Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet 351
Ant wrote in to mention a Computerworld article that is reporting on the slow acceptance of the IPv6 version of the internet. From the article: "Information Technology (IT) decision-makers, in U.S. businesses and government agencies, want better Internet security and easier network management. However, few see the next-generation Internet Protocol called IPv6 as helping them achieve their goals, according to a survey released Tuesday by Juniper Networks Inc."
Need more software and support (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait a while until there's the software backing then you'll see companies using it.
Re:just wait... (Score:2, Interesting)
What does ipv6 get you? (Score:1, Interesting)
That's right, upgrading your network and spending lots of time/money gets your organization nothing. Sure ipv4 space is limited, but what's wrong with a little conservation.
I would bet most of the ip space is used for dialup users, where 1 dialup user = 1 ip address. Why not just NAT those dialup users? If you need a static ip address, do a 1:1 NAT or something. There's absolutely no reason a dialup user should have a public ip address.
People that use the internet for e-mail/web browsing could care less about their ip address.
Gaming on dialup hasn't really ever worked and is painful at best.
Running a web server on a dialup connect? probably not.
How many people still use dialup?
Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a minimal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Give me an easy upgrade path (Score:3, Interesting)
I can access any ipv4 address or ipv6 address without any problems.
but I guess that doesn't count as an "easy way...to try it out"
There is also the "network effect" to consider (Score:3, Interesting)
IPV6 --prepare for your toaster spamming people (Score:2, Interesting)
Take that away, have loads of IPV6 addresses and un-informed consumers, and your setting yourself up for your uC driven toaster, oven, refrigerator, entertainment center etc spamming people.
It just gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies -- does anyone else remember the feeling of walking into a PeeCee site that was 'internet connected'back in the 90's and asking what they were doing and finding out every un-patched PC had a distinct IP on the internet?
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that Juniper sell IPv6 compliant kit and would love to sell more of it.
I know for a fact that they sell VPN kit - NAT & IPSEC go together like oil and water. Yes, I know it does work but it's still a pain in the ass and I say this as someone that has to do it for a living.
Remember kids, implementing IPSEC NAT-Traversal makes the baby Jesus cry.
Re:Vested Interest (Score:5, Interesting)
And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services.
I hope you are joking. Juniper would love to sell upgrades of their router's to all of their current customers to facilitate the jump to IPv6, but as they said, customers are just not very interested. I work for a company that sells network security devices and I can tell you IPv6 has been on the agenda for a long time, but most of the IPv6 support just keeps getting pushed back further and further, because no one really wants it from us. The only reason to include it is because some of the asian market is starting to ask for it. The U.S. as a rule is uninterested.
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)
One big question... (Score:1, Interesting)
Built in IPSEC, etc. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's got built in equivalent of IPSEC. That alone would go a long way in improving most computing environments.
"Improved routing" refers to, among other things, route aggregation which reduces the size of routing tables which is helped by the simplified header which reduce router processing loads.
Someone with more networking knowledge can clarify why the IPv6 functions are much better than the IPv4 ones, where they may appear to overlap.
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think Juniper is pushing an anti-IPv6 agenda here - who do you think is providing a lot of the IPv6 routing infrastructure in DoD and Asia? They've got entire groups that do nothing but deal with IPv6. IPv4 vs. IPv6 in the Juniper world doesn't make that huge of a difference. They sell the same hardware either way.
IPv4 subset of IPv6 (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now we've got a catch-22 it seems. Why would I offer an IPv6 ONLY service, if that means a ton of my users will be locked out? As long as I offer an IPv4 service, why would my users switch? They can just use IPv4 up the stack.
If IPv4 address were subsets of IPv6, couldn't an IPv4 users request an IPv4 address. Once it hits their ISP, check routing and prefix if possible with IPv6 prefix. This could happen anywhere along the line, including just the last hop. My server can just run an IPv6 stack, and know that the rest of the internet, IPv4 and 6, can reach it.
Instead, we've got a "fresh start" approach, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
Or am I missing something obvious here? It sure looks to me at this point that running an IPv6 only server is a bit complicated unless you set up a broker or something else manually.
It won't happen until Microsoft MAKES 'em. (Score:3, Interesting)
Guess what? Apple's already done it, (with Airport Extreme and Express, with eight octet groups right on the hardware,) but they're not making a big deal out of it because Apple's customers are not tech savvy enough to know what the fuss is about anyway.
All Apple need to do is start making a noise and Microsoft will once again play 'catch up.'
I'm running IPv6 on my friggin LAN and the WAN is only running IPv4. Go figure?
Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)