file
join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
Re: World IPv6 Day Web servers need an IP address... now, you can front many of them with a virtual host aware solution that forwards the traffic accordingly but if your ISP doesn't support that and you have no dedicated IP... you are screwed. The same applies for other protocols. It's *possible* but not feasible. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:That is why IPv4 still has legs. That, and there are still some entities that have /8's assigned to them (that needs to be taken from them by hook or by crook).
It does not and that does not "fix" anything. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to file
said by file:Web servers need an IP address... now, you can front many of them with a virtual host aware solution that forwards the traffic accordingly but if your ISP doesn't support that and you have no dedicated IP... you are screwed. The same applies for other protocols. It's *possible* but not feasible.
A web server needs one IP address (unless you're hosting a secure site), and every major web server software has supported virtual hosts for ages (decades, in the case of Apache?). No ISP support is required, since your ISP is just a dumb pipe.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
file
join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB | But there will come a time where you don't get a publicly routable IP address. None. Zip. Nada. Then you are screwed. That's my point. Being stingy with IPv4 addresses will help delay the inevitable, but it's still going to happen. |
|
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:IPv6 is an abomination which I hope dies a fast death. Nothing inherently wrong with IPv6, it fixes many of IPv4's shortcomings and streamlines a few things. The only inconvenient is longer addresses.
said by Guspaz:Apart from that, all IPv6 gives us is a nightmare of impossible to remember addresses and painfully complex configuration scenarios. No need to remember addresses when you use ARP/DNS.
As far as configuration goes, most of it is the exact same thing as IPv4 and fully automatic from an end-user point of view with devices that have full native support. Only problem there is that many "IPv6-ready" broadband routers are missing IPv6 auto-configuration support. |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:> What does IPV6 do for me, as a customer ?
It allows you to do the exact same thing you already do, so that your children and childrens children will also be able to do it.
said by sm5w2:The reader will note that no answer has yet been given for that question.
I for one like the idea that I can obtain a new IPv4 IP address when ever I desire by software disconnect / reconnect command given to my router. As a residential broadband subscriber, I would not want to ever be handicapped by being assigned a static IP or subnet (regardless if IPv4 or v6).
Explain to me how you are being handicapped by a static IP subnet? Unless you're doing malicious things, there's no handicap of being behind the same ip range each day.
In fact, it would make things easier for you if you want to connect to your home remotely for whatever reason (VPN) etc..
said by sm5w2:And here's a question I've never seen a coherent answer for: When someone with an IPv6 address hits my IPv4 SMTP or HTTP server at $dayjob, what IP address will I see in my server's logs?
You're asking for something that isn't possible, which leads me to believe that you don't know enough about IPv6 to understand the reason why it will eventually be needed. |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Since IPv6 is still dead in the water, IPv4's address space is handling the modern day Internet just fine. The vast majority of devices don't need publicly routable IPs.
One thing I must agree with. Currently IPv4 IS working just fine.
One other thing the world cannot measure, is how much reserve IPv4 space the current ISP's have on hand.
There are a lot of companies out there with legacy space (Cogent, Level3 etc...)
The public will never know what the "actual" utilization of their current blocks are. Obviously some ISP's will be better prepared than others when the crunch happens. But when it will happen isn't proven.
One thing we all forget is that participation in IPv6 starts with the ISP's. If there was a real crunch for IPv4 (right now), you would see them implementing quicker than they are. Especially the ones who are reaching capacity for their stock on IPv4.
As of right now less than 1% of .com websites who have an A record, have an AAAA record. Laughable.
Content needs to be ready before the end users. |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to BliZZardX
It's a catch-22, and it's why IPv6 will probably thankfully never catch on. Providers don't want to bother with IPv6 because end-users can't use it, and there's no demand from end-users because there's no content.
If they had wanted to, they could have FORCED a rapid transition, but they didn't, and it may be too late.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | said by Guspaz:It's a catch-22, and it's why IPv6 will probably thankfully never catch on. Providers don't want to bother with IPv6 because end-users can't use it, and there's no demand from end-users because there's no content.
If they had wanted to, they could have FORCED a rapid transition, but they didn't, and it may be too late.
Too late for what?
You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ? |
|
|
|
| reply to jcmh
said by jcmh:Content needs to be ready before the end users. Content is irrelevant, any content can travel just as easily over IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 does not change anything fundamental there.
The main things IPv6 is missing is full support on CPE, broadband routers and some network edge equipment in the carriers' networks (mostly equipment over 4 years old) is where the real problems are.
Once full IPv6 support becomes available from end to end, most people won't even notice that they have been switched over. |
|
file
join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB | reply to Guspaz
This is like bloody area codes in cities... oh no, we'll never need another area code! We'll always have enough phone numbers. People can just call one direct number and get transferred to an extension if we run out. Oh, wait, nope. Now cities have multiple area codes and your brain had to be reprogrammed to think about 10 digit dialing, as did devices.
Did the content of the call drive that? No. Running out of phone numbers.
(Disclaimer: Yes I realize the migration was not as complex as IPv6, but moving to 10 digit dialing still was a bump in the road for some and didn't matter for others.) |
|
GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to kovy
said by kovy:Too late for what?
You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ? No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice. Users who needed a dedicated IP could pay extra for one, and the 99% of the rest of people who just do normal stuff like surfing, email, netflix, etc. would be just fine behind NAT. For most people, there would be no perceptible difference.
Much like InvalidError says most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to IPv6, most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to NAT.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
file
join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB | I disagree that barely anybody would notice. The way people use the internet is changing, people aren't simply settling for surfing/email/Netflix. Once they see what they can do it changes, and a lot of this is going towards applications that require the ability to get back to your house over the internet.
I'll throw an example out there - the Slingbox. It allows you to watch your TV remotely, but this requires port forwarding. The average consumer, if behind a carrier grade NAT, will hook this up, have it not work, find out they need to pay more for a dedicated IP, get upset with the ISP, and maybe even just return the Slingbox. You just stifled usage of the internet. Way to go.
Carrier grade NAT also places a huge burden on the ISP since you need to have pretty beefy equipment to not introduce much latency for the copious amounts of traffic flowing through it. |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by jcmh:Content needs to be ready before the end users. Content is irrelevant, any content can travel just as easily over IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 does not change anything fundamental there. The main things IPv6 is missing is full support on CPE, broadband routers and some network edge equipment in the carriers' networks (mostly equipment over 4 years old) is where the real problems are. Once full IPv6 support becomes available from end to end, most people won't even notice that they have been switched over. If you can't get what you want over IPv6, then there's no point.
Unless you want to force end users to be dual stacked until the end of time. The migration path should be to eventually end up with only IPv6. No sense doing it if the end result doesn't get rid of one protocol.
As for CPE routers etc... Most of these problems can be fixed with firmware/software updates anyways. It's not like CPE routers are ASIC based anyways.
Linux, Windows and Mac OS X have supported v6 in a stable fashion for years now.
Bell, Rogers & Telus should have IPv6 enabled to end users at this point. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:said by kovy:Too late for what?
You really think were going to have a crysis of IPV4 ? The day that people can't browse because their ISP has no more IP ? No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice. Users who needed a dedicated IP could pay extra for one, and the 99% of the rest of people who just do normal stuff like surfing, email, netflix, etc. would be just fine behind NAT. For most people, there would be no perceptible difference. Much like InvalidError says most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to IPv6, most people wouldn't even notice if they'd been switched to NAT. That's exactly it! |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:No, I know we won't have a crisis, because ISPs like Bell can use private-network IP addresses for end-users and NAT them, and barely anybody would notice.
I don't think you give people enough credit here... Saying no one would notice if they are natted behind a massive private network is a stretch.
Not to mention, the very definition of "internet" would need to be re-written.
A solution like that would only work if people only use their connection to browse the net. There are many applications out there that require a public ip for inbound connections. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by jcmh:I don't think you give people enough credit here... Saying no one would notice if they are natted behind a massive private network is a stretch.
It is a huge stretch. There are more than enough common apps that are fragile in NATed environments from games, VoIP, file transfers in IM networks, BitTorrent, etc. and are dependent on having inbound ports open on one or both ends. In an environment with CGN / LSN and no control over inbound ports that break more than enough applications.
But when CGN / LSN finally comes into play v6 will be there so it won't be an issue. Move from the old shitty road to the new road.
NAT is nothing but a plague and a crutch. It needs to die a quick death. It would also solve a lot of problems too. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:You wouldn't want to do this with hard-line DSL or cable customers (who very well would or could be running applications that require incoming packet routability - a situation that isin't workable if NAT is running on the WAN side)
Except that is exactly what rolling out CGN / LSN is about. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Most web servers don't either.
You can't reach said web servers if they didn't. Nice broken server. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Guspaz
For starter, all the hordes of Torrent downloaders would notice if they were NATted by their ISP. Some online gamers hosting a gaming server would also be pretty annoyed. And who knows what would happen with SIP if your ISP's NAT were broken or sub-par...
IPv6 isn't nearly as bad as it might initially seem. After spending some time getting familiar with it using a Hurricane Electrics tunnel, I am familiar enough with it to actually appreciate what it brings, such as static IP for anyone without having to pay between $5 and $20 to your ISP. Yes, IPs are longer. But DNS and host files have been around forever - just make good use of them.
And, unlike IPv4, security isn't just an afterthought patched on top of it. There is also the matter of higher efficiency. IPv6 brings in better routing management, less wasted space in packet headers, etc... |
|
