World IPv6 Day On June 8 133
dkd903 writes "On June 8, 2011, around 300 websites will test the IPv6 readiness of the internet. The participating websites includes Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Bing. In preparation for the day, Google is notifying users to test if they are ready."
0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000 Post! (Score:4, Funny)
Woot!
Re: (Score:2)
$ host -6 slashdot.org
Re: (Score:3)
That forces the DNS resolution itself to only go over IPv6. I think what you want is host -t AAAA slashdot.org.
Re: :: Post! (Score:2)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 339
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.slashdot.org. IN AAAA
;; Query time: 39 msec
;; SERVER: 2607:fe50:0:f201::2#53(2607:fe50:0:f201::2)
;; WHEN: Thu Jun 2 21:02:28 2011
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 34
Kind of ironic,
Re: (Score:2)
Even better:
The site with TFA isn't ready either.
Re: (Score:2)
A month ago I asked Cmdrtaco about when slashdot would get ipv6 support.
He said he had no clue.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be slashdot's fault - my server has run IPv6 is configured to run IPv6, but my current ISP (Qwest, becoming CenturyLink... whee, another "wait and see what everyone else is doing" company, which is why my max DSL speed is one of the lowest in the nation while Comcast offers 40x faster speeds... but eew, Comcast - twice bitten thrice shy).
The second my ISP supports IPv6, my domain will support it - I've had it set up and ready for 4 years (and 10 if you count my previous ISP that supported it) and
Re: (Score:1)
If you want IPv6 before lame, slow ISPs finally get it, try using tunnels through someone like,
http://tunnelbroker.net/ [tunnelbroker.net]
I've been using Hurricane Electric to tunnel IPv6 for years and it works well.
Re: (Score:1)
::1 Post! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't the 0000 all collapse?</quote>
So do contiguous colons. What you mean is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So I haven't done a lot of reading up on The Six yet, but how would the following two ip addresses, in their collapsed form, be distinguishable from each other?
0000:0000:1234:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000
0000:0000:0000:1234:0000:0000:0000:0000
Surely they would both be ::1234:: right?
I get, however, that the above are probably invalid addresses. Does this mean there are a limited number of valid addresses?
Re: (Score:1)
You can only collapse one set of zeros, for precisely that reason. I don't remember if it is in the spec that it has to be the first set or not, as either way is unambiguous.
Re: (Score:1)
0000:0000:1234:: (0:0:1234::)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks guys.
Must get round to learning it at some point. But like others have found, unless they start using it at work, I have no *real* need.
Actually, my ISP is testing it so I may set it up and have a play. Yes. I think I will!
Re: (Score:1)
Where is the Google test? (Score:3)
Re:Where is the Google test? (Score:5, Informative)
Try here. [test-ipv6.com]
Or, for more info on test day, Try here. [test-ipv6.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, it says you're good for connecting to sites that are IPv6 enabled, not that you're good for connecting via IPv6.
A lot of people are concerned that shoddy configuration by ISPs will mean that sites advertising on IPv6 *and* IPv4 will be unreachable by people trying to connect over IPv4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where is the Google test? (Score:5, Informative)
Safari, for example, had a bug until recently that caused page loads to fail if the site has an IPv6 address but the client doesn't have connectivity. In addition, there are a bunch of autoconfigured tunnel technologies that can cause problems. See, for example, APNIC's chief scientist's report on Teredo: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2011-04/teredo.html [potaroo.net]
Re:Where is the Google test? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The IPv4 side has a few too, but it's had a decade for engineers to fix almost all of them.
A decade? Try 3 decades. You 7-digit UIDers are so cute... reminds me of September, 1993.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's one IPv6 Internet. The problem is that sometimes clients THINK they have IPv6 connectivity but they don't. Then you get long timeouts or failures. That's what this test is trying to measure.
Re:Where is the Google test? (Score:4, Informative)
Most clients will fall back to v4 if v6 fails. The problem comes when the v6 connection attempt gets no reply at all (e.g. due to routing problems, firewalls, links that are down but the system doesn't know they are down or some combination), the client will then wait for it to time out before falling back which if the client uses standard OS timeouts can take an excruciatingly long time.
The cause of the packets not getting any reply at all may be local to the client but it could also quite possiblly be in an ISP nework somewhere. Remember the internet (whether v4 or v6) is just a (very large) set of network providers cooperating (through ICANN and the organisations it delegates to) to use non-conflicting addressing and to foward traffic to each other. Even on the better maintained v4 side it's not that unusual for two ISPs to be unable to exchange traffic for a while due to some screwup.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you are using ipv6, then it says the following instead:
"Yes, looks like you’re using IPv6 already.
Welcome to the future of the Internet!"
Welcome indeed! :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
start turning off the IPv4 stuff, because there's no benefit to it.
IP v 4 is 32 bit, and its dotted-quad notation is arguably more human-readable than IP v 6 (128 bit hex). Anything that is NAT'd will remain IP v 4...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just get a tunnel from sixxs.net to get hands on experience in advance. They recently established a point of presence in Prague.
Not very effective (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that 99% of home routers can't handle IPv6, so it won't matter if the ISP supports it. This includes routers that claim to support IPv6 but have critical bugs that prevent it from working properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention Windows XP...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco routers should support it, i have a 1701 and an 1801 both running ipv6 over adsl...
Ofcourse you do need the correct IOS image.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that 99% of home routers can't handle IPv6, so it won't matter if the ISP supports it. This includes routers that claim to support IPv6 but have critical bugs that prevent it from working properly.
Isn't IPv4 a subset of IPv6? So it shouldn't matter if my home router or modem is compatible, if the changeover is done properly. My ISP would do the equivalent of NAT routing with my IPv4 address being part of the IPv6 address the ISP sends out to the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't IPv4 a subset of IPv6? So it shouldn't matter if my home router or modem is compatible, if the changeover is done properly. My ISP would do the equivalent of NAT routing with my IPv4 address being part of the IPv6 address the ISP sends out to the world.
Nope - IPv6 and IPv4 are essentially two similar, but distinct, protocols. This is why the transition is not a trivial thing to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Dan is correct, at layer 2 the 802.3 frames are compatible but at layer 3 the packets are not compatible. Things like switches will generally pass IPv6 traffic with little or no trouble but routers and firewalls will ignore IPv6 traffic unless it support (and is configured for) IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what consumer routers support IPv6
Very roughly speaking, none.
If you want to experiment with IPv6, I strongly recommend that you get yourself a router supported by OpenWRT [openwrt.org] and reflash it. This will also give you the ability to do all sorts of things that consumer routers usually don't do, such as traffic shaping [wikipedia.org], arbitrary subnetting, dynamic routing, or simply basic router functionality with fewer bugs.
--jch
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
AVM FritzBox Fon 7270 with latest firmware 74.04.90 support IPv6 natively even with popular tunnel providers like SiXXS if your ISP does not provides IPv6.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer routers that I know of that support IPv6:
- any mid-high end Billion (one of the most common brands in Asia/Pacific)
- Apple Airport Extreme (not very common admittedly)
- most AVN ones (very common in Europe)
- anything flashable with OpenWRT or DD-WRT (this covers a lot of common North American ones) [not sure if this is native IPv6 or just brokered, but either way...]
Last two routers I've owned have been a Billion 7404VNPX (a few years old but got IPv6 in a firmware update earlier this year) and a A
Re: (Score:2)
The primary point of the test is to determine if any significant number of users will have trouble reaching the sites via IPv4 when the sites return both A and AAAA records. If this can be shown not to be a problem there is no reason for all sites with IPv6 access (there are a lot of them) not to add AAAA records.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. This isn't intended for your mother. This is about ensuring that the entire chain of ISPs, web hosters, etc between you and these well-known sites is IPv6 ready.
The fact is that the "real" internet backbone (the people who provide the connectivity to the people who provide your ISP's connectivity) has been IPv6 for a while now. They are ready. Many others aren't. This will allow everyone to test things. Last IPv6 day a large number of issues were successfully identified and corrected.
Of course, ther
IP Your Lightbulbs! (Score:1)
I got my 1.206 Septillion IPv6 addresses, who's with me?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One step at a time. Before we start turning off IPv4, we need to sort out people on nominally ipv4-only connections that actually fail to connnect to websites that do no more than offer IPv6 in parallel. That's what the google site is testing
Re: (Score:2)
"You do not have issues connecting to IPv6-enabled sites"
Because you don't have IPv6.
Not because of Teredo or similair things as mentioned in other replies.
Re: (Score:2)
Another disadvantage of Teredo is that it's tunneled over UDP (in turn over IPv4), so you have a limit of about 63,500 IPv6 addresses behind a single public IPv4 address. I haven't hit that limit at home yet...
RFC3056, on the other hand, allows 16 bits' worth of IPv6 networks behind a single public IPv4 address. However, it won't work with older consumer-grade firewalls that only pass TCP, UDP and (sometimes, if you're lucky) ICMP.
Neither technology is likely to work behind a corporate firewall t
IPv6 day using IPv4 addresses? (Score:2)
I followed the link for the google test, the host name referenced returns this:
% host ipv6test.google.com
ipv6test.google.com is an alias for ipv6test.l.google.com.
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.103
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.104
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.105
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.106
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.147
ipv6test.l.google.com has address 209.85.225.99
Re: (Score:2)
As I posted above, it's to test that you, as an IPv4 user, can still connect to the site when it's being advertised via IPv4 *and* IPv6, not that you can connect to it via IPv6.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because you're querying for A records and not AAAA.
Use something like nslookup and set the type of query to AAAA.
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: ipv6.l.google.com
Address: 2001:4860:800e::93
Aliases: ipv6.google.com
Re: (Score:2)
Pinging 2001:4860:800e::93 with 32 bytes of data:
PING: transmit failed, error code 1231.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1231.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1231.
PING: transmit failed, error code 1231.
Ping statistics for 2001:4860:800e::93:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss)
I wonder what exactly they are trying to achieve by this experiment. Even if someone asks for AAAA records and gets them, if the path is not configured all the way down to them not much is going to hap
Re: (Score:2)
If you only have v4 you will not be affected by v6
Re: (Score:2)
And a functioning stack being defined as a globally unique address on at least one interface and a route to the intended destination, although some operating systems will prefer v4 over v6 if the only global address an automatic tunnel (6to4 or Toredo).
Yes, I remembered something like that, and I double-checked now and it is true. If IPv4 link works then the tunnel won't be activated.
As I mentioned, I just use some hardcoded IPv6 addresses (2001:db8:290c:1291::4 on this box, to be changed to a routable
Re: (Score:1)
The purpose of the experiment is to see what problems actually appear.
I expect Google know this - they recently implemented happy eyeballs [ietf.org] in Chrome, and I believe similar functionality is also in Safari.
See IPv6 in Google - A Case Study (PDF) [ipv6tf.org] for an idea as to what Google are already measuring, and how.
Re: (Score:1)
> and I believe similar functionality is also in Safari.
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect Google know this - they recently implemented happy eyeballs [ietf.org] in Chrome
FINALLY the powers that be are waking up to the fact that using the standard OS connect timeout as a fallback timeout for interactive applications is a STUPID idea. Their failure to realise this obvious issue years ago has lead to the default advice for weird network slowness in many situations to be "try disabling IPv6"!
Re: (Score:2)
The object of the exercise is to discover the endpoints where failover does not properly occur and get them fixed. [getipv6.info]
If you'd prefer to avoid a nasty surprise on the day, there are ways to test in advance [ripe.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Even if someone asks for AAAA records and gets them, if the path is not configured all the way down to them not much is going to happen.
Yes, this was partly the point of IPv6 day. It's not just large websites who are supposed to get involved. It's everyone. The idea was that everyone had some kind of target date to aim at to get IPv6 capable from vendors of websites to carriers to ISPs rather than just lagging around waiting for everyone else to do it.
Unfortunately, it's not turned out to be quite as planned and a lot of carriers and ISPs haven't bothered and we're still stuck with IPv4 for the forseeable future until we really REALLY run o
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday I followed a few links here and there, but whenever I find an IPv6 router setup [pfsense.org] it ends up being horrendously complicated, with acronyms flying around unchecked. One can understand this only if he already knows it all.
What I need is a simple thing that can be plugged into an existing IPv4 router (taking a routable static IP address or - even better - not doing that.) I want to have IPv6 on the other side of the thing. The box should have an IPv6 firewall, a DHCP server (if required) and perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
You must have a Google-white-listed DNS server. I have an IPv6-enabled workstation and DNS server, however I get no AAAA record back for ipv6.l.google.com.
Your IPv6 is broken, then.
$ dig AAAA ipv6.l.google.com ;; ANSWER SECTION:
[...]
ipv6.l.google.com. 300 IN AAAA 2001:4860:8001::69
Running Unbound [unbound.net] on Debian, no special configuration.
What services will be online? (Score:3)
Will it include just http traffic or every service be 100% IPv6?
Re:What services will be online? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah neat. I looked around, but couldn't actually see what services will be accessible from all the different people. Like yahoo and google for instance.
Re: (Score:1)
Would be neat if the actual Xbox Live clients would connect via IPv6, but as far as I know, the 360 doesn't even have a v6 network stack.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be running IPv6:
etc.
Obviously not all these servers will be open for anyone to have a play with, but there is already a lot of software which is v6 friendly.
Config your routers (Score:2)
Comcast claims to be participating in World IPv6 day, and in response I have added the necessary IPv6 support packages to my router (OpenWRT FTW.) Currently all I get are link-local addresses, so hopefully something real will filter on down on June 8th.
Re: (Score:2)
If you only get link-local addresses, you're not fully set up. You need to either use an RFC3068 [ietf.org] anycast tunneling, or set up an explicit tunnel.
Assuming you go the anycast route (since that's what Comcast being ready for IPv6 would imply), once your router is configured properly your systems should autoconfigure themselves with globally routable IPv6 addresses starting with 2002.
Re: (Score:2)
Participation by ISPs simply means that they'll be ready to answer support questions and handle problems if they show up. It doesn't have anything to do with actually turning on IPv6. This test is more about making sure that sites can advertise both A and AAAA records without breaking things.
Cogent is ruining it (Score:5, Interesting)
Google, Yahoo! and Hurricane Electric, as well as many other sites are all on Cogent's "no peer with you" list. If you're a Cogent customer you should get on the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
What cogent thinks it is accomplishing by refusing to peer IPv6, I don't know. All I can do is guess, and I guess it is so they can use it as a stick to beat other networks with to get better peering agreements.
Re:Cogent is ruining it (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's a matter of Cogent trying to strongarm its position. It wouldn't be the first time Cogent has done this and it certainly won't be the last. Doing a Google search for "peering dispute", and not including Comcast (to exclude the Comcast vs. Level3 dispute since it's newer and ongoing), almost every old entry involves Cogent duking it out with someone. They win customers on price, but things seem to be lopsided enough that they get into a scuffle with a number of the other Tier-1 providers.
Mike from HE spells it out pretty clearly from almost 2 years ago on the NANOG list:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01006.html [merit.edu]
I have no reason to think that their stance has changed any.
My ISP doesn't offer IPv6 (Score:2)
which makes this test totally useless and I'm in the States.
Re: (Score:1)
See my comment later in the post here. You can get a free IPv6 tunnel from http://tunnelbroker.net/ [tunnelbroker.net] if you have a router/firewall capable of establishing a GIF tunnel. pfSense (2.0 with the IPv6 code branch [pfsense.org]), m0n0wall, and DD-WRT [dd-wrt.com] and friends can do this.
Re: (Score:2)
which makes this test totally useless.
No, it doesn't. This test is about seeing what happens when providers add AAAA records. On the 8th, look very carefully for issues with your network, and if you see anything strange, file bugs with your ISP.
Re:My ISP doesn't offer IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)
The test is aimed squarely at you.
What stops the large content providers from serving over IPv6 right now today is a level of brokenness that affects a fraction of a percent of users. These are computers or networks which are nominally IPv4 only, but have some misconfigured IPv6 setup that is actively causing problems connecting to sites. The proportion of users is tiny, but if you're facebook, that's still a lot of users. Wednesday next will expose these problems on a temporary, scheduled basis.
If you run IT support for an organisation, it would be wise to see the results of, say, the RIPE IPv6 eye chart [ripe.net] on your client machines.
Use pfSense + he.net tunnelbroker (Score:1)
I posted a comment much like this in the last IPv6 thread, but here it goes again. :-)
[Disclaimer: I am a pfSense developer, so I'm a bit biased. For those of you who don't know what pfSense is, it's a BSD-based firewall distribution.]
pfSense 2.0 won't officially support IPv6, but there is a branch available that does IPv6 which will later become 2.1. I'm running it on my home router with a GIF tunnel to Hurricane Electric (http://he.net, http://tunnelbroker.net/ [tunnelbroker.net]) to get IPv6 even though my ISPs do not have
Unless Verizon plans to KEEP IPv6 on... (Score:1)
Unless Verizon plans to KEEP IPv6 on, I am not going to bother with this. What is the point of wasting my time setting up and configuring IPv6 access if the next day, all of that work is gone down the drain and no longer functions? I am not going to waste my time with buggy software, a buggy router, and spending the time to debug them, just to use IPv6 for a day. If it stayed on for good for those users who set it up on IPv6 day, I'd have no problem setting it up and debugging it to get it working.
TLDR:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Tell this to the japanese ISPs, most of whom are planning on deploying bind9.7's AAAA-filter (which only returns AAAA records if the recursive dns server gets the query via a v6 connection) for v6-day, which will mitigate most of the interesting breakage scenarios and edge-cases in the name of avoiding customer complaints.
Why on a week day? (Score:2)
I have native IPv6 connectivity at home due to an enlightened ISP.
However, my employer has no interest in IPv6, despite repeated cajoling. I believe this to be common in the workplace. Why spend money until it's a crisis?
This "World IPv6 Day" will be a flop and will set back adoption.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange Omissions (Score:2)
I'm shocked to see goatse and tubgirl are not making the switch.
Slashdot (Score:2)
In related news, Slashdot ("news for nerds") announced a full-scale Unicode and IPv6 test, to be deployed as soon as hell freezes over.
Seriously, the absence of both technologies on this self-proclaimed "nerd" site is shameful at least.
I think I can confidently state.... (Score:2)
The only reason I'm staying with them is because they are the only one that services my area which lets residential subscribers have two dynamic ipv4 addresses, which I'm going to continue to need as long as ipv4 stays relevant.
Good opportunity to test (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Short of 3rd party firmware, there's not much going on in that area yet.
I'm guessing they just want people to buy new routers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Or a cable/DSL[*] modem that doesn't depend on IPv4.
[*]: Of course, DSL bridges should have no problem. But that doesn't help if your provider doesn't provide bridged ethernet.
I run IPv6 on my LAN, but I'd be very surprised if I'll be able to extend it to the Internet without tunnelling before 2016.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite a large number of providers have been enabling IPv6 over the last couple of months[1] - depending on the infrastructure in the DSL network and commercial pressures on your ISP the change may happen surprisingly quickly.
[1] Source: IXP mailing lists
Re: (Score:1)