Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Posted Oct 21, 2010 9:03 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)In reply to: Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com) by neilbrown
Parent article: Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
This element of the transition is sometimes called "regime change" because it involves a change in the RIR allocation regime. You are correct, in a limited sense, that you will be able to arrange to transfer addresses. RIRs will (for a fee) arrange to update the allocation records once exhaustion occurs. Obviously you would have to negotiate (perhaps in an open market, perhaps behind closed doors) for the other party to be willing to transfer their existing allocation.
However that will only be for large aggregatable blocks (maybe a /24 but quite likely larger) because otherwise they aren't routeable. Unlike IPv6, which has already been deployed on a wide scale in production, this "market of IP addresses" is untested. If your business depends on it then you are in a rather uncomfortable position, such a market may never actually emerge in production scale, or the price may be far higher than you anticipated (consider, the legal overhead alone of agreeing such a deal could make a /24 cost many thousands of dollars, while your competitors have obtained all their addresses for free)
It doesn't say anything sad about IPv6. Businessmen would like things to continue as they are, long after that ceases to make sense. That's a commercial reality whether you're installing asbestos home insulation, delivering goods by horse and cart or selling worthless securities. No conceivable protocol to fix the address exhaustion problem (nor "tweak" to the existing IPv4) could have done better than IPv6 has in this environment.
Everybody who actually cares already migrated to dual-stack. Whole businesses, entire systems. But they represent a tiny, informed, minority. Some people's experience will be that their ISP mysteriously goes out of business after introducing new "better" service (the carrier grade NAT you're so enthusiastic about) and losing all its well informed customers to an ISP still actually providing Internet service. Most countries now have at least one home ISP that already provides native IPv6 (a step up from what Comcast are currently doing) and those companies know they're well placed to eat the other guys' breakfast.
Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:04 UTC (Thu)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (8 responses)
At least it could work out that way, that's not an unreasonable prediction
Posted Oct 21, 2010 21:43 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (7 responses)
for myself, I want static IPs, no filters, etc. I willingly pay more to an ISP that provides this cleanly to me than I would pay for equivalent bandwidth from one that doesn't.
with the number of small/home businesses around, you aren't going to see this sort of home 'business' service start requiring any special line types, they will have different costs, just like they do today.
there are a lot of people who really do want 'outbound-only Internet'. I have relatives that I would be happy to see with this sort of line.
for these people things like DHCP, NAT, firewalling, spam filtering, content filtering, etc are all good things (or at least no pain for the user) for the ISP to provide.
these people would also be happy with IPv6 addresses that got NATed/proxied to IPv4 addresses by the ISP before they hit the 'real' Internet.
there are two things that these people may want that will take more work from the ISP
1. bittorrent downloads
2. online gaming (although most of this is already tolerant of such networks)
If the IPv6 people were not so utterly opposed to NAT, they would have a way for someone to use IPv6 locally and NAT out through a IPV6 -> IPv4 gateway to the IPv4 Internet. If this was available, you would see it start getting used by the ISPs at the edges of the network, and over time the NAT devices would move closer to the center.
But the IPv6 people are so anti-NAT that they won't even consider something like this, their 'transition plan' boils down to 'this is such neat technology that everyone will switch, even if it breaks everything they already have'
Posted Oct 21, 2010 22:17 UTC (Thu)
by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
[Link] (5 responses)
No, they wouldn't be happy. They want to keep using their Windows 98 laptop with their ancient home router, neither of which will ever have IPv6 support.
If the IPv6 people were not so utterly opposed to NAT, they would have a way for someone to use IPv6 locally and NAT out through a IPV6 -> IPv4 gateway to the IPv4 Internet.
NAT64 is about to be standardized by the IETF, and a number of providers, especially mobile phone companies, have already committed to using it. It doesn't really help ISPs whose customers want to continue using IPv4-only devices, though.
Posted Oct 21, 2010 23:35 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (4 responses)
I'm glad to see the NAT64 proposal, it's long overdue.
the silly thing about all of this is that IPv6 allocated a tiny slice of it's address space to include all the IPv4 addresses. This is a very straightforward mapping of conventional NAT processes, it's too bad that it's taking this long to get approved.
do you know if there is any software implementing this yet?
Posted Oct 22, 2010 0:43 UTC (Fri)
by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2010 0:59 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
bind 9.6-p1 when the current is 9.7.2-p2, fedora 10-12 (14 will be current in a couple of days, at which point 12 hits EOL)
all of this stuff is at least a year old at this point. I would have hoped that this sort of functionality would be getting upstream at this point.
the IETF draft document is set to expire in Jan 2011, so if it's going to become a standard instead of just fading away it's rapidly running out of time.
Posted Oct 22, 2010 1:23 UTC (Fri)
by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
[Link] (1 responses)
The NAT64 draft cleared last call in August and is in the RFC Editor queue waiting on some related drafts to be done before it's published as an RFC.
Posted Oct 22, 2010 5:07 UTC (Fri)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
if something like this were to be added upstream (into linux, BSD, and the two nameserveer packages) you would see this capibility in everything in a relativly short time. It would be trivial to add it to most small routers for example.
If they really are taking the attitude that only large ISPs would care about this and they will buy specialized equipment from Cisco to do this, then they are really missing the boat.
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:03 UTC (Tue)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
... for now.
> 1. bittorrent downloads
+ VoIP, + any present and future peer to peer application (aka: the "real" internet).
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
there are a lot of people who really do want 'outbound-only Internet'. [...] these people would also be happy with IPv6 addresses that got NATed/proxied to IPv4 addresses by the ISP before they hit the 'real' Internet.Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)
> 2. online gaming (although most of this is already tolerant of such networks)
