Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet IT

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet 351

Posted by Zonk from the in-my-day-we-used-version-4-and-we-liked-it dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet More

Little Interest In Next-Gen Internet

Comments Filter:

  • just wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:53AM (#12644881)
    ...untill they run out of addresses

    • Re:just wait... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chibi Merrow ( 226057 )
      Then they'll just rob blocks from people like MIT who have way too many and NAT the rest...

      • Re:just wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 )
        I wanted to hit a colleague not long ago. I mentioned that it seemed that someone on the network had enabled IPv6 on their system, as I noticed some packets that I traced back to an IPv6 stack looking for a DHCP server. He (a network security engineer) said something about this being a threat, and that it was against policy, comments which are normal from him and which I ignore. I commented at the same time that it would be nice if we could begin converting to IPv6, at least on a trial basis for a few sy
    • ...untill they run out of addresses

      They already have.
      --
      Don't Fight Firefox! [bobpaul.org] Let Firefox fight you!

  • There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by ylikone ( 589264 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:54AM (#12644891) Homepage
    just doesn't have the same ring to it.

  • Oh Dear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by taskforce ( 866056 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:54AM (#12644901) Homepage
    "There's an education job to be done," said Rod Murchison, senior director of product management for the Security Products Group

    Translation: "There's a marketing job to be done"

    I thought education was for important things which you need, and marketing was to convince you to use products and services?

  • Need more software and support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by strider44 ( 650833 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:55AM (#12644912)
    The reason why is there's not that much support or software for the protocol. As the summary said they want better security and easier management, but there's not even a good IPv6 firewall up and running, so why would they take it up?

    Wait a while until there's the software backing then you'll see companies using it.
  • What's the problem? IPv6? Qr5as! Just get a bigger, longer, string.

  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Heliologue ( 883808 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:56AM (#12644932)
    Which is why IPv6 isn't going to be in full effect until 2025. They figured that acceptance would be slow. The fact is, at this point, people don't need IPv6. But when the numbers start to run out, they'll be clamoring for it.
    • The sky is falling, The sky is falling.

      When numbers run out???!!!??

      There are over 4 billion ipv4 addresses. How many of those ip addresses are actually used? How many of those ip addresses could be easily NATted?

      I couldn't imagine even 20% (800 million) are being used at any one time.

      how many internet users + how many internet servers + gateways = ???

      • Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Heliologue ( 883808 )
        Substantial portions of that address space is reserved for private network, loopback, etc. You could end up using these addresses, of course, but that would require reengineering every network-capable device that's been built to-date. You don't think that within a decade, there'll be 4 billion mobile phones, each with it's own address? NAT only goes so far.
        • That's part of my point. Why would you NEED your phone on the public internet? To get to web pages? To use IM? To use e-mail?

          Those are all easily done behind a NAT gateway. Putting devices directly onto the internet has it's purposes, but I cannot think of a good reason why a mobile phone would need a public ip address.

          Can you provide a good example of the need to put a mobile phone directly onto the internet?

          (and no, to get to Paris's phone easier is not a good reason)
      • IPv6 = everybody gets their own ip address, walk up to a computer, swipe your worldID card, it switches to your personal ip.

        then again, thats all end times prediction scary kinda stuff, so maybe we should stay with ipv4. ;)

        Cheers.

        • Re:Duh (Score:3, Funny)

          by stephenbooth ( 172227 )

          Last I heard it wasn't so much that every person would have an IP address so much as everything you wear, carry or own would have one. Supposedly the idea is that your socks will be able to email your washing machine to get the microwave to remind you to wash them whilst the fridge will IM your PVR with a list of what's in it so it can identify and record cookery shows that use those ingredients, prioritised by how close to the use by date each ingredient is. Meanwhile the coffee maker will be contacting

        • Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)

          by quantum bit ( 225091 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @02:21PM (#12647440) Journal
          Not picking on you in particular cHiphead, just happened to be a convenient place to post.

          IPv6 = everybody gets their own ip address, walk up to a computer, swipe your worldID card, it switches to your personal ip.

          Except it doesn't work like that. IPv6 uses a hierarchical routing model, much stricter even than IPv4 classful routing.

          The IPv6 address you get assigned (each customer is supposed to get their own /48 subnet, we'll see) comes out of your ISPs pool, which is probably a /32 or something. The really big carriers (i.e. backbone) get /24s, and they allocate smaller subnets to smaller ISPs. The big carriers get their subnets assigned out of a pool, but of the remaining 24 bits, the first 3 specify the address type and the last 8 are reserved. That leaves 13 bits, so there can be a maximum of 8192 "big" carriers (called TLAs).

          Now, unlike the current internet, ONLY TLA's exchange routing information with each other. Every single address withing a TLA's block MUST be routable from one of its peering points. Routing between the TLA blocks may only happen at those top-level points. Small netblocks are no longer portable, so when you change ISPs, you get new addresses. No exceptions -- doesn't matter how many you have. That also means if you want to have a redundant connection for your server (multiple ISPs), it has to have multiple IP addresses too. No more BGP tricks.

          So you can't assign an IPv6 address to a person, as every terminal they use has to have a different address by definition of IPv6.

          The other common misconception is that IPv6 has more addresses (2^128) than particules in the known universe. This isn't really true as the lower 64 bits are not routable. They're usually automatically derived from the 48-bit MAC address, but can be statically assigned if so desired. Even if you did statically assign them, all (2^64)-2 of them would have to be on the same (flat) subnet, which would be one huge honkin LAN.

          So that really only leaves 2^64 routable networks, each of which MAY have a lot of machines but in practice probably won't have more than 100-200 max, and probably averaging much lower than that. If you take into account that the specification calls for each customer to be given their own 48-bit subnet (giving them 16 bits worth to route internally if they so desire), there isn't just a whole lot more room then IPv4 because so much is forced to sit unused. It is considerably more to work with yes, but not astronomically like many people seem to think.

          Ok, sorry for the rant, but just trying to make sure reasonably accurate information gets posted somewhere :)
    • The fact is, at this point, people don't need IPv6

      Well, not in the US at least. NAT boxes and the fact that US sites have already claimed a good deal of the IP space means fewer addresses for the rest of the world. Asian has seen the most widespread adoption. The fear was that countries like China and India are getting online slowly but may require 1 billion addresses between them in the next few decades. Since IPv4 can only handle 4 billion, this would have been a problem.

    • But when the numbers start to run out, they'll be clamoring for it.

      One problem is that the united states has a lot more IPs per population than most of the rest of the world (does anyone have exact numbers for this?), so we'll be one of the last to run out, and therefore one of the last to adopt ipv6, which puts us in a very bad position.

      A similar problem on a smaller scale is that those who own a lot of IPv4 addresses now have a competetive advantage over those who don't, and these are exactly the

  • NAT works... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:57AM (#12644933) Homepage Journal
    NAT is the reason why ipv6 has not really been needed. The idea of having an IP address for everyone on the planet and for his dog too was really not needed.

    Once NAT+Firewalls became popular enough, the requirement for large IP chunks for offices and stuff disappeared.

    No backward compatibility, ugly naming scheme (tell me , who like ::1 ?) and over all lack of a need helped kill IPv6 from becoming too popular.

    • Re:NAT works... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:13AM (#12645133)
      NAT is not good enough.

      Too many things have to work around NAT problems.

      I run a small network and all the users running filesharing programs have problems. I have to give them each a port.

      What happens when more than one of them wants to run server for a protocol which needs a specific port? SMTP?

      Why shouldn't people be able to have full IP connectivity? NAT does not provide that, and UPNP is not enough to fix that.

      • 90/10 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jfengel ( 409917 )
        While there are certainly cases where NAT isn't nearly good enough, for the vast majority of users it IS good enough.

        That's what makes IPv6 acceptance so slow: your ISP isn't going to rebuild its infrastructure so that you can run a SMTP server. Certainly not for the measly (from their POV) $50 a month you and your friends are paying for that line. If you want a static IP, or a few, you can have it, but you'll start paying $150 a month or more for the service.

        Some day, those necessary static IPs will be
    • Aren't we running of IP address for v4 even with NAT?

    • Re:NAT works... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MenTaLguY ( 5483 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:26AM (#12645288) Homepage
      I guess you've never had to merge two large private networks that are behind NAT.

      NAT itself is okay, but using private IP ranges behind it doesn't really work for large organizations, especially large organizations that can (and do) need to merge with other such large organizations.

      I've been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations; it can cause a LOT of pain.
    • I'm just waiting for IPv7...

      Never invest in today's technology, always wait until it's tomorrow.

    • Re:NAT works... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The heck?

      No backward compatibility ::ffff:* is specifically for backwards compatibility with IPv4.

      ugly naming scheme (tell me , who like ::1 ?)

      And 127.0.0.1 is better? Easier to type? Shorter? This is a moot point, this is why ISC gave us bind, from which flows an endless bounty of hostnames.

      the requirement for large IP chunks for offices and stuff disappeared.

      What rock have you been hiding under? Game playing through NAT is nearly impossible. Scratch that... if there is more than one person try

  • Information Technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:59AM (#12644973) Homepage
    Thanks for clarifying what IT meant. I've been lost on this site for YEARS and now I finally know what that acronym means. Life is good.

  • ivp6 is so not cool man (Score:4, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:00AM (#12644981) Homepage Journal
    AOL is the way to go if we want to improve the internets!!!!1

    all the cyber people need to support teh AOL in their awesome efforts to make the internets better for everybody.

    can't believe you peeps havent seen the cool AOL comercials!!!!111
    "want a better internet?"
    "you belong to america online!!!"

  • Doesn't achieve their goals? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nganju ( 821034 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:00AM (#12644991)

    How about providing static IP addresses to DSL and cable modem users, so we can actually use simple DNS (or even just memorized IP addresses) to host things with servers in our living rooms? Seems to me that would be a huge value proposition for any ISP to its customers.
    • Most ISPs don't want their users hosting ANYTHING out of their living-room. That would use up bandwith which is directly linked to the pocketbook of your ISP. What ISPs want is home users paying a regular rate and using a minimal amount of bandwith (e.g. surfing the web, checking email). Not serving up their home movies or getting slashdotted.

      Not to mention that by making dynamic IPs the industry standard, they can treat "static IP" as an extra feature and charge through the nose for it. (Much like text-messaging & ring-tones on cell phones.)

      All of which is to say, ISPs see no profit from giving all their users static IPs. IPv4 is a blessing because it makes static IPs precious. Moving to IPv6 would just cut apart that revenue stream (at least in the short-run, which is all most companies seem to be concerned with).

      -tom

  • India and China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by naveenkumar.s ( 825789 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:01AM (#12645001)
    Developing countries dont have an option other than to move to IPv6 due the apparent shortage of IP numbers. And if that's the way, then the rest have to go for IPv6 because, they say v6 cannot inter-operate with v4.

  • But... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RemovableBait ( 885871 )
    Regardless, what's wrong with IPv4? I've been using it on my network for years and I haven't had any problems or extra requirements. They're gonna have to come up with damn good reasons to switch because, at the moment, it's just not worth the hassle.

    I know i'm not the only one who thinks like this.. all of my colleagues are happy with the v4 system, and the (less high maintenance) users know what i'm talking about when I assign IPs or mention '127.0.0.1'. None of them have a clue about '::1', and it isn't

  • Vested Interest (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Magada ( 741361 )
    And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services. A severely restricted adress space is what they need to continue to do so. This is just an attempt on their part to establish/enforce a perception that IPv6 is not needed/wanted. It may have misfired, though.

    • Re:Vested Interest (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Slashcrap ( 869349 )
      And Juniper Networks is pushing the idea that IPv6 is not on anybody's agenda because sell routers, NAT boxes and associated services.

      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)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:47AM (#12645531)

      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)

      by Joehonkie ( 665142 )
      Yeah, you pretty much misfired. They will still need to sell routers, and probably replace all the old ones. And think of all the money to be made on re-training and re-certification. Increasing the address space doesn't make the routers go away. IPv6 would probably require more memory and processing power if anything. Both Cisco and Juniper are TYRING to push IPv6. So, I think you misread their intentions.

  • Might be a good idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:04AM (#12645030) Homepage
    "If studies like this aren't acted on ... then instead of having a quarter of all the world's ISPs clustered here, around Reston, you'll have a quarter of the world's ISPs clustered around Tokyo or Beijing. I don't know if that's what the U.S. government really wants."

    Hmm... moving AOL to Tokyo or Beijing might not be a bad idea. Would be much more expensive to send out all those CDs to people here...

  • I have a minimal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by macaulay805 ( 823467 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:05AM (#12645047) Homepage Journal
    I have a minimal writeup on my blog here [joeslife.info]. It states where I got my 6to4 tunnel from, how to activate the tunnel (in FreeBSD), and the problem I faced when activating the tunnel! All in all, now my webserver answers requests on ipv6!! Check it out! Its very easy, I suggest all geeks at least try this at home. Later tomorrow, once I'm done testing, I will put an extensive writeup on how to make your home network a functioning IPV6 ONLY network (includes: Windows Boxes, Mac Boxes, Linux Boxes, FreeBSD boxes, and OpenBSD Boxes).
  • If people wanted to jump start IPv6 traffic (at least on Internet2), an offical Bittorrent protocol specification that includes IPv6 would help.

    Bram Cohen has talked on occasion about IPv6 having some advantages for Bittorrent although I can't remember what he said.
  • My problems with adopting IPv6:
    • When I am on the crapper, and my wife asks me "What is the IP address of our FTP server?" (or something), it is a lot easier to respond "one nine two dot one six eight dot one dot two ten" then "three eff eff eee colon eff eff eff eff colon zero one zero zero colon eff one zero one colon zero two ten colon aye four eff eff colon eff eee eee three colon nine five six six"
    • When in Windows, you can't cahnge your IPv6 address like you are familiar with, under network settings
  • I suspect that much of the perceived "insecurity" of the net stems from people's experience with spam, e-mailed viruses, and phishing. Redesigning the protocol to prevent spoofed headers would go a long way to reduce spam (or at least make it easier to filter). We get about 75 spams a day that claim to come from our domain or mail server IP.

    The other major source of the perceived "insecurity" of the net is due to the insecurity of end-user devices (and end-users themselves), but that a harder issue to
    • I agree with you pretty much completely and was discussing with a co-worker the other day that if IPv6 becomes widespread that the situation would likely get worse as IPs would essentially be disposable at that point. (Many spammers already treat them as such now.)

      As for your problem with receiving mail claiming to come from your own domain, my answer to that is reject it. All of the email servers that I'm responsible for respond with a 5xx error whenever a computer connects and uses a hostname or ip addre

  • IPv6 experiences since 2000 (Score:5, Funny)

    by puzzled ( 12525 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:10AM (#12645104) Journal

    I first implemented IPv6 on a Cisco 7120 with a single FreeBSD 4.0 box as a host behind it - this would have been some time in late 2000. The IPv6 link came from Viagenie and this lasted a few months before I got bored with it.

    I tried again last year with a couple of cable modem attached Cisco 17xx and some tunnels from Hurricane Electric. I was at a point where I wanted to do a lot more with IPv6 to get ready for my CCIE exam. HE was relentlessly useless in getting me more than what their tunnel broker system provided so I gave up again.

    I tried later last year with BTexact's tunnel broker service and some other routers. Made it run, then started moving offices and lost interest.

    I'm at it again - BTexact because they've got the best tunnel broker web interface and they'll give multiple tunnels, Cisco 28xx here, Cisco 17xx at a playful customer's site, and one FreeBSD 5.4 host. My CCIE gets closer and closer so this time its gotta go - web server, DNS, going to put up six total tunnels, then press for a block larger than the default /64 that comes with each tunnel.

    Looking at IPv6 from the outside it would appear that someone collected a bunch of people who got kicked out of IETF for mental instability, a number of disgruntled Novell employees who believed that IPX was a gift from an advanced space alien culture, and locked them all in a junior high gymnasium with a goodly supply of blotter acid and two boxes of twinkies. Its the only explanation we have for the results we see today ...

  • Few articles actually address IPv6 benefits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @11:11AM (#12645111) Homepage
    The biggest problem is probably lack of awareness, just like in many other situations.

    Few articles actually address real IPv6 benefits and instead pull out strawmen about a purported shortage of IP addresses. That's got to be the least significant and least relevant change between IPv4 and IPv6. Maybe that's all the 'journalists' can get their teeny minds around, or maybe it's mandated spin because certain key advertising accounts *cough*MS*cough* aren't looking to be IPv6 compliant any time soon.

    Some of the main advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 are:

    • quality of service
    • simplified headers
    • multicasting
    • security (that's certainly buzzword compliant, why is it never brought up?)
    • autoconfiguration
    • improved routing
    • authentication
    Japan and China are already rolling out IPv6 networks. Since the article specifically points out the U.S., maybe it's time that U.S. businesses start getting technical news from sources other than their MS account representative.
    • Some of the main advantages of IPv6 over IPv4 are:
      • quality of service
      • simplified headers
      • multicasting
      • security (that's certainly buzzword compliant, why is it never brought up?)
      • autoconfiguration
      • improved routing
      • authentication

      Of these, only "simplified headers" really applies to IPv6 over IPv4. (Although I confess to not knowing what "improved routing" refers to.) Yes, there is QoS for IPv4, and multicasting for IPv4, and IPSEC for IPv4, and Zeroconf, etc.

      The real advantage of IPv

  • I could set up my servers to do IPv6, but I don't have sufficient motivation to do so. It takes time and energy to get this set up, and I don't see any return for doing so. This is because the network effect [wikipedia.org] is not yet strong enough. Someone has to work on getting IPv6 to "Cross the Chasm" [wikipedia.org] or to "the Tipping Point" [wikipedia.org].
  • The last time I checked with my ISP (telus), they weren't supporting IPV6. This means that I need to tunnel to the nearest IP6 gateway -- so much for improved speed.

    Once most ISPs are IPV6 native, there'll be a lot more reason for people to play with it -- if only because it'll then be a lot easier. (Hey, I'm lazy. I expect that others are too). I had tunnelling working for a while but it broke and I haven't gotten around to getting it working again.

  • I could never figure out what was so wrong with the OSI NSAP addressing that required IP6 instead. Other than NIH that is. Anyway...

  • Most users use a firewall to do NAT at the moment., they thus get some level of protection.

    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 P

  • Please note: (Score:2, Informative)

    by CrazySailor ( 20688 )
    Juniper has a horse in the race, selling network devices.

    There's currently an IPv6 conference [coalitionsummit.com] at which they're appearing as well. The conference ends today (2005-May-26).

    There's a Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] article [washingtonpost.com] on the summit.

    I'm posting from the summit, where they have a IPv6 802.11 network up for visitors use.
  • I guess the US (having most of the IPv4 addresses in existence) will only start upgrading when US companies need IPv6 to use all the cool gadgets and technologies developed in China, Japan, South East Asia, India and Europe.

    Of course they will have missed the innovation boat (and profits) by then and will be users rather than providers of new technologies.
  • Hey guys, how about you get a clue?

    Try IPV8! its a hell of a lot better!

    its backward compatible with IPv4 - not necessary to change all the internet hardware or BS

    and it has a LOT more addresses than Ipv6 ever will.

    Dont like it? then try IPV16 !!!

    sheesh you guys are behind the times... really!
  • How do I get IPv6 address blocks officially assigned to me/my company?
  • p2p would be SOOOOO much easier with IPv6 because there is no need for NAT, but since there is so much resistance to p2p it can't be used as an impetus to move to IPv6.

    Hopefully, VoIP and VCoIP will catch fire and providers will realize that its much easier to provide these services without every user using NAT.
  • D. J. Bernstein has a really nice page [cr.yp.to] that explains why the current IPv6 transition plans are a joke. It's worth a read if you're interested in IPv6.

  • IPv4 subset of IPv6 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by augustz ( 18082 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @12:58PM (#12646516)
    Given the quantity of addresses available for IPv6, I'm unsure as to why IPv4 couldn't / wasn't made a subset of IPv6?

    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)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @01:22PM (#12646801) Homepage
    But is like USB adoption, Microsoft won't do it until 'Apple's done it'.

    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?

  • Lost in the debate (Score:3, Informative)

    by rockhome ( 97505 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @01:48PM (#12647093) Journal
    I posted about this a couple of years ago I think.

    Everyone keeps talkign about NAT and its problems and support for apps and services. The real reason that IPv6 isn't being adopted is because core backbone providers aren't forcing it. No one has made a real commitment to IPv6, so it is not used at the enterprise level.

    If you start with service providers, I don't believe that there is a lot of IPv6 even at that level. This is only really my conjecture, but as a consultant in the network management space, I don't hear customers begging for products that support IPv6. And until the backbone providers , and the IETF, decide that IPv6 must go forward, NAT is going to work for most people, and not much will change.

    IPv6 is going to be a tough row to hoe, it will necessitate a lot of updates to libraries and software before it can be fully supported. A lot of companies spend a lot of money every year to monitor and manage their business systems with IPv4 based applications, and aren't going to risks the expense until IPv6 is necessary and vendors fully support it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close