Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| Hardware
So far I didn't see any customer priced IPv6 hardware, so it can be implemented at local level. That's the first stop, then it would eventually evolve into internet.
I would like to have IPv6, but so far I didn't see any routers that would offer IPv6/4 and tunneling.
--
Semper Fi |
|
sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Tomek  :So far I didn't see any customer priced IPv6 hardware, so it can be implemented at local level. That's the first stop, then it would eventually evolve into internet. I would like to have IPv6, but so far I didn't see any routers that would offer IPv6/4 and tunneling. If you're technically-minded, you can make a router:
»www.pcengines.ch/
Throw on *BSD and you're ready to talk native v6 or tunnel all you want. |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ | reply to Tomek
u can also do ip v6 with talisman on a wrt54g/gs router |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to sporkme
said by sporkme :said by Tomek :So far I didn't see any customer priced IPv6 hardware, so it can be implemented at local level. That's the first stop, then it would eventually evolve into internet. I would like to have IPv6, but so far I didn't see any routers that would offer IPv6/4 and tunneling. If you're technically-minded, you can make a router: » www.pcengines.ch/Throw on *BSD and you're ready to talk native v6 or tunnel all you want. Why go that far by a wrtg52 or what ever from link sys use earthlinks firmware to flash it and get your ipv6 automaticaly from earthlink. Or change a few settings in the gui and get it from another provider. If it can already do it most outher routers out there that were made in last year or so can as well. Infact even my measly befsr41 lets me connect to ipv6 via tunnel.
I think somethign people are forgetting essentialy a router is nothing more than 2 or more network cards some extra chips (cpu etc) and software called firmware. All current network cards will accept a ipv6 address with out any isues. So that means all routers can as well
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to the niTz
said by the niTz :u can also do ip v6 with talisman on a wrt54g/gs router Ahh thanks for that i forgot the name of the paticular router.
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com |
|
the niTz
Premium
join:2004-07-05
Sahuarita, AZ | ur welcome |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Tomek
Its not really the hardware that's the problem, so much as the software...
With a little bit of work, vendors could make consumer routers IPv6 compatible. Its just a matter of building that into the router firmware.
--
Its back... From the dead.
Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. -CM Burns |
|
Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
1 edit | reply to Tomek
Not to mention backbone hardware
from my understanding ip v6 requires 64 bit routing (even though they have 128 bit addresses).
meaning that every check in the routing table on a 32 bit router will require several cycles to determine matches meaning that you have more than doubled the required processing power for your hardware...
Now if the us backbones weren't so overloaded i would see why a software solution would work... but geez... i don't like having a 32 bit processor crunching hundreds of thousands 64 bit "and/or" operations every second.
i don't know how it works exactly but i hope there are already specifications for only needing the first 32 bits for routing so that old hardware doesn't get strained by this new size. |
|
IPv4 sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to Tomek
Re: Hardware
WinXP/2003 supports IPv6 natively now, and with XP SP2 / 2003 SP1, supports IPv6 with the built-in firewall now too!
There's no reason for the US not to switch to IPv6, really... it's kind of like the imperial / metric system. The rest of the world switched to metric, the US thumbed their noses up at the rest of the world and said "Ha! You want to see us change? Make us change! Nyah-nyah." Well, basically that's how it went. So it will with IPv4, sadly. How else will the gov't be able to control the free communication of US'ians, with the rest of the world, unless we hang on to an older and eventually incompatible internet addressing scheme?
Plus, given the increasing scarcity of IPv4 addresses - US ISPs can simply charge users more for them. If they switched to IPv6, they would lose a "valuable revenue opportunity". Essentially, the dictates of corporate fidiciary duty forces them to remain with "legacy" technology. Sad, isn't it? This is a prime example of capitalism pushing AGAINST societal progress, and why the gov't had to take the lead in creating the IPv4-based internet in the first place, and why they again will have to take the lead in pushing for IPv6 adoption, because left to their own devices, corporations would have us all using tin-cans and string, along with lobbying for laws making it illegal for customers to buy their own string, except from corporate-authorized providers, of course at significant markup. |
|
IPv4 sucks
@verizon.net
| reply to Samwoo
Re: Not to mention backbone hardware
said by Samwoo":
Not to mention backbone hardware
from my understanding ip v6 requires 64 bit routing (even though they have 128 bit addresses).
meaning that every check in the routing table on a 32 bit router will require several cycles to determine matches meaning that you have more than doubled the required processing power for your hardware...
Now if the us backbones weren't so overloaded i would see why a software solution would work... but geez... i don't like having a 32 bit processor crunching hundreds of thousands 64 bit "and/or" operations every second.
i don't know how it works exactly but i hope there are already specifications for only needing the first 32 bits for routing so that old hardware doesn't get strained by this new size.
Sorry, but you are sadly mistaken in nearly all of your technical assumptions. First off, the "US IPv6 backbone", is hardly "overloaded", considered the low rate of adoption of IPv6 in the US which is the focus of this article.
Second, your "32-bit" desktop x86-based processor (and nearly all modern non-x86 ones as well), are quite capable of processing 128-bit chunks of data. That's what SSE/SSE2/SSE3 is all about, and likewise PPC's AltiVec core.
You are right that the network operators would have to upgrade their hardware. It's not so much that such hardware isn't capable of being built, but rather, that network device infrastructure companies, like Cisco and Foundry, charge so much for those devices. So it would be a large expense for a major backbone operator to upgrade their "carrier-grade" router to support IPv6, since they are probably still paying the depreciation on their existing IPv4 routers. But that shouldn't be as much of an issue, really, since IPv4 and IPv6 can co-exist side-by-side, for quite some time.
Most of those "carrier-grade" routers, use dedicated hardware ASICs anyways, so it's not even an issue, they can easily be re-designed to cope with IPv6 directly in hardware, without any significant additional runtime costs as might be true in a purely software routing implementation. |
|
