ie8 fix
madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

The Upside of Moving to IPv6

By | October 5, 2010, 12:32pm PDT

Summary: I get it. No one wants to change their fundamental network infrastructure, but there are reasons for switching to IPv6 besides simple necessity.

OK, you know your business will need to move to IPv6 for its Internet connection real soon now, but are there any reasons other than sheer necessity to make the move? As it happens there are.

First, let’s get the basics out of the way. What are the differences between IPv6 and IPv4? IPv4, with its 32-bit addressing, has all of the 4.3 billion unique addresses. That sounds like a lot until you start considering that you might have an iPad in your brief-case, a computer in front of you, and a PC in front of you, all of which may have a unique Internet Protocol (IP) address. With IPv6’s 128 bits worth of possible addresses, that’s 2 to the 128th power, until our dogs and cats are also carrying around a baker’s dozen of Internet connected devices, we should be safe from running out of IPv6 addresses.

IPv6 addresses are made up of eight groups of four hexadecimal numbers. So, for example, 2010:1003:0000:0000:0000:0000:0433:56cf would be a legal, albeit eye-watering address. Luckily for network administrators, they’ll seldom, if ever, need to manually assign IPv6 addresses.

One of IPv6’s design goals was to cut down on the time technicians had to spend configuring and managing network devices. IPv6 networks can use stateless auto-configuration to assign addresses without manual intervention. In stateless IPv6 addressing, your network equipment automatically assigns unique IP addresses. In short, you’ll no longer need to worry about setting up IP addresses. Your hardware will do it for you.

Of course, you can use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) to do that on IPv4-based business LANs today. But, with DHCP you can only assign unique addresses within your own network. DHCP and NAT (Network Address Translation) gets in the way when you try to use Internet applications like videoconferencing, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications, and the like. As a user you usually don’t see these problems, unless your application fails. But trust me, anyone who programs for the Internet loathes having to jump through hoops to get their applications to work through NAT. With IPv6, though, every device on every network has a unique, universal Internet IP address, and both developers and network administrators will no longer have to waste time getting network applications to work around NAT.

Another advantage of IPv6 addressing is that when you’re moving from place to place with your mobile device, you’ll no longer need to worry with getting a new Internet address at every stop. With Mobile IPv6, whether your smartphone or table is connected to the Internet with Wi-Fi or WiMAX, your device should retain the same address. If the wireless infrastructure around you is up to snuff, mobile IPv6 will let you seamlessly move from one form of wireless connectivity to another without losing your connection or needing to pick up a new IP address.

Another IPv6 plus is that Internet Protocol security (IPSec) is baked-in. IPSec is a popular framework of open standards for protecting communications over TCP/IP networks. Typically, it’s used in virtual private networks (VPNs) through the use of cryptographic security services. IPSec also supports network-level peer authentication, data origin authentication, data integrity, and encryption. The net result should be to make all Internet traffic safer, since IPv6 can secure and authenticate communications at the network layer, instead of the higher levels of the stack such as Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS).

IPv6 should also speed up networks. The header of an IPv6 packet has a fixed length; little-used IPv4 fields — Header Length (IHL), Identification, Flags, Fragment Offset, Header Checksum, and Padding — have been tossed out; and the network packet itself has been designed not to fragment. The net result is that IPv6 switches and routers throw and catch IPv6 network traffic at higher speeds than their IPv4 brothers. In practice, this means that, for example, your IPv6 10Gigabit Ethernet switch should be able to send and receive traffic at 99% of the device’s top wire speed.

That speed increase is boosted by another specific kind of performance boost for real-time video and communications. IPv6 comes with built-in support for multicast–the transmission of a single datagram to multiple receivers. Or, as Internet architect Dave Clark described multicast: “You put packets in at one end, and the network conspires to deliver them to anyone who asks for them.”

Yes, IPv4 has some multicast capabilities, but these are optional and not universally supported. With IPv6, multicast is part of the package. This will make transmitting video over the Internet, which is becoming ever more popular, a lot easier for video content providers.

So, is this going to be enough to make CIO, CTOs, and networking administrators eager to switch to IPv6? Nah! It will still cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. On the other hand, there really are some advantages to switching to IPv6 besides just being able to deal with a world that no longer has freely available IPv4 addresses. In particular, as we keep moving to an ever more mobile work world with video playing a larger role, I expect we’ll learn to appreciate IPv6’s faster speeds and built-in support for users on the go.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

38
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

You got that right...
Jeff Dickey Updated - 8th Oct 2010
@GrimmReaperSound Here in Second World Singapore, the network is so flaky you'd think it was a trainload of breakfast cereal. There are Showcase Projects like fibre-to-the-home being put in... but the routers and such they hand out are all IPv4-only as far as I've ever seen. I can confidently predict that we'll get proper IPv6 support within a decade or six after North Korea rolls out nationwide FTTH... unless the powers-that-be find a way to make even more money from the conversion, of course.
0 Votes
+ -
Older gear support is the problem
GrimmReaperSound 5th Oct 2010
It's not going to be about the willingness to move to ipv6, It's going to be about the problems of getting years or decades old gear to move over. There is a lot of old gear still in use that won't support ipv6, the money, headaches and downtime are going to be the prime holdbacks.
0 Votes
+ -
You got that right...
Jeff Dickey Updated - 8th Oct 2010
@GrimmReaperSound Here in Second World Singapore, the network is so flaky you'd think it was a trainload of breakfast cereal. There are Showcase Projects like fibre-to-the-home being put in... but the routers and such they hand out are all IPv4-only as far as I've ever seen. I can confidently predict that we'll get proper IPv6 support within a decade or six after North Korea rolls out nationwide FTTH... unless the powers-that-be find a way to make even more money from the conversion, of course.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
jorjitop 5th Oct 2010
With every individual and/or device having a fixed IP address, it will be much easier to identify people. This could lead to privacy issues. Google will have a field day.
(although I can imagine quite a few people and entities that would)

If I'm going to have IPv6 running on my private network, then I'm going to want an IPv6 router or proxy that allows me to determine what is allowed to talk to whom outside the private network. Sounds like more work; not less. What we will end up with is a situation like that which plagued wifi for years, where everything was shipped default "open", and it was up to a technically sophisticated end user to secure it all. No thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
fairportfan 6th Oct 2010
@JohnMcGrew@... Your phone has a discrete number.

Worried about that?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
trejrco_z 6th Oct 2010
Having a stateful firewall on your network is no different for IPv6 than for IPv4 ... same idea, same benefits, same drawbacks.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
JohnMcGrew@... 6th Oct 2010
@fairportfan@... No, I'm not. My phone isn't particularly hackable and since I'm staring at it dozens of times a day, it's probably the most closely monitored digital device that I own.
0 Votes
+ -
@JohnMcGrew@...
0 Votes
+ -
@JohnMcGrew@... This is just what I was thinking. The whole benefit of the current system is that things on your LAN, are only on your LAN unless you decide otherwise. If everything has its own open IP address, then what replaces the protection offered by a router? I.e. the shield between your devices and the rest of the world.

I would much prefer the idea of IPv6 for internet facing connections (routers, modems etc...), but IPv4 for LAN connections, behind the shield so to speak.
0 Votes
+ -
@mwagner@...
JohnMcGrew@... 7th Oct 2010
...I think the post above answers that. Sooner or later our public IP addresses will be IPv6, but most local networks will remain IPv4, mainly because few will be in any rush to replace the dozens, hundreds, or thousands of perfectly functional devices that are running just fine locally as they are.
0 Votes
+ -
Where's the beef?
dogbreath1 Updated - 5th Oct 2010
Where are the devices for home and SMBs that support IPv6 as you describe and that are affordable?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
sjvn@... 6th Oct 2010
@dogbreath1 My friend, you have hit upon a sore point. There's not much out there that's IPv6 compatible for home or SOHO users. Now, home users won't be hit by this for a while, but a new small business may very well _need_ a good, cheap IPv6 switch for their Internet connection, and there's not much out there. Yet. I'll be writing about this soon. I'll add that a lot of the lower-end IPv6 compatible stuff that is out there already isn't really that compatible. More on that soon.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm such a NetAdmin, and as much as I'd like to move to IPv6, it looks like a major headache.

With IPv4 and home-based NAT, if a client was downloading child snuff pr0n, and the police called me up, I might not know the exact machine they should look for, but I'd know which house it was at. So either we perform IPv6 NAT, which we're trying to avoid, or we need some way for every computer that sits behind every IPv6 home router/modem of being uniquely identified on the network, not only to the computer, but to it's physical location. How might we do this?

Well, we might decide to use the least significant 48-bits for the host's MAC address as the 48 LSB of the IPv6 address. Now we know the computer, but we still don't know in which home that computer is located. So we'll program the client's router/modem to use IPv6 DHCP, make the 48 LSB the MAC address, and the next 16-bits the client-id. Now we can track traffic to a specific computer at a specific home. But we've just used up 64-bits of our 128-bit address. Unfortunately, even large ISPs can't afford the price ARIN charges for an IPv6 /64 address space which would be needed to work this scenario. So this is a no-go.

So we might decide that each home client will be allowed 16 IPv6 addresses. Now we use IPv6 DHCP and we allocate the least significant 4-bits to some random number generated by DHCP, and the next 16-bits for the client-ID. This gives us a more reasonable level number of IP addresses to purchase from ARIN. However, we still don't know which computer is the one we're looking for, but at least we know which house it's in. But, the price of an IPv4 /22 block from ARIN is the same as the price of an IPv6 /118 block. In both cases, we're paying the same amount for 1024 static IP addresses to give out at random to our clients. But with the above scenario, in order to accomplish the uniqueness we want with IPv6, we're stuck buying a /114 address pace at roughly 16 times the price. The profit margins for ISPs are too tight for this. This makes it a no-go.

So if we want ISPs to invest in IPv6 address blocks to use with their clients, and we want something like unique address resolution for each client machine, the prices for IPv6 blocks is going to need to be slashed. An IPv6 /110 address space should be the same price as an IPv4 /22 address space. Until this happens, there's not going to be much movement from the ISPs.

But there are further problems with IPv6. With IPv6, every network device is uniquely identified. This means, not only your home computer, cell phone, and tablet, but also your home thermostat, refrigerator, stove, crockpot, and light switches. Is this what we really want? Many of us don't think so. It should not be easy to turn on and off a light switch from a remote location on the internet. Or at the very least, we need far better security, the kind that always ends up being user hostile.

There is another problem for IPv6. IPv4 packets can be easily broken into up to 8 sub-packets, something IPv4 was designed to do to deal with different kinds networks which might have smaller data packet sizes. This allows easy bonding of transfer media by simply breaking each IPv4 packet into up to 8 sub-packets with each sub-packet using a separate physical medium. IPv6 does not allow this same operation to be made. If you live in the big city, you likely don't care. But go to your cottage and try working from there, and suddenly you'll find you do care. Many rural ISPs use various bonding techniques which operate using the IPv4 packet-split mechanism. IPv6 requires an additional layer in order to handle the bonding, and this additional layer (usually an IPv4 tunnel) hinders performance rather than enhancing it. And I have yet to meet a cottager who is willing to spend the tens of thousands of dollars required to upgrade the rural infrastructure to accommodate IPv6 properly.

So while IPv6 will solve many problems, it is also creating many problems as well. Many of these problems can be resolved with policy/pricing changes from groups like ARIN. Others can be resolved through software. All of the problems require money before they'll be sufficiently resolved. But all of these problems need to be resolved before we can all realistically move forward on IPv6.

While people need the encouragement articles like these offer, what we really need are solutions. Solutions are something I'm still not seeing much of.

So how about you guys at ZDNet and TechRepublic doing a little work to tell us how to resolve these issues?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
owen@... 6th Oct 2010
@mheartwood One of us is very confused...I'm pretty sure it's you.

With IPv6 you know exactly which prefix (ideally a /48) you've assigned to a particular subscriber, and, you hand that over to the police just like you would hand over the /32 in IPv4 today. It's then up to the end user to distribute the addresses within that /48, but, so what? That's no different than the addresses in RFC-1918 space that they distribute today behind their NAT.

IPv6 address hierarchy works just like IPv4... The top 3 bits being 001 indicates that it's part of the current global unicast pool. (2000::/3).

The next 9 bits identify a Regional Internet Registry (IANA issues IPv6 to RIRs in /12 chunks).

An ISP (or Local Internet Registry/LIR) gets space from an RIR, usually a /32, but, sometimes more (e.g. a /24 or /28).

In some cases, End-Users will get direct assignments from the RIR. In these cases, the RIR will assign a /48 (or larger, /44, /40, etc.) prefix.

In the case where you are an ISP and assigning space to your end subscribers, you should assign them a /48 unless they have multiple sites or another reason to justify something larger than a /48.

When Johnny Law comes calling with his subpoena, all you have to do is match the address they brought you to the enclosing /48 and hand over that subscriber information. The rest of the address beyond the first 48 bits is between them and the subscriber.

As to pricing for IP addresses you're really not aware of how this stuff works. The current ARIN pricing for ISPs gets you an IPv6 /32 for the same price as an IPv4 /20. There's no such thing as an IPv6 /110 for any practical purpose because in IPv6 subnets should be /64s. Further, in ISP pricing, you pay the greater of your IPv4 and IPv6 costs, not the sum, so, for the vast majority of ISPs, their IPv6 pricing is exactly $0.

As to your issues with things being uniquely addressable, just because it has a unique address does not make it reachable. That's what firewalls are fore. NAT doesn't prevent you from getting to the devices in a subscriber network today. Stateful inspection does that. NAT depends on stateful inspection to function, so, the confusion you are experiencing is understandable, but, the reality is that just because we go to universal addressing in IPv6, doesn't mean we go to universal reachability. Solution: Use a decent firewall with a default deny inbound policy.

As to the lack of fragmentation in IPv6, believe me, this is a good thing. Even for the rural user. You can still accomplish the desired splitting on packets big enough to matter by using 1280 octet MTUs on your IPv6 interface. You can also use L2 bonding tactics like LAG, etc. without affecting the IPv6 L3 packets. IPv6 does allow L2 to provide segmentation and reassembly. What it doesn't allow for is L3 fragmentation of packets in favor of using PMTU-Discovery instead.

The problems you've listed as IPv6 created aren't problems so much as a failure to understand IPv6. I agree that there are many educational challenges associated with IPv6, but, for the most part, these are easily overcome with a little research and self-education, or, by getting some IPv6 training.

There are some training materials available at:

http://www.tunnelbroker.net

Hopefully this post showed you how to resolve most of the "issues" you described above.

Owen
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
sjvn@... 6th Oct 2010
@owen@... "reality is that just because we go to universal addressing in IPv6, doesn't mean we go to universal reachability. Solution: Use a decent firewall with a default deny inbound policy."

Exactly. If anything in some ways its easier to hide in an IPv6 network. I'll be writing about why the anti-spam black list people, for example, are really, really not looking forward to a IPv6 universe.

Steven
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong!
arni@... 6th Oct 2010
First of all about switches. Switches are level 2 devices, they do not "know" about Ipv4 or v6, they just forward Ethernet frames, no speed change here.

Second, why do you say that every phone and notebook have or would have a real static IP? This is totally unsecure ! Most ISPs practice NAT as a security measure, nothing can connect to clients directly.. To spread viruses, etc. And here we come to..

Third, most interesting. There is such a thing as client-server arch. All those problems with VoIP and other solutions (like ones based on CORBA) do not obey client-server arch.! Allthough, it would not give any speed overhead. It's just a bit more complicated for the programmer to implement.
Imagine the security nightmare when everyone will have the ability to potentially connect to every coffee machine in the world. With default or disabled firewalls. Hello, Hollywood happy

And fifth, most important. It is all a myth. What will happen in 18 months is that all available IP addresses will be distributed between RIRs. It doesn't mean those addresses will be occupied. But only that authority oved a certain free block will become local, not global.

Of course, moving to IPv6 is inevitable. But we have to think twice about problems that will rise. More money would be spent on security, not solutions.. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong!
trejrco_z 6th Oct 2010
I humbly disagree with several (all, really) of your points - to varying degrees.

First, yes switches are L2. But the mapping of L3 to L2 (ARP vs ND) is improved for IPv6 and this impacts a switch's ability to forwards packets as the number of hosts grow ... and they will. Additionally, some switches get smarter and 'snoop' - so they are not fully ignorant of L3 stuff. (MLD snooping and RA-Guard, specifically, are important capabilities IMHO)

Second - Real IP, yes. Static IP, probably not. Most SOHO users will still be dynamic, getting a /56 or so allocated to their CPE via DHCPv6-PD. And probably having a firewall at the edge, like most already have today (they may call it their Access Point, WAP, Router, etc. - and it probably NATs IPv4 today, and will continue to NAT IPv4 tomorrow).

Third - Yes, but P2P is a more ideal traffic flow and is desirable for certain types of traffic (not all, admittedly). Speaking of security / privacy, not talking to a midlle-man is a benefit here!

Fifth ... no fourth? Anyway, yes IANA exhaustion happens "soon" (end of year, maybe as late as February is my crystal ball is correct) and then 6-12 months later the RIR pools will expire, and then the ISPs have what they have - and no more. The current customers, with current addresses, continue working - but (cough) I hear new customers matter to ISPs. Want more? Figure out how to deploy IPv6 for you and your customers, encourage others to do so - and the sooner we can get an "IPv6 predominant Internet" the better all of our lives will be. Unless, of course, you chose to stick with "IPv4 only".


I agree that we need to "think twice about problems" - as we have been doing for 10 years now ... and security tools / capabilities have risen rapidly in the last year or so!


Always happy to talk IPv6!
/TJ
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
arni@... 6th Oct 2010
@trejrco_z

About switches and ARP traffic. There is such a thing as ARP cache on each host (client, server, router, etc.).
IPv6 header is not really improved over IPv4 header in terms of processing if you want switch to fulfill some additional filtering on L3 level for example. Still, no speed improvement here. Even such a small thing as processing 128 bits instead of 32 gives a lot in terms of speed.

With NAT you don't really need firewall. Only the connections you make (as a client in client-server arch.) can go back. This is very important. And very simple! Of course, there are different implementations of NAT. Some more secure and correct and some not. It's life.

About client-server. This is not a question of traffic flow. This is ONLY a question of WHICH SIDE initiates the connection. That's IT! Correct procedure answers ALL problems.

About exhaustion I totally agree, as I said, obviously, moving to IPv6 (or 7? :)) is inevitable, sooner or later. But also, IPv6 does NOT answer all questions today. It's not only because there are billions of software pieces, which rely on IPv4 (internal storage, reliance on algorithms, assumptions of firewalls, etc.), OS stack is only a small portion of IPv6 "solution", but because IPv6 is not ready or even not The thing Internet needs. Moving to classless IP routing was not such a pain. It solved problems. That solution was simple and elegant. IPv6 IS NOT (it is my humble opinion).
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
sjvn@... 6th Oct 2010
@arni@... "Most ISPs practice NAT as a security measure" Actually, NAT is meant solely to give people more addresses. The security benefits, while certainly neat, are a side-effect.

Steven
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
D. W. Bierbaum 7th Oct 2010
@arni@...

Aren't there different levels of switches? I keep reading about level 3 switches, so I don't think all switches are level 2 devices...
0 Votes
+ -
NAT em all
guihombre 6th Oct 2010
NAT can be scaled indefinitely, which is why IP6 never really took off. It's easier if you want more addresses just to stick a NAT server in there.

There's the privacy aspect. Done right NAT can provide a level of privacy for the people behind the NAT server by blending their connections. IP6 removes that privacy.

Then there's the IP allocation politics. With blocks of IP addresses used as a political tool of control for the 'Net. IP6 could have fixed that, and didn't.

So nobody wants IP6, because with NAT THEY get to allocate the IP addresses at the back end of the NAT server, whereas with IP6, they hand that back to the USA.

Then there's the main reason, the net is IP4, and NAT is ip6 and so you're taking yourself off the net if you switch.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
owen@... 6th Oct 2010
@guihombre No, NAT does not scale much beyond what is already deployed. In fact, what is deployed already has serious problems. If you look at the previous blog entry from yesterday, many of these issues are addressed in detail.

NAT doesn't provide meaningful privacy. It provides obfuscation of specific member in a small group. You can get just as much privacy using IPv6 with "privacy addresses" which are on by default in Vista and later and can be turned on in Linux.

Actually IPv6 does fix a lot of the "tool of control" aspect. I'm not sure why you say it didn't. A multihomed end user can get a direct RIR assignment in IPv6 with significantly less effort than an IPv4 end user.

I'm not sure what you mean bout with NAT they get to allocate...
With IPv6, you get to allocate network numbers and host addresses and they're global unicast legitimate public addresses instead of being assigned a single IPv4 address. This is a good thing.

Sure, "switching" doesn't make sense. What makes sense is ADDING IPv6 to your current IPv4 network and running them in parallel.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you "switch" to IPv6.

As to "nobody wants IPv6", that's just plain wrong. Lots of us want it, and, many of us think the internet will be a much better place with IPv6 than the current IPv4. The reality is IANA will run out of IPv4 addresses in approximately February. The RIRs will run out 3-12 months after that. (most likely closer to 3).

If you think address exhaustion isn't a real issue that will effect you, then, you are delusional.

Owen
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
fairportfan 6th Oct 2010
@owen@... He's probably a birther and a global-warming denier, too.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
billcheng 6th Oct 2010
What about the downside? Why does an article like this has to not talk about the downside?

IPv6 has been around for quite a while. Why hasn't the ISP been urging everyone to ditch IPv4?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
trejrco_z 6th Oct 2010
Um, because the title of the article was "The upside ..."? happy

Sorry, seriously - the (perceived) downside(s) are well documented elsewhere, or in comments here happy.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
westham80 6th Oct 2010
@billcheng You need the article called "The Upside and the Downside of Moving to IPv6". Avoid the "Downside of Moving to IPv6", it is quite negative happy
0 Votes
+ -
NAT have a limit, as a customer I want and I need a public address ! And it would be great if all my devices could have a public address.
NAT is not a security protocol, just a patch to allow multiple device to connect through.
Today your router box have a firewall, wifi and NAT ... Tomorrow you will just have firewall and wifi ... I don't see any proble there.
Talking about privacy ? It's just an illusion, yes with IPv4 they just know where you go out and not exactly which computer... But think about coockies, logging system, transparent proxy, etc...
And as a owner of a public access, I don't want to be responsible of what other people are doing with it, and, yes I want to be able to identify them.
0 Votes
+ -
Not another bloody tech journo filling up space?
richard.gardner@... 6th Oct 2010
I fail to see how removing a single point of control from a network is a good thing. Here's the thing, dummy, we want to control our internet traffic, it's called security. What you describe is chaos. Note, I'm not saying IPv6 is bad, I'm merely saying you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you spent the rest of the article proposing a completely new security paradigm?

Don't hire this guy for anything practical folks, I think he's got all his information from someone in marketing.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
trejrco_z 6th Oct 2010
Wow, I may disagree with some of the wording here or there, but I don't believe name calling was due ...

(And note that, just talking in generalities here, one aspect of security of simplicity, it is possible to remove control points and become more secure ...)
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
Digital Knight 6th Oct 2010
Please note, that removing NAT does not remove a real control point, it removes a obfuscation point. For a control point you would use a firewall, and that was part of the initial delay of IPv6, commercial hardware that supported IPv6 was hard to find until this year, but now there are multiple IPv6 aware firewalls on the market, so you still have all the control you had before, and honestly, probably more control as time goes on.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
richard.gardner@... 7th Oct 2010
@Digital Knight Obfuscation is good, it may inconvenience developers but it also inconveniences hackers, try looking at the verisign API sometime. Rule of thumb, never expose any internal network information to the internet unless you REALLY have to, he's essentially proposing we move all our devices into the DMZ for his convenience. Urm... No, I don't think so. I'm not arguing with your point, I'm simply contending that this article is rubbish.
0 Votes
+ -
"With IPv6?s 128 bits worth of possible addresses, that?s 2 to the 128th power, until our dogs and cats are also carrying around a baker?s dozen of Internet connected devices, we should be safe from running out of IPv6 addresses."

Actually if each of your cats and dogs had a million devices, there are still plenty of IPv6 address for all!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
kingkong88@... 6th Oct 2010
@david08048
Even if every mosquito has one, there should still be plenty left.
0 Votes
+ -
Dad-da
0 Votes
+ -
It's going to be a long hard road.
neils58 Updated - 6th Oct 2010
The main problem is complexity and cost for the ISP's. The only realistic way for them to make things work without taking a load of flak is to issue new IPv6 compatible routers, with a stateful firewall turned on by default. Then there is the customer support nightmare to get people set up again.
It gets even more complicated because we can't just have a clean switch, most websites only have IPv4 connectivity, and there are many legacy applications which don't support IPv6. This means that for a considerable amount of transition time everyone will need to run a dual stack with IPv6 and IPv4 (NATed)... which although messy would be fine if we weren't about to run out of IPv4 addresses!
If the process had been started a decade ago we'd have been fine but we've left it too late and now some people are going to have real problems with legacy apps during the transition period.
0 Votes
+ -
The "real" IPV6
twaynesdomain 6th Oct 2010
More address space is actually a by-product of what IPV6 is and was intended for. I saw a couple of comments almost get close to what PV6 is, but no one actually pinned it to the reality of its reason for being.
There are lots of good white papers; ferret out a couple of them from reliable sources you've used and you should understand as long as the author did. Better yet, look at the specs; the real ones.
0 Votes
+ -
Business case
silentlennie 6th Oct 2010
The business case is really easy actually, you have started to deploy IPv6 or are doing it soon. And thus you spent a little bit of money on it, now and again.

Or you will be to late and you will have to rush it when it it's needed and it will cost your business a lot of money then.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Upside of Moving to IPv6
Nobu_z 7th Oct 2010
In case you missed it, PC is short for Personal Computer. So, Computer and PC are nearly the same (the difference being that one may or may not be a personal computer, while the other may only be a personal computer, though it could still be a personal notebook computer...). That being said, it was an interesting article. I can't say that most of that stuff I didn't know already, but still....

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix