IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Posted Jan 6, 2016 5:44 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica) by bojan
Parent article: IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
How did this happen? Were they magiced away by a unicorn?
> The same way they are now.
Can't do this. Current routers use IPv4 prefixes for routing, they can't cope with full IPv7 addresses. You need to upgrade all of the core routers and route distribution protocols to do it.
> Just because one part of the address space may have a slightly different routing approach, doesn't mean things cannot work. If fact, with two separate networks (IPv4/IPv6), that is exactly what happens now.
I'm saying that DJB's approach would lead to exactly the same outcome in the end.
Posted Jan 6, 2016 5:55 UTC (Wed)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (4 responses)
> Can't do this. Current routers use IPv4 prefixes for routing, they can't cope with full IPv7 addresses. You need to upgrade all of the core routers and route distribution protocols to do it.
I am 100% certain now you are just pulling my chain here, so I'll just laugh. :-)
Upgrade. Mentioned. 13. Years. Ago. Known. Even. Before. That. Time. ;-)
> I'm saying that DJB's approach would lead to exactly the same outcome in the end.
Nope. Remember that ping I tried? It would actually work. And I'd have to do diddly-squat. For me and everyone else out there on the internet. The one and _only_ internet. Not that second one...
Posted Jan 6, 2016 6:08 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
And if you invoke "just upgrade hardware" then keep in mind, that this router literally costs millions.
THAT'S what had been keeping IPv6 rollout for so long.
> Nope. Remember that ping I tried? It would actually work.
Posted Jan 6, 2016 6:16 UTC (Wed)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (2 responses)
> THAT'S what had been keeping IPv6 rollout for so long.
And your point is? Once you actually upgraded that router to do this new addressing thing, it's not very useful still, because all of the other admins now have to configure _another_ network (i.e. the new IPv6) to make it useful. Otherwise, it's just expensive hardware.
With IPv6 upgrade (instead of a separate network), once you complete the upgrade, everything is reachable. Not just IPv6 island.
Nobody ever said that the alternative plan wouldn't require cost, effort etc. Just that it would be more _useful_ immediately. And it's quite simple - because there would be just _one_ network.
> And it already does this on Windows. Next question.
Not true, if you don't have IPv6 configured. So, please don't treat false as true. Just because Windows programmers decided to know how to parse IPv6 addresses within their ping, doesn't mean the packets aren't travelling to an entirely different network.
Posted Jan 6, 2016 6:28 UTC (Wed)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
> 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef to 192.5.6.30: The client sends a UDP packet to the .com DNS server asking for the address of www.google.com. The client software, intermediate computers, and server software have all been upgraded to handle the client's extended address.
So until the client software, intermediate computers, and server software and hardware have all been upgraded to handle IPv7 addresses, these upgrades will be useless.
> Not true, if you don't have IPv6 configured.
> Just because Windows programmers decided to know how to parse IPv6 addresses within their ping, doesn't mean the packets aren't travelling to an entirely different network.
But... My home router was last upgraded in 2007 and doesn't support IPv7. What would happen in this case?
Posted Jan 6, 2016 8:30 UTC (Wed)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
> Yes. And it's going to be the same with the hypothetical IPv7.
Nope, it won't. Even after you complete the upgrade of the backbone to IPv6 in the current scenario, it will still be largely useless, as I pointed out numerous times (there is a difference between creating/maintaining multiple parallel configurations and patching, as you well know).
And there is no IPv7. You are just confusing future Google searches.
> Since you hold the DJB's document in such high regard, allow me to cite the Scripture:
Oh, please. It's just a little document filled with common sense, by a guy who happen to be in the trenches when all this was going on. He was the guy with the hand in the air, saying not to take that path. Nobody listened. So, we ended up with 10% after 20 years. That's all.
> > 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef to 192.5.6.30: The client sends a UDP packet to the .com DNS server asking for the address of www.google.com. The client software, intermediate computers, and server software have all been upgraded to handle the client's extended address.
> So until the client software, intermediate computers, and server software and hardware have all been upgraded to handle IPv7 addresses, these upgrades will be useless.
Correct (minus the silly reference to v7, of course). Which is miles better than double useless (i.e. futher configuration required).
> So humor me this, suppose I have an IPv7 capable host with all the newest software written by DJB. I type: "ping 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef".
> But... My home router was last upgraded in 2007 and doesn't support IPv7. What would happen in this case?
The same thing that would happen if I connected my Nokia 101 to current 3G network. Wouldn't work. Nothing strange with having obsolete technology. I still have floppy disks at home, but no drive to use them. OK, I don't, but I could. :-)
I don't think why is it so hard to understand that this whole "hand in the air" thing happened many, many years ago. Another poster down below correctly pointed out that DJB's text was already too late anyway. I agree with that. People within IPv6 should have thought of all this in 1996. But, at least he tried to point out the mistake in an honest way. If they listened to him in 2001 or 2002, maybe another path could have been taken. Maybe.
It's way too late to do anything now...
Posted Jan 6, 2016 5:59 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (4 responses)
Maybe a spherical cow :-). In the real world we still have to support IPv4-only devices for the foreseeable future, so any device which speaks a new protocol will have to flawlessly speak the old one as well. You might be able to have a new protocol device talk to an old protocol one through translation but that just moves the complexity around, its not any less complex than just continuing to run the old protocol, which maintains full compatibility and fidelity.
Posted Jan 6, 2016 6:02 UTC (Wed)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
Do you also still support SSLv3?
Posted Jan 6, 2016 17:01 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 7, 2016 1:02 UTC (Thu)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 7, 2016 16:51 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Our phone system is powered from the exchange, not the home, power supply. So we have a fixed-line phone plugged into the wall (plus all our cordless, true). But that way, if we have a power outage, we still have a phone line.
Somebody tried to nick a 50KV power line near here a few years ago, and a large area was without power for about a week. Cordless phones died instantly without power to the base station. How long does a typical mobile battery last nowadays? With all these smartphone functions I can flatten mine in a day (and if the local mast dies it'll flatten itself transmitting at full power trying to find a mast!).
Okay, we were about 100yards outside the power fail area, but if we'd lost power our phone would probably still have worked because the local exchange would have had an emergency generator.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 8, 2016 0:04 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
> How did this happen? Were they magiced away by a unicorn?
You asked the wrong question. Are there any IPv7-only hosts in DJB's proposal. Because if there are, they won't be able to communicate with IPv4 hosts until the entire network is upgraded, and if there aren't then IPv7 doesn't solve the problem which is there are more computers than addresses - oh and stuff this nonsense about "only servers need IPv4 addresses" - the whole point of the internet is that any computer is BOTH client AND server.
Cheers,
Posted Jan 8, 2016 0:21 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jan 8, 2016 13:25 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
The reason I asked is all these people saying IPv6 are a failure, are also saying that IPv7 solves the problem of computers not being able to connect. So as soon as you have IPv7 hosts without an IPv4, how are they supposed to talk to legacy hosts with an IPv4 but no IPv7 :-)
Oh - with new infrastructure - let's call it IPv6 :-)
Cheers,
Posted Jan 8, 2016 14:11 UTC (Fri)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
IP address space size transition is a problem of the "what is the length of the shore" type. There are no proposed solutions that, once you work out ALL of the kinks, are simpler than the current v4-v6 transition.
That, added to the fact that the v4-v6 transition is already ongoing (with great penetration in some countries), should discourage the creation of new fantastic schemes.
Posted Jan 8, 2016 0:49 UTC (Fri)
by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
[Link]
Yes they will, because NAT. NAT was always going to be have to be part of the transition. It may be horrible but the horror scales with size so you can make an economic decision when to suffer (or force your customers to suffer) with NAT, and when to transition to a more modern solution.
If many servers became IPv7 capable before many clients became IPv7 only, the pain of the NAT would be limited.
> the whole point of the internet is that any computer is BOTH client AND server.
"can be" rather than "is". An IPv7-only computer cannot be a server for an IPv4-only client. So that too becomes an economic question, "do I get an (expensive) IPv4 so every client can reach me" and "do I update to IPv7 so I can reach every server". If you don't have to make that decision until most computers support both it is genuine decision.
I really wish "The Internet" could have started charging $1 per year per IPv4 address, and 1c per year per IPv6 /64 (with a slow ramp-up for old customers and bulk discounts for ISPs). That would have raised funds to build out the core infrastructure, and would have moved people to IPv6 really quickly.
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
I guess you REALLY have no clue. Let me ask you this: how an IPv4 core router that switches many 100GB of traffic can be made to understand full IPv7 addresses with just a software upgrade?
And it already does this on Windows. Next question.
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Yes. And it's going to be the same with the hypothetical IPv7. Since you hold the DJB's document in such high regard, allow me to cite the Scripture:
True. It will report that there's no route to the host, which is a perfectly valid answer.
So humor me this, suppose I have an IPv7 capable host with all the newest software written by DJB. I type: "ping 0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef".
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
> How did this happen? Were they magiced away by a unicorn?
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Wol
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Wol
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Yes, there are. There's not enough IPv4 addresses for all hosts.
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
Wol
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)
IPv6 celebrates its 20th birthday by reaching 10 percent deployment (Ars Technica)