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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Networking

Vint Cert Warns IPv4 Users: 'Time To Get With the Program' (zdnet.com) 282

An anonymous reader quotes ZDNet: Vint Cerf notes that the world ran out of IPv4 address space around 2011, some 13 years after internet engineers started sketching out IPv6, under the belief back then that IPv4 addresses would run out imminently. Since 'World IPv6 Launch' on June 6, 2012, significant progress has been made. Back then just one percent of users accessed Google services over IPv6. Now roughly a quarter of users access Google over IPv6. But Cerf noted that "it's certainly been a long time since the standards were put in place, and it's time to get with the program"...

The Internet Society's snapshot of IPv6 in 2018 notes that Google reports that 49 countries deliver more than five percent of traffic over IPv6. There are also 24 countries where IPv6 traffic is greater than 15 percent, including the US, Canada, Brazil, Finland, India, and Belgium. Additionally, 17 percent of the top million Alexa sites work with IPv6, while 28 percent of the top 1,000 Alexa sites do. Enterprise operations are IPv6's "elephant in the room", according to the Internet Society. Around 25 percent of all internet-connected networks advertise IPv6 connectivity, and the Internet Society suspects that most of the networks that don't are enterprise networks.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vint Cert Warns IPv4 Users: 'Time To Get With the Program'

Comments Filter:
  • by ebrandsberg ( 75344 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @02:40PM (#56756484)

    it is 2018, and as of today, Verizon FIOS still doesn't support it. Why? Who knows.

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Neither do Telenor [telenor.se], and maybe it's time to spam the support of the various ISPs with request for IPv6.

      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        What's needed is for large companies like google and facebook to offer benefits to ipv6 users, such as early access to new beta features etc, and then promote this... Currently very few users are demanding ipv6, so most isps can get away with not offering it. If large numbers of users start asking for ipv6 and switching to providers which already offer it, then providers will very quickly start implementing it.

        Microsoft actually state that the xbox one will work better with ipv6, so that's at least a start

        • by arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) on Sunday June 10, 2018 @04:29AM (#56759088)

          This is half the reason why it's now the twenty-year anniversary of IPv6 failing to launch. IPv6 has now been around for longer than IPv4 (counted as the time between RFC 791 and RFC 188x) and it's still perpetually "the other protocol", the novelty thing that you use from time to time for a lark until you go back to the one that works. It's the Duke Nukem Whenever of network protocols.

          The other half is that we've been told the IPv4 sky is falling so many times now that the response to any new claims are "oh god, is it that time of the year again?". For the vast majority of users, there's simply no incentive to switch, no matter how many times someone tries to scare them into it.

          • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

            So if Steam suddenly says that in order to play this game in 4K you need IPv6 then people would really take note and ask their ISPs for it.

    • Yup, it's really obnoxious. They've been saying they're getting ready to deploy it for years now... Verizon Wireless uses IPv6, though I know they don't really share any infrastructure. I guess they figure that they have enough IPv4 addresses to handle all their customers and potential customers for the foreseeable future...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The few managers and consultants I've talked to dislike ipv6 because

    They do not want to type long ipv6 addresses. (their or their client's DNS is probably not setup well)

    They fear incompatibility. (mostly I heard Exchange Server, which might still need netbios names (I'm not talking wins), even thought microsoft said with Active Directory you don't need netbios resolution, but you do...

    Perhaps microsoft should have an end netbios campaign, like they did with ie6.)

    • by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @03:58PM (#56756842)

      Obviously we have to move to the larger address space, but IPv6 was invented by those most dangerous of engineers, those who think they're f'ing clever because they can make something complex and have lots of options.

      When making the most core standard imaginable, that's like, the stupidest thing you could possibly do.

      Many original core internet standards were widely adopted because they were simple for people to understand and program to.
      204.92.16.108 etc is an example of this.

      So in short, the IPv6 transition was made way more messy that it should have been, because of fundamentally incompetent design of the new standard.
      Multiple ways of expressing addresses? Lots of special little address spaces reserved for this and that thing of the present day? Both of those are complete counterproductive bullshit. For example.

      • So in short, the IPv6 transition was made way more messy that it should have been, because of fundamentally incompetent design of the new standard. Multiple ways of expressing addresses? Lots of special little address spaces reserved for this and that thing of the present day? Both of those are complete counterproductive bullshit.

        It seems that the IPv6 designers used the kitchen sink approach and tried to solve multiple (actual, potential, and far-future) problems at the same time rather than the single, simpler problem of the IPv4 address-space exhaustion and that approach made IPv6 a complex mess that's difficult to easily understand. If they had done something simpler, everyone would have switched over by now. IPv6 is another case of smart people doing dumb things - specifically, not thinking things through enough by thinking t

        • It seems that the IPv6 designers used the kitchen sink approach and tried to solve multiple (actual, potential, and far-future) problems at the same time rather than the single, simpler problem of the IPv4 address-space exhaustion and that approach made IPv6 a complex mess that's difficult to easily understand. If they had done something simpler, everyone would have switched over by now. IPv6 is another case of smart people doing dumb things - specifically, not thinking things through enough by thinking things through too much.

          The only part of IPv6 that matters is the address space. The rest is noise.

          Personally I think 128-bits was a great decision. Not only did it give everyone more room than they'll ever need it also thwarts low effort global scanning and exploitation campaigns. I even like SLAAC for as dumb as it is since it kind of nudges providers not to skimp out and take more of the address space for themselves.

          Also going with a completely separate address space rather than mapping across was a very smart move due to pi

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Quick, don't look it up, what is Wikipedia's IPvv4?

        BZZZZZZt

        Special addresses, you mean like 10,0.0.0/8 or 127.0.0.1?

        Careful or you'll find yourself in the park shouting at clouds.

      • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        IPv4 has multiple ways of expressing addresses - x.x.x.x, 0x12345678, etc...

        IPv4 has extra special reserved address spaces, 224.x for multicast, 127.0.0.0 for local, 192.168 etc reserved for internal use etc.

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      They do not want to type long ipv6 addresses.

      That's what copy/paste and mDNS are for. Complaining about that is like griping that they just learned to do a Western Union splice and now people want them to use those diabolical newfangled RJ-45 thingies.

      Do they also get mad when they crack the whip and the car doesn't go ant faster?

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Exchange does not require netbios, and fully supports ipv6 - infact it can break quite badly if you turn off ipv6 on the server...

      IPv6 addresses are easier to remember once you have a moderately sized network - you have a single prefix, and then you pick a sensible addressing scheme underneath that. With ipv4 any larger organisation or provider will have many different blocks, making it extremely messy. We have a /32, then a /48 for each site, and a /64 for each vlan within the site which is designated by t

  • by darkain ( 749283 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @02:56PM (#56756568) Homepage

    I'm a Centurylink gigabit customer near Seattle with a static block of IPv4 addresses. Their IPv6 support is still only 6rd, which their implementation only works with a small handful of routers. Sadly, I just found out that my latest router is one that doesn't support it. STILL waiting on that native dual-stack support.

    I firmly place all of the blame on the major ISPs at this point. Most have IPv6 dual-stack on their carrier networks, but are sluggish as fuck delivering the packets to the last mile for some ridiculous unknown reason?

    • by Creepy ( 93888 )

      CenturyLink still is using absolutely ancient infrastructure where I live, stuff they inherited from Qwest. With my city having an exclusive fiber deal with Comcast, that is unlikely to change anytime soon. They did update their DSL to 10Mbps, but Comcast was running multi-gigabit service last I checked. Personally I'd like to not do business with either company and am waiting for Gen V wireless - high speed and low latency.

  • I'm in total agreement: at least move to IPv5 already, if you aren't ready for IPv6! Sticking with IPv4 is just being stubborn.
  • not really true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 09, 2018 @03:08PM (#56756626)

    We haven't "run out" of IPV4 addresses. Not even remotely so.

    A good comparison would be land. There was a time, even within the last 50 years -- where one could (for example) 'stake out' land in Canada. You'd head to unclaimed land, put up your fences, work it and use it -- and in 5 (or 10? it's been a long time since I read up on this), the land would officially be yours.

    This is closer to IPV4 realities, than not.

    Why?

    Because, IPV4 used to be *free*. You needed netblocks, you got netblocks. You request, and they were delivered.

    Then they became non-free. Much like land in Canada, you can't just take it and use it, nope -- you have to buy it from someone.

    A lot of that goes around, too. One corp selling to another. CorpA leasing to subscribers. ISPs selling additional IP addresses / month, for a fee.

    If we had really "run out", I would have to WAIT to connect to the internet. Or, I'd be stuck behind a NAT device (I'm not), because my ISP had to aggregate clients because they had no free IPs.

    Truth is, there's loads and loads of IPV4 laying around.

    Otherwise, why would people be saying WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT! for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS, and there's still a shit-tonne of IPs left.

    Hmm?

    Eh?

    Hum?

    Bah!

    (And yes, SNI alone helped a lot... but that's not the point. Or maybe it is -- because, it's an example of "look -- there's gold all over the ground" and now "we have to dig for it, maybe we'd better use gold more wisely")

    I bet in 2050, we'll still primarily be IPV4.

    • Re:not really true (Score:4, Insightful)

      by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @10:00PM (#56758234)

      We haven't "run out" of IPV4 addresses. Not even remotely so.

      A good comparison would be land. There was a time, even within the last 50 years -- where one could (for example) 'stake out' land in Canada. You'd head to unclaimed land, put up your fences, work it and use it -- and in 5 (or 10? it's been a long time since I read up on this), the land would officially be yours.

      This is closer to IPV4 realities, than not.

      Why?

      If you think IP addresses should be treated as a limited resource and priced by the market accordingly then of course you're right. Chances are YOU can afford to have an IP address. Therefore they are not scarce for you.

      Yet from a global perspective there are more Internet users coming online than publically routable IPv4 addresses. Basic math would seem to indicate there are not enough addresses to go around.

      If we had really "run out", I would have to WAIT to connect to the internet. Or, I'd be stuck behind a NAT device (I'm not),

      Good for you. Population of Internet users will soon be a much much higher number than publically routable IPv4 addresses. Others are today not so lucky and this problem only grows worse with time.

      Even if you assume all server infrastructure has no IP addresses allocated to it and 100% efficient distribution of IPv4 to end users only there are still NOT ENOUGH IPv4 addresses for everyone.

      I bet in 2050, we'll still primarily be IPV4.

      I bet IPv4 at least in terms of public Internet is shut down in its entirety by 2050.

  • Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of networking in this country. The IPv4 was the IP to own. Then the other guys came out with TCP. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called DNS. That's IPv4 and easy to remember english names. For usability. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to IPv6. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling four numbers and names. Usability o

  • Azure (Score:4, Interesting)

    by watermark ( 913726 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @03:47PM (#56756812)

    Chicken and egg. In Azure, the only way you can get a public IPv6 address is by using a load balancer. You can't just put a single VM up on IPv6. Even if some other provider does offer better IPv6 support, Azure is #2 atm, so they'll need better IPv6 support as well.

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      There are a lot of little services and facilities that still don't quite work right or fully with IPv6.A lot of these were problems in IPv4 as well, but they *had* to be solved. IPv6 on the other hand, people just shrug and use IPv4 where things are fixed.

  • My ISP doesn't give me IPv6 connectivity. So I'm sunk.

  • by Mozai ( 3547 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @06:13PM (#56757312) Homepage
    $ dig tech.slashdot.org aaaa
    tech.slashdot.org. 59 IN CNAME www.slashdot.org.
    $ dig www.slashdot.org aaaa
    (no answer)
  • The World in which IPv6 Was a Good Design [apenwarr.ca]. I found this brief history on IP and Ethernet to be quite informative. It also suggests a possible way forward for mobile IP (by basically putting another layer on top).
  • And now is up to us to pick up the pieces.

    They simply made the address field too small.

    And do not but that "this was an experimental network, we couldn't have known" weasel-talk.

    You see, about the same time Vint and Bob were working on their little 4 Bytes in the Address Field protocol (1981), Other people were also working on similar protocols.

    Some Guys at OSI were working at CLNP, and guess what? That has 20 (5 times more!) Bytes in the Address Field...

    Some other guys at Xerox were working on IDP, which h

    • I used to get downmodded for calling Vint Cerf an idiot. But he is. Actually. And a vindictive narcissist to boot. Might have something to do with the fiasco, must maybe?

  • Spectrum still has no IPv6 support. It really is getting to be ridiculous that its 2018 and there is still no IPv6 support. When, if ever? Do these companies need to be fined to compel them to upgrade>

  • I know I'll get burned for saying this but IPv6 fails the scratch and sniff test. I've grown up around the IPv4 dilemma yet no-one I know that I worked with (contractor worked at 30+ different businesses) ever seemed to fully grasp IPv6. Workers don't get it, vendors don't get it, network providers don't get it, telcos don't even seem to get it. Based on the fact that we've been at this for 15years+ and it still hasn't gained any traction it's time to call it a failure and move on.
    • Sad to say, there are many with you on that. Start over, and make it an extension of IPv4 this time. Just add one or two extra bytes to the high end of the address and deal with the issues, which are many and varied, but IPv6 has nearly all of the same issues and a bunch of its own making. At least make an attempt at compatibility. It's hard to think of anything worse than the current situation, but sigh, I suppose if you threw even more incompetence at the effort than the IPv6 designers did, it could be ac

    • I know I'll get burned for saying this but IPv6 fails the scratch and sniff test. I've grown up around the IPv4 dilemma yet no-one I know that I worked with (contractor worked at 30+ different businesses) ever seemed to fully grasp IPv6.

      Workers don't get it, vendors don't get it, network providers don't get it, telcos don't even seem to get it. Based on the fact that we've been at this for 15years+ and it still hasn't gained any traction it's time to call it a failure and move on.

      IPv6 in all ways that matter is the same as IPv4 with 96 more bits of address space.

  • Vint "Cert" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by epine ( 68316 ) on Saturday June 09, 2018 @08:27PM (#56757908)

    Vint Cert Warns IPv4 Users: 'Time To Get With the Program'

    That error should be fixed.

  • There is not a single ISP on the NBN in Australia who provides IPv6 over FTTC. That is new technology launched in 2018. Way to go NBNco!

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet

Working...