet structure. Where do you plan to add these octets? Don't tell me you're going to change the format because that will break backwards compatibility and would be no different than just using IPv6, minus the confusion of having a similar format.
While a 1MB frame would be nice for reduced routing overhead and increased throughput, the added jitter would be horrible. Great on a LAN, bad on the i-net backbone.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm at it, jumbo frames can be up to 1MB. Network gear claiming to be IPv5 compliant MUST support this. Boom, less overhead.
That would be really fun on 100mbps LAN and Wi-Fi. Oh, look, somebody is sending a 1MB frame, OK, my VoIP/game packet can wait those >100ms...
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, there is this little thing called NAT which allows hosts to reach v4 servers even if they don't have their own public v4 IP.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there IS a simple solution.
Simply require that the feds use IPv6 and IPv4 everywhere with IPv4 support dropping 1 year out. That will get a number of ISPs to re-think this through REAL QUICK. In particular, all of the big players will have IPv6 done very quickly. And all of the smaller companies will make fast switches as well.