NIST Releases Requirements for IPv6-Ready Products Government agencies will have to comply whether they like it or not Tipped by Linklist 
This June marks the deadline for U.S. agencies to make the switch to supporting IPv6. The basic requirement is that agencies must purchase IPv6-ready security and networking products. To assist with that, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published their most recent draft of the proposed standards for IPv6 products. In addition to specifying the required standards of IPv6 technology, this document lays out the rules for how much the new systems will be allowed to inter-operate with current IPv4 systems. For now, government agencies are doing the bare minimum to comply with the new requirements. The next step for NIST is to develop a program which tests how compliant agencies really are with the new standards. Non-government agencies including big companies like Google and Microsoft have also been slow to make the switch. It has been suggested that the flaws of IPv4 may outweigh the costs of making the transition to IPv6.
|
 | | June? of what decade... Cause it sure as hell won't be in the next 3 years. I've been working with the government, and they have ZERO plans in place. The majority of people are out of the loop.
The problem is quite simple. IPV4 just WORKS. With all the Win2k, Win98 and WinXP machines, which don't natively support IPV6.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|  |  ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | Re: June? of what decade... But what happens when we run out of IPv4 addresses and nothing new can be added. While I understand it "just works", a lot of things just work but must be upgraded or replaced.
This is one of them. | |
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: June? of what decade... When we get to the point where we're seriously running out of IPv4 space, then the world's ISPs will push the migration. Guess what, it isn't happening yet...and IPv4 continues to be modded/updated to expand IPv4's lifespan. The "need" of the migration doesn't yet justify the cost. | |
| | | | | For most gov agencies the address space behind their forward facing hardware is enough to satisfy their needs currently and for many years to come on the IPv4 standard. | |
| | |  MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | I think we'll run out of petroleum before we run out of IP4 addresses.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | | | | | Re: June? of what decade... That's funny. Maybe I should sell my IP4 addresses on ebay? | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | All network infrastructure purchased in the last several years (not sure of the actual mandated date), has been required to be IPv6 capable. There were also initiatives within the DoD to migrate a few of their networks to IPv6 by this year. Progress has been made, but I believe it still has quite a way to go. I wouldn't say zero plans, but I would say that the plans that exist continue to slide right as the costs (money, people, time) are fully realized. Also, as you alluded to, IPv4 works sufficiently and there currently isn't a problem with the "IPv4 apocalypse" that the press occasionally highlights.
Wow...I can't believe that I kind of actually agree with one of your posts for once. | |
| |  BenPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL | said by karlmarx:The problem is quite simple. IPV4 just WORKS. With all the Win2k, Win98 and WinXP machines, which don't natively support IPV6. You're right, it does "just work," but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do something about it. There's the old adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, I can see it becoming broken eventually. There's another old adage, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." So, why wait until it's a problem? I don't know when it will become a problem, but I seriously think it will become a problem. Maybe not for the baby boomers, but certainly for Gen-X and Y.
Another thing, is that I seem to remember that XP DOES support IPv6, even if few used it. When I used to use XP I remember it was an extra feature that could be installed, it wasn't standard. However, you're right about Win2K and older. There *might* (but I don't know) if there's a workaround or patch for Win2K, but I'm 99% sure that there's nothing in place for anything older than that.
So, do we just want to keep using NAT, CIDR, and so on ("patch with duct tape")? Or do we want to actually solve the problem, so that short of space travel, we'll have more than enough IP addresses from now until the Earth comes to an end?
Switch to IPv6, and then we can stop worrying about IP addresses, and start worrying about phone numbers and creating four digit area codes.
With IPv4, we already don't have enough IP addresses for every man, woman, and child to have a unique IP. With IPv6, each man, woman, child, cat, dog, and other household pets can have hundreds, and there will still be plenty to go around.
Or better yet, everyone everywhere can start figuring out how to discourage people from having children, and thus reducing the overpopulation problem. Perhaps if we're successful enough, we will have enough IPv4 addresses for each person to have one.
In my mind anyway, the overpopulation problem is big. I don't know what's worse. The fact that the US has over 300 million, or that the world has over 6 billion (which is more than the number of IPv4 addresses)? | |
| | | |
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i can see at the enterprise and government an IP6 changeover but at the consumer level it just wont work because v6 isnt compatable with NAT afaik and most of us use NAT routers so we only have to take it unlubed for cost one IP addy from the ISP.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | IPv6 upgrade I work for a small defense contractor, we have had to have IPv6 compliant equipment and software for the past two years and all future installs will also be IPv6 compliant. There are in fact plans in place by the DOD and they are moving forward and embracing IPv6, but as noted by others the going is slow and rough in some spots. The available number of IP's ran out several years ago actually with the private IP space keeping us going. From the governments prospective the bigger advantage of switching to the IPv6 scheme is the inherent security which is completely lacking in the current v4. We need to make switching over to IPv6 happen as quickly as is economically possible. Those people still running Win9x systems are probably running older hardware to begin with and need to upgrade to newer computers, or install Linux  | |
| | |  MdocEhh... munch munch... what's up, Doc?Premium
join:2007-03-27
Sterling, VA
kudos:1 | Re: IPv6-Ready Products said by deltadude :
In some circles IPv4 is nothing but a major kluge that works poorly or not at all.
That'd be "kludge"  | |
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ | My one question Say the internet does move to IPv6... and it manages to be a smooth transition on the back-end and backbones, etc.
What then if you want to connect to the internet with a device that does not support IPv6?
i.e. say I decide to load up Win2k on a machine that would be too old for XP. Or decide to get online with my Sega Dreamcast (which still works!  ), which certainly haven't received any software to interface with or deal with an IPv6 address.
What then? Is there some kind of translation layer in the spec that would allow these devices to still work?
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
 ·Comcast
| Re: My one question Yes, IPv6 provides for/ requires backward compatability through IPv4 address encapsulation.
Individual users on cable or telco networks won't see any difference (other than maybe a slight (1 ms or less)delay) the process is different but parallels to NAT.
No provider wants to expend resources on a premature changeover, so the federal government setting a deadline will start the process in earnest.
However waiting until 5 months before the deadline to produce a changeover standard, seems foolish, and will likely lead to delays, "approved" equipment shortages. this is all too similar to the DTV mess, years of delays and pushed back deadlines are all too likely. | |
|
| |
|
|
