IPv6 - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on IPv6 - TCP-IP ; 5-6 years ago there was lots of talk about that IPv6 would replace V4 soon, but looking at it now I still dont see many changes. Anybody know if V6 is still being planned to take over the world or ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: IPv6

  1. IPv6

    5-6 years ago there was lots of talk about that IPv6 would replace V4 soon,
    but looking at it now I still dont see many changes. Anybody know if V6 is
    still being planned to take over the world or whats the deal? Are there
    papers I can read about this?



  2. Re: IPv6

    "Serve Lau" wrote:
    > 5-6 years ago there was lots of talk about that IPv6 would replace V4
    > soon, but looking at it now I still dont see many changes. Anybody
    > know if V6 is still being planned to take over the world or whats the
    > deal? Are there papers I can read about this?


    I don't know about taking over the world, but the U.S. Office of Management
    has mandated that federal network backbones be transitioned to IPv6
    capability by June of 2008. Here's the directive:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memora...005/m05-22.pdf

    And here's a FAQ put out by the OMB that answers some of the questions
    raised by the directive:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/d.../IPv6_FAQs.pdf

  3. Re: IPv6

    Jim Logajan wrote:

    > I don't know about taking over the world, but the U.S. Office of
    > Management has mandated that federal network backbones be
    > transitioned to IPv6 capability by June of 2008. Here's the
    > directive:


    > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memora...005/m05-22.pdf


    > And here's a FAQ put out by the OMB that answers some of the
    > questions raised by the directive:


    > http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/d.../IPv6_FAQs.pdf


    Not that I don't want to see IPv6 adopted (well, perhaps more that I
    want to see NAT go away...) but I feel compelled to point-out that OSI
    used to be "mandated" by various arms of the U.S. Gov't...

    rick jones
    --
    The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
    The real question is "Can it be patched?"
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  4. Re: IPv6

    In article ,
    Rick Jones wrote:

    >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/d.../IPv6_FAQs.pdf

    >
    >Not that I don't want to see IPv6 adopted (well, perhaps more that I
    >want to see NAT go away...) but I feel compelled to point-out that OSI
    >used to be "mandated" by various arms of the U.S. Gov't...


    If one reads that FAQ, one sees more and bigger loopholes than in GOSIP.
    For example, it appears that the requirement is that things be
    "IPv6-capable" but not necessarily "IPv6-enabled." It's getting hard
    to find things that are not "IPv6-capable" at least as far as checklists
    are concerned.

    What is the definition of IPv6-capable for the Federal government?

    What is the definition of IPv6-capable for the Federal government?
    When discussing Federal government transition to IPv6, there are
    two uses of the term IPv6-capable. The first refers to the high
    level requirement to make agency network backbones IPv6-capable.
    This means that the network backbone is capable of successfully
    passing IPv6 data traffic, and supporting IPv6 addresses. This term
    does not imply the backbone is actually doing so, but rather it is
    capable of doing so. The term IPv6-enabled is the term used to more
    accurately describe a network backbone that is not only capable of
    supporting IPv6, but is actually turned on implying IPv6 traffic
    is actually successfully passing through the network. The terms
    IPv6 compliant and using IPv6 used in OMB Memorandum 05-22 are
    synonymous with IPv6-capable.

    The second use of IPv6-capable refers to the technical specifications
    of an IT product or device, such as a router, switch, firewall, or
    computer operating system. This is critical to ensure interoperability
    between products and networks. At the current time, there is not a
    unified Federal government technical specification for IPv6-capable.


    Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com

  5. Re: IPv6

    "Serve Lau" wrote in message
    news:f97m0j$fc1$1@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
    > 5-6 years ago there was lots of talk about that IPv6 would replace V4
    > soon, but looking at it now I still dont see many changes. Anybody know if
    > V6 is still being planned to take over the world or whats the deal? Are
    > there papers I can read about this?


    All you need to know is, go to your local area connection properties, enable
    IPv6 and disable IPv4. then bring up a web browser and see if you can
    browse the internet. If you can't, then disable IPv6 and enable IPv4. As
    far as I know, IPv6 is a fantasy proposal that will never see the light of
    day so there's no point in even thinking about it.


  6. Re: IPv6

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:33:09 +0200, Serve Lau wrote:

    > 5-6 years ago there was lots of talk about that IPv6 would replace V4
    > soon, but looking at it now I still dont see many changes. Anybody know
    > if V6 is still being planned to take over the world or whats the deal?
    > Are there papers I can read about this?


    There is a lot of IPv6 traffic nowadays. I receive much mail over IPv6
    f.i. So the theory that it can coexists with IPv4 is correct.

    However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and that
    situation is not likely to improve in the near future.

    So I have enough IPAs to give every nail[1] in my house an unique IP
    address, bummer that almost no one can reach them.

    M4

    [1] I used to say "to every atom in my house" until I started
    calculating. Alas... Maybe IPv10.

  7. Re: IPv6

    Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    > However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and that
    > situation is not likely to improve in the near future.


    What's driving IPv6 these days is cell phones. With 6-1/2 billion people
    in the world, converging on an approximate ratio of one cell phone per
    person (two if you're a teenage girl), and people wanting to do exciting
    things like play World of Warcraft and download porn on those phones, we're
    going to need more addresses.

  8. Re: IPv6

    On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:01:49 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

    > Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    >> However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and
    >> that situation is not likely to improve in the near future.

    >
    > What's driving IPv6 these days is cell phones. With 6-1/2 billion
    > people in the world, converging on an approximate ratio of one cell
    > phone per person (two if you're a teenage girl), and people wanting to
    > do exciting things like play World of Warcraft and download porn on
    > those phones, we're going to need more addresses.


    I hope you're right, but as most, almost all, backbones are not IPv6
    ready there is little you can do with your brand new shiny IPv6 address
    today.

    In fact, my first IP enabled phone got both an IPv4 and IPv6 address.
    Subsequently, support for IPv6 has been dropped by my provider.

    M4

  9. Re: IPv6

    In article ,
    Martijn Lievaart wrote:

    > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:01:49 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
    >
    > > Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    > >> However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and
    > >> that situation is not likely to improve in the near future.

    > >
    > > What's driving IPv6 these days is cell phones. With 6-1/2 billion
    > > people in the world, converging on an approximate ratio of one cell
    > > phone per person (two if you're a teenage girl), and people wanting to
    > > do exciting things like play World of Warcraft and download porn on
    > > those phones, we're going to need more addresses.

    >
    > I hope you're right, but as most, almost all, backbones are not IPv6
    > ready there is little you can do with your brand new shiny IPv6 address
    > today.


    The other interesting development is that Microsoft (for better or worse)
    decided to make IPv6 native in Vista. I'm hardly a MS fan, but one way or
    another, getting v6-enabled boxes onto the desktops of millions of
    corporate drones and consumers can only help adoption of the technology.
    When it starts showing up in the X-boxen and Wiis of the world, that will
    seal the deal.

    At some point, India and China will build out broadband networks for their
    populations. Developing countries over the past decade or two have
    leapfrogged over landlines and gone straight to cellular when they started
    building voice networks. Now, as they get into data, they're surely going
    to leapfrog over IPv4 in the same way. I wouldn't be surprised if the day
    when you can walk into a Starbucks in Nairobi and pick up an IPv6 address
    will be here before you can do the same thing in New York. See, for
    example, https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/li...fripv6-discuss

    One of the things inhibiting v6 in the US and Europe is the existing v4
    infrastructure which is mostly good enough for most current uses. Core
    network hardware (i.e. routers) has a useful lifetime of something like 10
    years. Nobody (whether ISPs or corporate IT departments) is buying
    anything today which isn't IPv6 capable. It's just a matter of time before
    lack of capable infrastructure falls away as an excuse not to move.

  10. Re: IPv6

    On Aug 6, 9:01 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
    > Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    > > However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and that
    > > situation is not likely to improve in the near future.

    >
    > What's driving IPv6 these days is cell phones. With 6-1/2 billion people
    > in the world, converging on an approximate ratio of one cell phone per
    > person (two if you're a teenage girl), and people wanting to do exciting
    > things like play World of Warcraft and download porn on those phones, we're
    > going to need more addresses.


    That's true...but...I think what you mean is...

    "Eventually, a protocol that allows more layer-3 addresses will
    supplant IPv4".

    That does not necessarily mean that the new protocol will be IPv6.

    If you have been following network research for past few years, the
    cat is finally out of the bag: there are active efforts to make
    something newer, better than IPv6.

    These are "clean-slate" projects, to emphasize disregard for backward
    compatibility with IPv4 or IPv6. Extremely exciting if you ask me.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-


  11. Re: IPv6


    "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
    news:1186538349.272367.246210@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Aug 6, 9:01 pm, Roy Smith wrote:
    >> Martijn Lievaart wrote:
    >> > However, there is no incentive for businesses to switch to IPv6, and
    >> > that
    >> > situation is not likely to improve in the near future.

    >>
    >> What's driving IPv6 these days is cell phones. With 6-1/2 billion people
    >> in the world, converging on an approximate ratio of one cell phone per
    >> person (two if you're a teenage girl), and people wanting to do exciting
    >> things like play World of Warcraft and download porn on those phones,
    >> we're
    >> going to need more addresses.

    >
    > That's true...but...I think what you mean is...
    >
    > "Eventually, a protocol that allows more layer-3 addresses will
    > supplant IPv4".
    >
    > That does not necessarily mean that the new protocol will be IPv6.
    >
    > If you have been following network research for past few years, the
    > cat is finally out of the bag: there are active efforts to make
    > something newer, better than IPv6.
    >
    > These are "clean-slate" projects, to emphasize disregard for backward
    > compatibility with IPv4 or IPv6. Extremely exciting if you ask me.


    Do you have a web link to some info? I'm curious as to what the "better"
    features are.

    John


  12. Re: IPv6

    "JohnQ" wrote:
    > Do you have a web link to some info? I'm curious as to what the
    > "better" features are.


    More header fields to screw up, no doubt. ;-)

  13. Re: IPv6

    "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:

    > These are "clean-slate" projects, to emphasize disregard for backward
    > compatibility with IPv4 or IPv6. Extremely exciting if you ask me.


    I would say that IPv6 is about as "clean slate" as can be, with very
    little "backward compatibility" to IPv4. And my thinking is that this is
    what is keeping it from becoming adopted very quickly.

    Think about it. IPv6 has been around already about half as long as IPv4
    has. Seems incredible. It might have been easier to more simply modify
    IPv4 to use NSAP addresses?

    Bert


  14. Re: IPv6

    On Aug 8, 8:49 am, "Albert Manfredi"
    wrote:
    > "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote:
    >
    > > These are "clean-slate" projects, to emphasize disregard for backward
    > > compatibility with IPv4 or IPv6. Extremely exciting if you ask me.

    >
    > I would say that IPv6 is about as "clean slate" as can be, with very
    > little "backward compatibility" to IPv4. And my thinking is that this is
    > what is keeping it from becoming adopted very quickly.


    IPv6 is not clean-slate, IMO.

    If you grep for the words "backward compatible", in the IPv6 docs, you
    will find many hits. Some authors made it at their objective to
    change the sockets interface as little as possible, for example. I
    have heard anyone ask the question, "What if sockets is broken too?" I
    did read a lot of commentary that, "We should maintain backward-
    compatibility with sockets because it is everywhere."

    IPv6 has not been accepted because failed to meet a minimum standard
    of virtue. It is easy to blame the installed base as being
    intransigent and not willing to deploy because it would be cost-
    prohibited. By that is, IMO, extremely unfair to the thousands of
    people and organizations around the world, including ISP's, who get
    really excited at the talk of a new protocol.

    > Think about it. IPv6 has been around already about half as long as IPv4
    > has. Seems incredible. It might have been easier to more simply modify
    > IPv4 to use NSAP addresses?


    People know what they like and what they do not like. They do not
    like IPv6 as a replacement for IPv4.

    But they do like CD-ROM's better than floppy disks and cassette tapes.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-





  15. Re: IPv6

    On Aug 7, 10:01 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
    > "JohnQ" wrote:
    > > Do you have a web link to some info? I'm curious as to what the
    > > "better" features are.


    The big one is http://www.geni.net/, which is going to get at least
    $300 million from U.S. National Science Foudation (NSF). Another is
    http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/ You can expect over the next few years
    for every major computer science research lab in the world to start
    their pet "Redo The Internet" project, or join GENI. It will be very
    much in vogue.

    A person on Wall Street reading article in New York Times about GENI
    might think that the NSF is providing $300 million so that GENI can
    "fix" TCP/IP. This is not exactly true. The GENI people have
    shrewdly promoted themselves in a way that does not obligate them to
    actually fix TCP/IP. What they are claiming is that GENI will be a
    vehicle for researchers to test *THEIR* fixes of TCP/IP.

    It would be a bit like spending $300 million on a laboratory so that
    biotech researchers can find a a cure for cancer, but not actually
    providing a cure themselves.

    One might ask then, what is the $300 million for if they are not going
    to fix TCP/IP. As it turns out, they plan to use it to create some
    kind of (not-yet-completely-defined) massive virtual network so that
    different researchers can try out their "protocols" on the network.
    So they have decided that this massive virtual machine is necessary
    without addresses the problem of protocol design.

    If you suggest to them that they might, instead, simply do what was
    done with TCP/IP, write software for computers with Ethernet adapters
    in it, try it out, iterate until you have something that people will
    actually want, then demonstrate it by tunneling over UDP over long
    distances, and using Gigabit Ethernet for the local clusters, the
    response is, "That's not good enough."

    > More header fields to screw up, no doubt. ;-)


    My gut feeling is that a the the header file of a packet of Future
    Protocol need not be complex at all, and certainly not as complex as
    IPv6.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-



  16. Re: IPv6

    Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
    > My gut feeling is that a the the header file of a packet of Future
    > Protocol need not be complex at all, and certainly not as complex as
    > IPv6.


    The IPv6 header per se is, IMHO, not that complicated. (Fragmentation and
    other extension header processing on the other hand....) Which IPv6 header
    fields do you think add needless complication that could be eliminated? The
    current list is:

    Version (4 bit constant set at "6")
    Traffic Class (8 bits)
    Flow Label (20 bits)
    Payload Length (16 bits)
    Next Header (8 bits)
    Hop Limit (8 bits)
    Source Address (128 bits)
    Destination Address (128 bits)

    In most cases other context can indicate the packet is of a particular
    protocol, so one could probably dispense with the Version field. And for a
    trivially simple protocol one could dispense with Traffic Class and Flow
    Labels. But I can't imagine any easy way of removing any of the other
    fields. One could argue over their bit lengths, but they all seem to serve
    vital purposes.

    For example, I suppose the Hop Limit could be removed too _if_ the protocol
    required the routers to remember packet IDs for some period of time T and
    drop a packet if it sees a packet attempt to transit the router a second
    time in the last T seconds. But then one needs to add a packet ID field (or
    start examining the data portion of the packet). And the storage
    requirements for IDs would seem to be huge for fast links.

  17. Re: IPv6

    Jim Logajan wrote:
    > In most cases other context can indicate the packet is of a
    > particular protocol, so one could probably dispense with the Version
    > field.


    You would probably want to use a "new" ethertype/sap/whatnot then
    rather than reuse the one for IP.

    rick jones
    --
    oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  18. Re: IPv6

    Rick Jones wrote:
    > Jim Logajan wrote:
    >> In most cases other context can indicate the packet is of a
    >> particular protocol, so one could probably dispense with the Version
    >> field.

    >
    > You would probably want to use a "new" ethertype/sap/whatnot then
    > rather than reuse the one for IP.


    Well, if one sees a Ethernet DIX frame (the most common implementation)
    then if the Ethertype field value is 0x0800 then the frame should contain
    an IPv4 datagram and if the Ethernet type field is 0x86DD the frame should
    contain an IPv6 datagram. So at least in this case the Version field is
    redundant.

    Besides, I was careful to avoid saying the IP version could be deduced by
    context in all cases. :-)

  19. Re: IPv6


    "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
    news:1187366577.767020.222970@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
    > On Aug 7, 10:01 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
    >> "JohnQ" wrote:
    >> > Do you have a web link to some info? I'm curious as to what the
    >> > "better" features are.

    >
    > The big one is http://www.geni.net/, which is going to get at least
    > $300 million from U.S. National Science Foudation (NSF). Another is
    > http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/ You can expect over the next few years
    > for every major computer science research lab in the world to start
    > their pet "Redo The Internet" project, or join GENI. It will be very
    > much in vogue.


    From the FAQ at geni.net:

    "When will GENI be ready?
    Current plans call for a few years of work by the project office to develop
    detailed engineering plans and costs, after which, if NSF approves the
    funding, GENI will be built."

    Quite a ways out there before anything even begins, IF it begins.
    Furthernore, it's just a research platform. So maybe a decade or two from
    now, there may be some trickle down and into mainstream if they discover
    anything. ("Hey! Like super glue from the space program!").

    > A person on Wall Street reading article in New York Times about GENI
    > might think that the NSF is providing $300 million so that GENI can
    > "fix" TCP/IP. This is not exactly true. The GENI people have
    > shrewdly promoted themselves in a way that does not obligate them to
    > actually fix TCP/IP. What they are claiming is that GENI will be a
    > vehicle for researchers to test *THEIR* fixes of TCP/IP.
    >
    > It would be a bit like spending $300 million on a laboratory so that
    > biotech researchers can find a a cure for cancer, but not actually
    > providing a cure themselves.


    Not just "like", it's exactly that.

    >
    > One might ask then, what is the $300 million for if they are not going
    > to fix TCP/IP. As it turns out, they plan to use it to create some
    > kind of (not-yet-completely-defined) massive virtual network so that
    > different researchers can try out their "protocols" on the network.
    > So they have decided that this massive virtual machine is necessary
    > without addresses the problem of protocol design.


    It really sounds less than exciting (dreary). Sounds like a playground for
    engineers just NASA. With so many problems in the world, it's hard to fathom
    giving enginerds $300 million to play.

    John


  20. Re: IPv6


    "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
    news:1187365862.389982.290760@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...

    > People know what they like and what they do not like. They do not
    > like IPv6 as a replacement for IPv4.


    Well from what you posted previously, it would seem that anything else is
    more than a decade away, if ever.

    John


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast