Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Networking The Internet

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups 248

New submitter pla writes: Due to a new set of routes published yesterday, the internet has effectively undergone a schism. All routers with a TCAM allocation of 512k (or less), in particular Cisco Catalyst 6500 and 7600's, have started randomly forgetting portions of the internet. 'Cisco also warned its customers in May that this BGP problem was coming and that, in particular, a number of routers and networking products would be affected. There are workarounds, and, of course the equipment could have been replaced. But, in all too many cases this was not done. ... Unfortunately, we can expect more hiccups on the Internet as ISPs continue to deal with the BGP problem." Is it time to switch to all IPv6 yet?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, Please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @08:20AM (#47661967)
    We changed all our systems over time to handle this great IPv6 change, and haven't used IPv6 yet. Our service provider doesn't even offer it. Come on, some of us are more than ready. We will probably have failures, because it hasn't been truly tested, but we are far more ready than we were for Y2K.
  • by cardpuncher ( 713057 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @08:43AM (#47662055)

    This isn't really to do with BGP or IPv4 as such, it's an inherent problem in the way "The Internet" regards addresses.

    You might be able to get some efficiencies in IPv6 by incorporating formerly-unrelated address allocations under a single prefix. But that doesn't solve the problem of a continuously growing network, increasingly complex (and commercially controversial) peering arrangements, the fact that IPv6 addresses are actually larger and the fact that you're going to have to support IPv4 anyway in parallel with any IPv6 transition (I don't personally believe it will ever happen, but that's a different story).

    You could, however, get rather more efficiency in core routing tables if network addresses only had a very transient existence and were related to the source/destination route to be employed (eg: look up a domain name, do some route pre-computation, allocate some addressing tokens that make sense to the routers on the path, recalculate the route periodically or in response to packet loss). That's not IPv6, though. IPv6 has the same order of dependence on every router knowing about every destination network as IPv4 does (give or take the slightly greater prefixing efficiency).

    TL;DR - The Internet is getting bigger. Buy more kit.

  • just ask carriers. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @08:46AM (#47662075) Homepage
    googling verizon, comcast, and time warner it seems like their original pledge in 2012 to start rolling out ipv6 has quietly halted. most of their sites simply say "check back" while others imply certain undisclosed service areas may be exposed to both 4 and 6. forums are another story, with most customers and techs confirming the support exists, but either modems arent enabled to receive ipv6 due to bugs, or the support is broken in all-in-one devices in the case of DSL.

    speaking from a linux neckbeard standpoint, i dont care. ive had competent functional v6 support for almost a decade and in many cases implemented it for pay. In my experience the problems associated with implementing v6 are related to companies angry about any downtime at all, or vendor specific appliances that just cant for some reason or another. they either lied about their ipv6 support, only partially support routing IPv6, or have egregious bugs in their implementation that cause stability problems in the rest of the network. Hosting providers have done an excellent job of supporting it from what ive seen, and most (with the exception of godaddy) are very generous in their IP offerings (i get 30 with ramnode.)
  • Re:Stop doing CIDR! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BaronM ( 122102 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @11:03AM (#47663051)

    OK, I've done BGP before, and I've never heard of anything smaller than a /24 being globally advertised -- most common router configurations won't even accept anything smaller.

    That said, how is any network of any size supposed to protect itself again ISP outages other than multihoming? It clutters the routing table, but there is no other solution.

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault