29 posts in this topic

Posted

Hello,

Saw a thread with a IPv6 issue and Im wondering what are Neowin's plan to implement IPv6 access to the site.

Do we need it? No? Do us geeks want it for no reason? Yes :laugh:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What happened to IPv5 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Weird how another ipv6 issue appear under this thread:

post-512473-0-14920100-1394266206.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What happened to IPv5 ?

It got used for a stream protocol designed for A/V in the late 70s, never caught on but did use up the version number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Do us geeks want it for no reason? Yes"

 

No not really - I personally would consider myself a

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Do us geeks want it for no reason? Yes"

No not really - I personally would consider myself a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ yup, years away still..  Part of the problem is kind of chicken/egg issue..

 

Why have services on IPv6 when no users have IPv6, why enable users to have IPv6 when there are no services only on IPv6 ;)

 

It is going to be a slow process, #### still not even IPv6 on all the root server, and they started back in 2008 when 6 of them went online, but as you can see 5 of them still only IPv4

 

http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root

 

B,C,E and G only IPv4..

 

It is coming, but slowly -- yes if your in networking I would highly suggest you play with it and learn about it.  Just puts you ahead of the curve is all - I personally don't like some of the changes, and idea that everyone should get a /64 seems pretty freaking wasteful to me even if the address space just seems endless.. They thought the same thing with IPv4, and gave universities their own /8 -- wasteful wasteful use.. If they would of been less free with handing out ipv4 space we would have plenty left.. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i agreed budman :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Once it's available to us, we'll probably enable it, but at the moment, it's not, and I currently have no idea of when it will be.

IRC already supports ipv6 though ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My previous ISP (AAISP) supported IPv6, but now I'm on BT Broadband they don't. Though I've heard it is planned to be enabled sometime this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^ yup, years away still..  Part of the problem is kind of chicken/egg issue..

 

Why have services on IPv6 when no users have IPv6, why enable users to have IPv6 when there are no services only on IPv6 ;)

 

It is going to be a slow process, #### still not even IPv6 on all the root server, and they started back in 2008 when 6 of them went online, but as you can see 5 of them still only IPv4

 

http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root

 

B,C,E and G only IPv4..

 

It is coming, but slowly -- yes if your in networking I would highly suggest you play with it and learn about it.  Just puts you ahead of the curve is all - I personally don't like some of the changes, and idea that everyone should get a /64 seems pretty freaking wasteful to me even if the address space just seems endless.. They thought the same thing with IPv4, and gave universities their own /8 -- wasteful wasteful use.. If they would of been less free with handing out ipv4 space we would have plenty left.. 

They are doing the same mistake what they did with IPv4 with IPv6. Giving large swathes of addresses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Do us geeks want it for no reason? Yes"

 

No not really - I personally would consider myself a

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They are doing the same mistake what they did with IPv4 with IPv6. Giving large swathes of addresses

That's because there is no mechanism to give small swathes - as was the initial case with IPv4.

 

However, unlike IPv4, the chances of even coming close to exhausting the swathes they are giving out are zero.

 

How many IP addresses are in a given swath that is given out for an individual today?

 

Such a super-swath is unmanageable, on an individual basis, by ANY software available today, regardless of price.

 

In short, not merely impractical, but flatly impossible.  It is beyond the capabilities of technology either current OR on the drawing board.

 

Further, unlike IPv4, IPv6 is itself expandable and extensible - it has the seeds of further expansion and extension contained within the protocol, and without requiring a complete rewrite.

 

However, we have to run out of room with IPv6 first - which I don't see happening as long as we are limited to just this planet.  (And that is even if you assign an IP address to every person, creature, and object on the planet entire, which is quite impractical.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They are doing the same mistake what they did with IPv4 with IPv6. Giving large swathes of addresses

"IPv6 uses a 128-bit address, allowing 2128, or approximately 3.4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"IPv6 uses a 128-bit address, allowing 2128, or approximately 3.4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Originally ISPs were going to hand out /48 blocks to end users, but people worried about address exhaustion so it was changed to a /56 (That's what I've got, 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 addresses over 256 subnets) even then there's 72,057,594,037,927,936 possible /56s (Give or take, we're currently allocating out of a single IANA block, there's lots of blocks)

Anyway, unless you do static addressing you'll never see less than a /64 as a end user, you need that much for self assigned addresses. And that still gives us a 64bit network portion.

Why would IPv6 go wrong?

 

First off, it's a standard - not merely a Windows standard, but a global standard.  (Windows has supported it out of the box since the famous XP Service Pack 2, and Linux has supported it since the 2.6 kernel series.  Android and iOS have always supported IPv6 - the major driver of IPv6 for a standard was, in fact, mobile devices, and especially in developing nations, not the developed world; the Asian nations were the the first to push IPv6 out on a national basis, with Japan and South Korea leading that push.)

 

Second, the holdup with IPv6 has been embedded devices with non-changeable firmware.  XB360/PS3/XB1/PS4 all support IPv6 explicitly - no idea about Nintendo.  (Still, that does mean the consoles of both the curent-generation and previous-generation are covered.)  Routers - I know of exactly zero consumer or prosumer routers that don't support IPv6 out of the box today.  It may be disabled by default, but the support is there.

...

IPv6 support in XP sucks, it "works" but at a bare minimum. The 360/PS3/PS4 don't do IPv6 either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hello,

"Do us geeks want it for no reason? Yes"

 

No not really - I personally would consider myself a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everyone can have 1 million addresses, and there would be plenty left.

 

That is the thing - they are not giving everyone 1 million, they give everyone a /64 - they even use /64 for connections between routers, like with IPv4 where you would use a /30 or even the special case /31

 

They give you a /64 -- so that is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP addresses..Quite a bit more.. What could I possibly do with that many addresses, and the plan is for me to use that for every network segment.. So for example - I have 3 currently where I have lan, wlan and dmz -- they would all get /64's and business would get a /48.  I can get a /48 right now if I want..  And if I was going to run ipv6 on my segments would I am expected do vs just subnet my /64 I already have which has more than enough IP address for multiple planets ;)

 

A /48 is 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176  IP addresses ;)

 

It's not they are giving them out by the million, they are giving them out by the Quintillion, and you can have a Septillion if you want them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That is the thing - they are not giving everyone 1 million, they give everyone a /64 - they even use /64 for connections between routers, like with IPv4 where you would use a /30 or even the special case /31

 

They give you a /64 -- so that is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP addresses..Quite a bit more.. What could I possibly do with that many addresses, and the plan is for me to use that for every network segment.. So for example - I have 3 currently where I have lan, wlan and dmz -- they would all get /64's and business would get a /48.  I can get a /48 right now if I want..  And if I was going to run ipv6 on my segments would I am expected do vs just subnet my /64 I already have which has more than enough IP address for multiple planets ;)

 

A /48 is 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176  IP addresses ;)

 

It's not they are giving them out by the million, they are giving them out by the Quintillion, and you can have a Septillion if you want them..

And there is no router on the PLANET that can manage that many addresses on a per-IP basis.  None.  (I get a /48 from Comcast HSI - as does every single customer - and the chance of any customer running out of IPs if their router supports DHCPv6 - even if Comcast supplies the router - is exactly none.  I have SEEN the residential routers that Comcast currently supplies - all of them support DHCPv6, by the way, which did not used to be the case - the chance of DHCPv6 exhaustion is zero.  Even CISCO admits that their carrier-grade Catalyst routers are unable to fine-grain manage merely an entire /24 - the original smallest sub-block - let alone the /48 handed out to individuals today.)  You'll run out of bandwidth - in fact you'll run out of ROUTER, even if your router is carrier-grade - before you'll exhaust a /48.  (Cisco has their share of public white papers on their own IPv6 rollout - they make for VERY interesting reading.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You'll run out of bandwidth - in fact you'll run out of ROUTER, even if your router is carrier-grade - before you'll exhaust a /48.  (Cisco has their share of public white papers on their own IPv6 rollout - they make for VERY interesting reading.)

Just to clarify, you are saying you'll run out of memory to keep routing tables in, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ehm, I've been doing almost all of my surfing over IPv6 whenever available for a few months now. While there's no real advantage it's nice to be on the cutting edge of technology.

 

It shouldn't be a lot of work to support IPv6 if your ISP/host has proper support for it, and there are no downsides to it. So then why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

who said anything about a router handling the addresses?  I have read the papers where they say /64 is not wasteful and makes sense, etc.  My point being when they started using ipv4 they thought it would be endless supply as well - hey here is a school that has 25k students with a handful of computers maybe.. Lets give them a /16 ;)

 

Can you name even 1 school that is actually using anywhere close to their /16 they own?  Companies have /8's -- Apple has 17/8, MIT (school with 11K total students) has 18/8.  Ford, ATT, Xerox all have /8's Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it is all I am saying.  And while it might make it easier to use -- how does using a /64 with 18 quintillion address not wasteful for a point to point link ;)

 

Shoot MIT owns 18/8 and they are not even hosting their www.mit.edu site on that space ;)  You want to know why we ran out of ipv4, is because they wasted it..  Now while I don't think anyone alive today will have to worry about running out of ipv6 space..  Its the point that its a finite number no matter how large it is - handing out 18 quintillion addresses per household should of been thought out a bit more ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

who said anything about a router handling the addresses?  I have read the papers where they say /64 is not wasteful and makes sense, etc.  My point being when they started using ipv4 they thought it would be endless supply as well - hey here is a school that has 25k students with a handful of computers maybe.. Lets give them a /16 ;)

 

Can you name even 1 school that is actually using anywhere close to their /16 they own?  Companies have /8's -- Apple has 17/8, MIT (school with 11K total students) has 18/8.  Ford, ATT, Xerox all have /8's Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it is all I am saying.  And while it might make it easier to use -- how does using a /64 with 18 quintillion address not wasteful for a point to point link ;)

 

Shoot MIT owns 18/8 and they are not even hosting their www.mit.edu site on that space ;)  You want to know why we ran out of ipv4, is because they wasted it..  Now while I don't think anyone alive today will have to worry about running out of ipv6 space..  Its the point that its a finite number no matter how large it is - handing out 18 quintillion addresses per household should of been thought out a bit more ;)

Even if you hand out 18 quintillion addresses per allocation, you are only reducing the space to 2^64 which is 18 quintillion addresses in itself (remember, powers are exponential in growth). Or to put it in perspective, wolfram alpha estimates that there are 10^20 grains of sand on the planet or somewhere between 2^66 to 2^67 grains. So the number of addresses is only a few orders of magnitude lower than that even if you hand out 18 quintillion at a time. Or for another analogy, we would have to give each person on earth ~2 billion /64 segments in order to run out (assuming 7 billion people on earth).

 

If I did the math right anyway...

 

EDIT: fixed a typo: 2^20 --> 10^20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And there is no router on the PLANET that can manage that many addresses on a per-IP basis.  None.  (I get a /48 from Comcast HSI - as does every single customer - and the chance of any customer running out of IPs if their router supports DHCPv6 - even if Comcast supplies the router - is exactly none.  I have SEEN the residential routers that Comcast currently supplies - all of them support DHCPv6, by the way, which did not used to be the case - the chance of DHCPv6 exhaustion is zero.  Even CISCO admits that their carrier-grade Catalyst routers are unable to fine-grain manage merely an entire /24 - the original smallest sub-block - let alone the /48 handed out to individuals today.)  You'll run out of bandwidth - in fact you'll run out of ROUTER, even if your router is carrier-grade - before you'll exhaust a /48.  (Cisco has their share of public white papers on their own IPv6 rollout - they make for VERY interesting reading.)

What is "DHCPv6 exhaustion"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I seem to be the very rare case of someone having IPv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.