Vint Cerf Calls For IPv6 Incentives In UK 164
sweetpea23 writes "Vint Cerf, the 'godfather' of the web and Internet evangelist for Google, has highlighted the need for cash incentives to encourage ISPs and businesses in the UK to move to version six of the IP addressing scheme (IPv6). In response to the UK government's stance that its role in the transition will primarily be advisory, Cerf suggested a system of tax credits for upgrading equipment to v6 capability — similar to the 'cash for clunkers' scheme in the US. 'You'd have to do the math to see what impact it would have, but creating some business incentive might be helpful,' he said. His words echo those of Axel Pawlik, managing director of the RIPE NCC, who warned last month that that the IT industry is adding unnecessary risk and complexity to Internet architectures by ignoring the availability of IPv6 addresses. the Internet authority IANA is expected to assign its last batch of IPv4 addresses in June 2011."
carrot and stick (Score:1)
Re:carrot and stick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IPV6-only torrents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac OS X Leopard will also (it's broken in Snow Leopard unfortunately).
This is misleading. OS X has supported IPv6 since 10.2, but there are some bugs that were introduced with 10.6, to do with DNS resolution (it was ignoring AAAA records if A records were returned for the address more than 125ms faster). With 10.6.5, it now prefers IPv4 to 6to4, which should fix connection problems but effectively disables IPv6 in a lot of cases.
Windows XP also has some IPv6 bugs, related to DHCP6. You can, however, use all of these operating systems with IPv6 in most situations.
Windows XP and DHCP6 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but most XP clients won't need DHCP6.
Address assignment can be handled by RA. Sure, you lack the ability to assign v6 DNS servers, but XP doesn't do v6 DNS anyway.
The one place I do use DHCPv6 is obtaining my /60 prefix from my ISP. You'd need Dibbler for that if you were crazy enough to run XP on your router :)
ISP-supplied modems/routers IPV6 compatible? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then they'll just use IPv4. We're not talking about single-stack IPv6 for now, and not for many years from now as well.
There were several criminally broken models of home routers that blackholed AAAA DNS requests causing long timeouts, but they are basically the only technical obstacle to giving customers native dual stack, at least where the last mile is concerned. And those can get their firmware upgraded.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, no. You can't force a client to use IPv6, just like you can't force them to upgrade from Win98.
This is about a few bastards with broken routers blocking the upgrade for the rest of us. ISPs don't want to add IPv6 support because those few people with broken routers would cause an outcry that "this ISP sucks, their Internet is broken".
To move forward, there is no need to force IPv6 onto everyone -- those routers don't need to be upgraded to support IPv6, merely to not break down in the presence of IPv
Re: (Score:1)
I see your point now and don't agree that issues with AAAA records is one of the reasons things move slowly. If that were the case they'd be seeing problems now - Google, for instance, deal out AAAA records and broken AAAA lookup would hamper requests to them where the client OS thought it should try the IPv6 route.
On the whole migration to IPv6 should be transparent to the end user. The firmware on the (admittedly ISP controlled) router is upgrade to support IPv6, the router than starts to emit and respond
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK, Google doesn't provide AAAA records for most of their services to just anyone: http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
put simply, there aren't any.
Well, thats not strictly true. I know the D-link DIR-625 [dlink.co.uk] supports it (and is advertised as such), but that's the only one I ever found that does. No Netgear device does or Belkin that I found, and they don't even recognise the search term on their web site, just to show how clued up they are on the subject.
Oh, I should say that no online computer shop seems to have one of these for sale. Ho hum.
Re: (Score:1)
Also the DIR-825.
And the DIR-615.
And the Airport Extreme and Time Capsule (no PPPoE with these though).
I don't live in the U.K., but I had no trouble finding any of these for sale in my area.
(There's even a Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org].)
Re: (Score:2)
Linksys' newer routers do IPv6. There isn't a UI for it but if you plug it in it'll work.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
There are no ISPs in the UK that support IPv6, apart from some very specialist and expensive ones.
And even then, they all use the BT backhaul - which doesn't officially support v6. :/
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is 1GB per month enough for anything except a few emails? Here in the real world we use streaming audio and video, download software updates, and buy games on Steam at 10GB a time. Get back to us when that costs less than £100 per month with Andrews & Arnold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I work from home a lot of the time. The rest of the time I work evenings and weekends so as not to disrupt my customers business while working on their computers. I frequently need access to the internet between 9am and 6pm. A&A is useless for me, and I can't be the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to their website, tried very hard to see any prices at all (not a good sign) and eventually found the prices and allowances that I quoted.
I looked in to A&A a few months ago when I changed ISP, and I had the same problem then too. I would love to use an ISP with sensible policies and some actual intelligence about technical users, but hiding prices and giving a 1GB or even 2GB daytime allowance is just completely inadequate.
Re: (Score:2)
That does rather assume the luxury of being able to pay for the best service. I run a year old business and we're not even paying ourselves yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that what is shown when you visit the A&A prices page [aaisp.net.uk] (when you eventually find it) is the 20CN allowances that is available to everyone, not the 21CN ones that only half the country can get. So it's 1GB and 50GB.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all ISPS use the BT backhaul, there are plenty of LLU providers too. As for the BT backhaul supporting v6 - it doesn't need to, all it does is tunnel a PPP session from the DSLAM to the reseller's (isp) server... What you run over that PPP session is irrelevant, you could even run non IP protocols over it. The only lack of v6 support is that BT will only peer with the isp over v4 but that just means the tunnel endpoint needs a v4 address.
As for v6 support, off the top of my head:
goscomb.net
nitrex.net (w
Re: (Score:2)
Farmville and IPV6 (Score:5, Funny)
not customer facing because that's a much bigger job.
Farmville is giving players free virtual cash for anyone connecting over IPV6. That will get users banging on the ears of the ISP companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should simply mandate that anyone providing internet connectivity (ie any isp or telco) MUST provide ipv6, either alongside or instead of ipv4.
If every end user and every site they try to visit is dual stack, a lot of traffic will occur over ipv6 without users even realising it and ipv4 will gradually die out.
Carrots for the users (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Less carrot more stick from the government. Companies get too many benefits as it is.
There's going to be plenty of stick (and other pain) once IANA runs out of IPv4 addresses, and gives the last blocks to the RIRs. If your organization (especially those of medium and large sizes) doesn't have at least a basic test bed for IPv6 connectivity you're going to be in a world of hurt. At the very least a few of your NetOps folks should be playing with IPv6 in their "spare time" to understand how it works.
Just this week I purchased an Apple AirPort Extreme which has IPv6 functionality built-in, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Vinton Gray "Vint" [wikipedia.org] (also, Cerf, not Einstein :-) )
Re:Misspelled name - not broken, don't fix it (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf [wikipedia.org]
Cash Incentives? (Score:2)
new act (Score:1)
to speed up IPv6 adoption we created backwarder tax.
You pay 50 pounds per year for every IPv4 address you use that year.
Payment is by wire order to account 2349564322/3432
Re: (Score:2)
This method would actually have worked if the people who made IPv6 hadn't decided to make the standard backwards incompatible.
As it is, IPv6 must be run in dual-stack mode, which means that even if you've got an IPv6 address, you must also have an IPv4 address. The reason for this is that the people who designed IPv6 are effectively incompetent. They designed a standard yes, but gave no thought to a transition plan.
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, IPv6 must be run in dual-stack mode
That was true a few years ago, but now we have DS-Lite so you can free up those IPv4 addresses.
Re: (Score:2)
This method would actually have worked if the people who made IPv6 hadn't decided to make the standard backwards incompatible.
How would you propose to make IPv6 backwards compatible? How can a device that only understands 32-bit addresses send a packet to a 128-bit address, and what problem would it solve that NAT64 doesn't?
As it is, IPv6 must be run in dual-stack mode, which means that even if you've got an IPv6 address, you must also have an IPv4 address.
T-Mobile disagrees. They're deploying an IPv6-only NAT64 network as we speak:
http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta/web/t-mobiles-technical-architecture [google.com]
Reverse flock mentality (Score:1, Troll)
What we have with IPv6 is a bunch of fat lazy sheep who decide they will get off their butts once they see the rest of the flock someplace else.
Re:Reverse flock mentality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Switching over my office would take a lot of time
Really? Took me about 20 minutes to configure a tunnel to HE.net. Every host on the LAN that supports IPv6 automatically started using it, to the point that Windows machines update their hostnames on the domain controller to resolve via both IPv4 and IPv6. Everything Just Worked without any manual intervention. What sort of monumental problems are you anticipating?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yes, I summarily removed the firewall to expose our hosts to the Internet. (rolls eyes)
Also, dynamic DNS is a standard (maybe even default) setup for Active Directory. I'm not the Windows guy at my office so I can't tell you for certain. I do know, though, that nothing broke when we went live with IPv6. Services that could use it started using it, and everything else kept chugging along with IPv4.
Re: (Score:2)
If IPv6 had not been horribly misconceived in the first place there would be no dual stack and there would be a much less painful transition path. By extending IPv4, not by trying to leave it behind.
It is in fact not too late to go back to IPv4 and extend it. Maybe the time is about right to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
If IPv6 had not been horribly misconceived in the first place there would be no dual stack and there would be a much less painful transition path. By extending IPv4, not by trying to leave it behind.
It is in fact not too late to go back to IPv4 and extend it. Maybe the time is about right to do that.
IPv6 is exactly that: IPv4 with an extended address field.
You do realise that if you change the size of the address field of IPv4, then by definition, it's a whole new protocol, right?
There's no way to add more addresses to IPv4 without breaking compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
IPv6 is exactly that: IPv4 with an extended address field.
Incorrect. An IPv4 packet is not recognized as a valid IPv6 packet, therefore IPv6 is not just extended IPv4. It is a different, incompatible protocol. That was a huge mistake and the resulting epic fail inevitably followed.
Throwing out backward compatibility. Rule number one: just don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The leader in this case being Microsoft. Windows XP only partially supports IPv6 with some test drivers installed. Vista was the first actual IPv6 ready OS from Microsoft so before that there was a big question of: what is the point of going through the trouble of being IPv6 ready when 99% of your customers couldn't use it?
I've seen a lot more action now that Win7's numbers are moving up.
God-father of the web (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if Berners-Lee cringes when he sees Cerf described as "the Godfather of the web" :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, probably he cringes at the confusion between "Web" and "Internet" when people report that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me retro (Score:3, Funny)
I still think they should have solved this in the early '90s by switching to a byte-extensible addressing scheme.
Something like defining x.x.x.1-127 as four byte and x.x.x.128-250.y, y 128 as five byte, and so forth.
y < 128 (Score:2)
Bit by the markup.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Er no, IPv4 headers have space for exactly 4 bytes of destination address information. You might be able to kludge the protocol to allow for a larger address space, but as a kludge it would be inefficient, and encountering extended packets would break the majority of existing IPv4 stacks. The solution was arrived at by some very smart people, and that's IPv6. We won't run out of addresses on IPv6 for a very long time indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
At that point it would be more of a problem actually getting th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual number of addresses is a red herring, since every user will be assigned between 2^64 and 2^80 addresses.
For all practical purposes, IPv6 supports about 64K times as many users, but each user can have an unlimited number of devices.
Re: (Score:2)
68k times assuming everything gets a /48 (2^80 addresses), which is only for now AFAICT so that routing tables don't become ginormous and cause systems to break down and cry.
Also, it will be possible to reclaim space and shove stuff onto smaller subnets as needed, as we won't have legacy blocks, class E, etc. taking up large sections of the address space.
Re: (Score:2)
We won't run out of addresses on IPv6 for a very long time indeed.
Nobody will ever need more than 640k.
Re: (Score:2)
What about those who need 640k + 1? Maybe it's time to look to IPv7.
In all seriousness, I don't know how they're going to deal with people with legacy devices, which may not be upgradable to IPv6 compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah, it would be much better if the military run things, like in Burma.
SLORC apologist bastard.
Oversimplifiying... (Score:5, Interesting)
For one, the protocol defined address specifically as 32-bit. Functions processing IPv4 generally use unsigned integers for the address. Functions to do a variable length address would take longer to process/route. The routing tables would likely be atrocious even if it theoretically could work.
In short, it only does better at backwards compatibility at the extremely superficial aspect of entering addresses textually looking more usual and making a more specific effort for an existing IP to map trivially to a new scheme. Existing IPv4 stacks would have had no easier time trying to talk to 192.168.2.250.2 than fd7e:691a:da42::1. Besides, having the high values magically become reserved on the host portion of existing networks would conflict with existing host addresses in use.
IPv6 can work but has been subject to three major pitfals:
-It looks scarily different. People treating addresses like phone-numbers and not doing DNS in a ubiquitous has exacerbated the problem.
-They completely omitted a strategy for v4-only to v6-only communication until this year. For a long time they didn't want to endorse anything with the letters 'NAT' in them and delayed a sane interop strategy hoping the problem would magically disappear so the 'evil' NAT wouldn't become a pillar of v6. I'm optimistic that the results of this year paves the way for meaningful progress.
-v6 and associated protocol largely chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater on many fronts. v6 for a long time declared DHCP dead, then when DHCP was revived for v4, they threw out the existing behavior and started from scratch, eliminating many option codes and changing client identifier behavior to be hard for existing DHCP admins to deal with. This has in some cases rendered workflows in IPv4 simply impossible and in many more exacerbates the first problem in that a *lot* of relearning and reworking is required to acheive the same results with IPv6 as in IPv4.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
when DHCP was revived for v4
Err, I meant v6.
Re: (Score:1)
My kingdom for a mod point -- parent is the most insightful post I'll see today.
I got a sixxs tunnel account today (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is there different to see or do? Not much.
Of course not; the goal is not to build a new network, but to make sure that the Internet can continue to grow. So what you get over IPv6 is just the current Internet, but with a good chance that it'll be still around in ten years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A dancing turtle [kame.net] is not enough?!?
I dunno, but I think free beer, porn, games and music downloads would make IPV6 a bit more, well, sexy.
Re: (Score:2)
Just do nothing (Score:2)
I'm sick of all the noise about IPv6. ISPs already have monetary incentives to switch to IPv6: If they don't adopt it, eventually they will fall behind their competitors and maybe run out of bussiness. Governments do not need to create a "bussines incentive" giving away even more money for free just to encourage bussiness do what they should be doing with their own money anyway. It's not like these companies are like the financial sector, which can bring down the economy when it fails. The IPv6 bussiness in
Re: (Score:2)
All too often what happens is that businesses either adapt or come into the industry to simply take the money and not deliver the goods. Governments tend to be better at handing out money than they are attaching enforceable conditions to its use.
Obligatory DJB link (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The IPv6 Mess [cr.yp.to].
Seems like a solid critique, but I haven't found any proposed solutions of how it could have been managed more smoothly. Were there any?
Re: (Score:1)
Worth reading
What the... (Score:2)
If you don't switch to ipv6 soon, then your clients will either be disconnected from the internet, or unable to connect to ipv6 compliant websites. Do we NEED any more reason? You're going to piss off customers = loss of profits. Make the damn switch already.
Corn (Score:1)
Great, just what we need. More corn subsidies.
Incentives? (Score:2)
Why do they need incentives?
How about the incentive not to lose their connection to the internet?
Why does everyone 'deserve' something for conforming to a technology standard? Shit or get off the pot.
money for rich (Score:2)
I suspect that the UK has enough of free market so that if the established companies can't provide the service, others will step in. I also suspect that if established companies can't provide the services, it may very well be cheaper to nationalize them, pay for upgrades, and
Industry problem, not society's (Score:2)
Cash for clunkers scheme in the UK was part of a near-global initiative to save the auto industry at a time when it's collapse would have been it's most damaging to the economy and society - during a global economic crisis. The scheme did cost quite a lot of money, but did save industry and jobs that were viable in the long term*. It also helped move people towards greener and more fuel-efficient cars. Furthermore the money was basically going straight to consumers/tax payers.
In TFA no such arguments are g
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the cash for clunkers scheme also meant that there are many thousands of perfectly good cars parked in fields that must legally be scrapped (i.e. they can't be resold). Technology does improve, but fuel-efficiency hasn't improved that much since 1999/2000.
The money wasn't just going straight to taxpayers - the whole point of the scheme was to help the car industry through a severe drop in demand. It basically kept the flow of cash going to (almost wholly foreign-owned) car companies. That said, it pr
Godfather of the web? (Score:2)
Cash for Clunkers? (Score:2)
So are we going to be drilling holes in the old routers to make sure they are never used again?
Here's what's going to happen (Score:2)
first, the government will offer limited money on a limited-time basis for this. the corporations will have the paperwork in months before it occurs. those companies - corporations and telcos, mostly - will use up said funds.
then, the corporations and telcos will 'offer' consumers the opportunity to upgrade 'ahead of the curve' once their own infrastructure is on ipv6. they will, of course, 'pass the cost on to customers'.
the smaller shops - the ones which don't qualify for the government assistance, don't
The thing about IPv6 (Score:2)
The problem is just not with ISP. It is the web at large that is not IPv6 ready and not connecting to the IPv6 network.
Here is a good example.
ping6 -c 4 slashdot.org
unknown host
In this case as so many. The motivator for IPv6 switch over is only going to happen after everything goes to hell IPv4 wise.
Re: (Score:2)
An even better example:
ping6 -c 4 slashdot.org
Bad command or filename.
Stick: no IPv4 addresses to the IPv6 incapable. (Score:2)
That, at least, should get ISPs looking really hard at what isn't IP6 capable at this late a point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Running IPv6 in practice (Score:3, Interesting)
I always had a hard time understanding IPv6 until I read the Running IPv6 in practice [debian-adm...ration.org] howto on Debian-administration and tried it at home. The next move is configuring the office where I work to use such a tunnel, then a friend's colo server, then our hosting environment. It's really not hard. Get over the adressing scheme. IPv6 is much easier to manage than NAT.
Tunnelbroker [tunnelbroker.net] by Hurricane-Electric also does a great job of making IPv6 easy to use and fun to learn (the "certification" games). They also throw in free DNS hosting, and announcing IPv6 addresses using BGP is possible.
Now stop whining and bite the bullet :-)
gak (Score:2)
"Godfather of the web" ? (facepalm)
As for V6... I dunno. There's a non-zero chance something else will pop up and get used, we're in our second decade o this turkey and the only poeple that believe in it are the ones with a vested interest in its success.
If noting else we can use the multicast space. There's a gazillion V4 addresses "reserved by IANA" that are never going to be used for multicast and can be recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I don't sell Internet service, I sell Internet ACCESS via my limited, filtered and propitiatory[*] method; IPv4 and NAT. You can't force people to move to something they do not think they need, that easily.
[*] Specifically, blood sacrifices to propitiate the network daemons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't adoption of IPv6 remove one of the more effective layers of security we have today, the obfuscation layer, being hidden behind the router?"
Please read Local Network Protection for IPv6 [RFC 4864 [ietf.org]].
Re: (Score:1)
Moron. Google is your friend.