Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Networking

IPv6 Tested in Space 207

Posted by CmdrTaco from the still-nobody-using-it-down-here dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Cisco router orbiting on a satellite in space? Well, it's now also the first to run IPv6 in space. Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground, isn't this a bit pointless?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv6 Tested in Space More

IPv6 Tested in Space

Comments Filter:

  • Pointless? No. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:03AM (#18655213) Homepage Journal
    If you're going to start putting Interplanetary WAN infrastructure in place, might as well go IPv6 from the get go. Then once there are a few billion nodes scattered about the Solar System we won't have any addressing problems ;)

  • Just in case it catastrophically fails.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by m0ng0l ( 654467 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:06AM (#18655233)
    No, testing it in space isn't pointless! If the IPv6 stack fails catastrophically, there's no one around to be hurt by the flying shrapnel!

    I mean after all it might even potentially set the Earths atmosphere on fire, if it were testing on the ground!

  • IP in Space (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:08AM (#18655237)
    This is nothing new. The ill fated STS-107 carried a complete CANDOS pacage offering a wealth of IP protocols. In fact UoSat-12 back in May of 2000 ran an ftp server. The only thing new here is IPV6. IPV4 has been in space for a long time. You an find more about this at our website http://ipinspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

    Thank you,
    your NASA team
  • Cosmic Rays cause Cisco routers to break enough on Earth, wouldn't the effect be multiplied with them being in space?

  • This surely is bullshit! (Score:4, Funny)

    by ReinisFMF ( 893095 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:25AM (#18655315)
    Everybody knows that satellites go round faster than earth rotates. The tubes would certainly break!

  • Cisco's New Marketing Campaign (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoeCommodore ( 567479 ) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:35AM (#18655375) Homepage
    Cisco - we hold 100% of the IPv6 market*

    Cisco - We circle the globe with IPv6 support.

    Cisco - THE standard for aerospace IPv6 deplyment archetecture.

    Cisco - Our IPv6 technology is rated "higher" than any of our competitors.

    *in space

  • Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @10:35AM (#18655377) Homepage Journal

    Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground, isn't this a bit pointless?


    Why is no one running IPv6 on the ground? Well, I'll tell you why I don't run it:

    • Neither of my ISPs (work or home) supports it
    • NONE of my routers support it
    • A lot of applications I run don't support it
    • Dealing with it on apache would be a PITA, wouldn't it?


    Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize? Just wrench the class A address assignments away from the current assignees (not a single one of them needs a class A block) and reallocate them reasonably. Apple does not need a class A block, Merck doesn't, HP doesn't, GE doesn't, IBM doesn't, MIT doesn't. Halliburton doesn't, and the DoD certainly does not need multiple /8 assignments. Besides, isn't the DoD largely on IPv6 now? Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.
    • 6e9>256*256*256*256

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thegameiam ( 671961 )
      I agree about the downsides of running IPv6, but pulling the /8 assignments from the current assignees would be a lot of headache and trouble for not so much benefit - yeah, a couple of those could be returned easily (probably not the DoD ones - they already returned the ones they don't need anymore) (and you forgot to mention that Level3 currently owns 3 /8s due to their purchase of BBNPlanet (AS1), and that would add maybe an additional year at our current run rate, but we'll come to a point where we need

    • Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LighterShadeOfBlack ( 1011407 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:14AM (#18655641) Homepage

      Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize? Just wrench the class A address assignments away from the current assignees (not a single one of them needs a class A block) and reallocate them reasonably. Apple does not need a class A block, Merck doesn't, HP doesn't, GE doesn't, IBM doesn't, MIT doesn't. Halliburton doesn't, and the DoD certainly does not need multiple /8 assignments. Besides, isn't the DoD largely on IPv6 now? Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.
      - And who wants to deal with dotted quads when a single digit is even easier to memorise. Except that wouldn't be much good when the 11th person comes along and asks for an IP address would it? Same with IPv4. We will run out of IPv4 addresses. Maybe not today, tomorrow or even next year, but short of the annihilation of civilisation as we know it it will happen sooner or later. It doesn't matter if we liberate x hundred million unused addresses, that will only delay the inevitable by a few years or maybe a decade at most.

      The real PITA then, is trying to get people to do something about this problem before it really becomes a problem. People keep commenting on the slow transition to IPv6 as if it's a failure of the protocol. No, as you implied, it's a failure of the software developers who aren't implementing it, the hardware manufacturers who aren't supporting it, and the ISPs who aren't providing it. Instead of trying to free up more IPv4 address space we should be letting it become a scarce resource to force the guilty parties to make the necessary updates so that nobody's caught short on that fateful day when we well and truly are out of IPv4 addresses. We should be taking every step possible to limit the amount of software and hardware from being deployed that we already know will be useless a couple of decades from now, instead it seems like so many people are quite happy to take their sweet time with it until alarm bells start ringing.

      You'd think with things like the Y2k bug and numerous other situations which exposed the fallacies of the "it'll do for now, we'll deal with that later" ideology that the computing industry would be all too happy to see that the IP address situation was spotted well ahead of time and would be embracing the ability to future-proof their software and IT infrastructures. Instead it seems like we're going to have another case of fingers-in-their-ears-"la-la we're not listening - oh shit! we're out of IP addresses!" situation with a mad dash to half-assed implementations and slap-dash patches.
      • Hey, my local ISP said they are currently deploying it, and plan to "flip the switch" in a couple months. In preparation, I have modified my trusty WRT54G with IPv6, and am currently tunneling through Earthlink Research's borker.

        As for software dev's not supporting it, I guarantee game developers will eat it up when it has been reasonable deployed, as NAT is the bane of multiplayer games.

    • Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:21AM (#18655701)
      Reallocate the IPv4 space reasonably, force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request like I had to for my puny /27 block, and then there will be plenty of space for all.

      If I may make a car analogy...

      Let us say that IPv4 is the oil we get from the ground and all cars run off it. Then a small group of scientists do a study and say discover "Egads! We've only got 10 years worth of oil left!"

      Everyone panics and the scientists come up with a pure ethanol based car (IPv6) that has none of the limitations of oil when it comes to making new ones (In theory we could eventually use up all our natural resources in production of corn, but that would take thousands of years so that is someone eles's problem)

      However, such a switch over would cost millions if not billions of dollars spent replacing all the oil based motors, but they start the work.

      Then.... Some smart ingenious mechanic finds a way to make regular engines work off 50% ethanol and 50% oil (NAT addressing) and everyone goes "Phew! Problem solved!"

      However, that doesn't resolve the fact that oil is still going to run out in 20 years but by then that will be someone else's problem.

      But in reality, I think the US, Canada, and Europe will switch to IPv6 when their counter parts in China and India surpass us economically in 10 to 20 years. (As in Chinese companies start buying US companies and then tell their network departments to migrate so they can communicate better)

      Asia is the big pusher for IPv6 because they simply did not get any of the IPv4 to start with and NAT isn't helping them much considering they will have literally the majority of world's internet users. Unless, like you say, the big US tech companies give up the IPv4 spaces to companies in Asia I think they are on the path to complete IPv6 networks over there.

      Either way... I think most of us will get IPv6 equipment when it was cheaper for the manufacture to not disable the feature in our standard IPv4 products (think built in modem or video into the mother board trend) but this might be some time from now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by morcego ( 260031 )

        I think most of us will get IPv6 equipment when it was cheaper for the manufacture to not disable the feature in our standard IPv4 products

        Care to clarify that ? How it is more expensive to manufacture IPv6 equipment than IPv4 ?

        Memory ? IPv6 uses less memory than IPv4+NAT.
        Processing power ? Well within the limits of everything we have around. Again, IPv6 uses less processing than IPv4+NAT.
        The stack itself ? Implementing IPv6 is pretty much equivalent (amount of work) as implementing NAT, if not easier. Also

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 )

        ...But in reality, I think the US, Canada, and Europe will switch to IPv6 when their counter parts in China and India surpass us economically in 10 to 20 years...

        The main problem with your theory is that China and India are unlikely to surpass us economically in 20 years. To illustrate my point, let's compare the US and China. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] the US GDP is approx $12.5 Trillion. The Chinese GDP is about $2.2 Trillion. If the US economy had zero growth for 20 years, and the Chinese economy wou

        • Seeing as the Chinese currency is severely undervalued, using nominal GDP numbers is a bit misleading. If the Renminbi was allowed to completely float, the rise in the exchange rate would cause the nominal GDP to rise accordingly, even though the economy stays the same. In PPP adjusted terms the numbers are 12.3$ trillion vs 9.4$ trillion so assuming current rates of growth, the Chinese economy will have more purchasing power than the US in the next decade.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 )
            To quote wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ..."The differences between PPP and market exchange rates can be significant. For example, the World Bank's World Development Indicators 2005 estimates that one United States dollar is equivalent to approximately 1.8 Chinese yuan by purchasing power parity in 2003. [1]. However, based on nominal exchange rates, one U.S. dollar is currently equal to 7.9 yuan. This discrepancy has large implications; for instance, GDP per capita in the People's Republic of China is about US$1,800, while on

    • Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Znork ( 31774 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:29AM (#18655775)
      "Neither of my ISPs (work or home) supports it"

      You dont need their support. Use 6to4. Or a tunnel.

      "NONE of my routers support it"

      You dont need them to. Use 6to4.

      "A lot of applications I run don't support it."

      Some do tho. It's wonderful to be able to ssh and scp directly into the boxes you have behind a NAT gateway without having to resort to two-stage jumps.

      "Dealing with it on apache would be a PITA, wouldn't it?"

      No.

      "who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize?"

      There's this new development called DNS you know...

      "Just wrench the class A"

      Mmm, like that's going to happen...

      Meanwhile I sit here on a bazillion addresses, merit of having one single v4 address. Get with the times, it's not like IPv6 is rocket science anymore.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by slamb ( 119285 ) *

        You dont need their support. Use 6to4. Or a tunnel.

        You need their support even for 6to4. In one facility, I sent out 6to4 packets to the anycast address (192.88.99.1) and no packets came back. I don't know exactly what happened to the packets, but it works fine on machines elsewhere, but there tcpdump shows proto=ipv6 packets going over my real network interface to 192.88.99.1 and never coming back, so I can't access true IPv6 (non-2002::) sites. Even where the anycast address does work, 6to4 doesn't work

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 )
          It's quite common not to route 6to4. The ISP I'm with now is the first I've had in 3 years to route 192.88.99.1 and they've got native ipv6 anyway.

          Tunnels I can sympathise. No quality. Abysmal uptime, and nobody to complain to if it goes wrong.. not to mention that 90% of the people who were providing them have packed up and gone home when the 6bone went titsup. I eventually gave up on my hosting machines' ipv6 after I did the uptime graphs.. uptime was about 30%, and the latency never got less than 500

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Znork ( 31774 )
          "In one facility, I sent out 6to4 packets to the anycast address (192.88.99.1) and no packets came back."

          That's quite painful. I havent seen that problem myself, altho I've noticed that my own 6to4 packets actually travel to a different ISP to reach the anycast address. Shouldnt the anycast address automatically route like any other address, IE, your ISP has to actually actively _block_ the route updates to prevent your packets from reaching a 6to4 gateway?

          "And tunnels? To where?"

          Sixxs or other v6 tunnel br
    • Besides, who wants to deal with IPv6 when dotted quads are easier to memorize?

      And I forgot to add... Who memorizes IP addresses anymore?

      I used to back in the day, but DHCP isn't as flaky anymore so no need for static IP on the OS side and if your router setup is worth a snuff you can assign a static IP via DHCP based of your NIC's MAC address so it gets the same IP address each time. And since most people are blocking use of their DNS servers unless you are on their network also makes it pointless to know I

      • Who memorizes IP addresses anymore?


        People who need to configure DNS, DHCP, and apache servers, that's who.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by lukas84 ( 912874 )
          run nslookup or ping, and then c&p.

          I also don't know why you think apache needs ip addresses. It understands DNS hostnames perfectly well, in VirtualHost blocks, Listen, etc.
          • Okay, so you're telling me there is no need to know IP addresses? So, I can nslookup a hostname before a zone is configured in bind for the new domain? One can use a hostname to test against a staging server before cutting over DNS without knowing the IP address to point the hosts file at it for testing? Wow, I'd love to learn how you do that. Somehow, you are suggesting that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary on the administration and development side.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ScytheBlade1 ( 772156 )
              If you're going to flame, I'm going to flame. You're an idiot.

              He never said that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary, he said that memorization of IP addresses is unnecessary.

              New and different technology means new and different ways of management. Just because it means you have to re-think how you manage and impliment things doesn't mean that it's a bad thing or bad idea..

              Once again: "Somehow, you are suggesting that knowledge of IP addresses is totally unnecessary on the administration a
        • Just because IPv6 gives you a bigger address space doesn't mean that it can't be memorized.

          For example, I operate three buildings of computers, all on the private 10.0.0.0/8 subnet. I use patterns for address assignment. Routers are always .1, database servers are always .9, windows servers are always .10, DHCP clients run from .11 through .199, printers/scanners/faxes get from .200 through .250, and managed switches get from .251 through .254. Each building has a /24 block dedicated to it. 10.0.0.0/24 is
      • I used to back in the day, but DHCP isn't as flaky anymore

        But it is still flaky.

    • Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ephemeriis ( 315124 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:46AM (#18655939)
      While it is certainly true that there aren't a whole ton of home routers that support IPv6 yet, it's on the way. Vista installs IPv6 by default and it's a pain to get rid of it. Vista tells you you've got full IPv4 connectivity, but limited IPv6 connectivity...and I've already had one client ask me what that meant, and how he could get full IPv6. Folks will buy an IPv6 router just because it's got a bigger number...and now that Vista advertises IPv6 connectivity, people will be aware that there is a bigger number to be had.

      Plus, some stupid applications insist on trying IPv6 if it is installed and wait forever for the packets to time out... A common problem I ran into with folks who tinkered under XP was massive slowdowns with Firefox after someone had installed IPv6. Remove IPv6 and everything was fine. Of course...Vista doesn't like it when you try to remove IPv6... Haven't had any calls about slowdowns yet...maybe Vista handles the stack better than XP did...

      As far as "no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground"... Well, that's just not true. Many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks. You'll never see it because your modem/router/LAN live in an IPv4 tunnel...but it's there. I know I've seen Job Ads for the local hospital asking for IPv6 experience as well...though I don't know if they're actually using it yet or just preparing for the future.

      "Dotted quads" may be easier for you to memorize...but I suspect this is largely because that's what you're dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Remember when you were little and it was hard to memorize addresses or phone numbers? Now that seems incredibly simple, doesn't it? Remember when you were just learning IP and wondered why you couldn't use DNS for absolutely everything (because names are so much easier to memorize than numbers). Plus, IPv6 supports a couple different ways to abbreviate [wikipedia.org] addresses...such as stripping leading 0's or replacing them with :: Which makes our old friend 127.0.0.1 something much easier to remember - ::1

      And simply re-allocating the IPv4 address space just isn't going to cut it. There aren't enough addresses out there. The only reason we've been able to stay with IPv4 for so long is NAT, which causes problems [wikipedia.org] of its own. The bottom line is that we need more addresses than IPv4 has.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by thegameiam ( 671961 )
        I'd challenge the assertion that "many ISPs are running IPv6 on their internal networks" - the only ISP which has made any sort of argument that running IPv6 as a core service (rather than an edge service across the existing IPv4 core) is Comcast, and that has to do with the number of devices they're trying to manage with regard to set-top-boxes.

        Comcast is nowhere near implementing this, either.

        The US ISPs either run IPv6 as an edge service (in a VRF, say) or using tunneling approaches, or on limited deploy

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ephemeriis ( 315124 )
          Perhaps I am wrong... One of our larger local ISPs is rolling out its own fiber and offering a comprehensive package that includes broadband, unlimited phone, and video - and they're using IPv6 on their internal network. The end user doesn't see that though...they get an IPv4 address on their broadband router, just like with a regular cable/DSL connection. I just assumed that if a local ISP here was doing IPv6 internally that more worldwide would be doing so.
          • 2 questions:

            1) how do you know they're using IPv6 internally?

            2) If I have 1000 aggregation routers connected to customers running IPv4, and two routers in my network where IPv6 is turned on, am I "running IPv6 on my internal network?"

            • 1) how do you know they're using IPv6 internally?

              Because we do a lot of business with them and their clients. They offer very competitive pricing on pure bandwidth packages and their bundled price is outstanding. Plus they're a local company, which means tech support isn't outsourced yet. And they're far more reliable than the local cable company. So we wind up recommending that any of our customers looking for an ISP go with them.

              All of which means that we wind up working with their installers and seei

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by slamb ( 119285 ) *

                I've done work on their devices more than once and can attest that they are running IPv6 - a separate address for each interface on the device: bandwidth, video, phone. I have been told by their installers that this is typical and that their internal equipment is all running IPv6, though I have no proof of that myself.

                That doesn't mean they're running it. My MacBook right now says this:

                [slamb@spiff ~]$ /sbin/ifconfig en1
                en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULT ICAST> mtu 1500
                ine

              • Both are fair points, although from this description they sound like a smaller provider, as opposed to one of the really big ones (AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon...)

                My contention was that the big players aren't doing this yet (although Comcast is making noises about it).

                The benefits of having separate addresses for each of these interfaces should be compared to the benefit of having different TCP port numbers for different services, which goes back to part of what I see as a problem with the way I

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dodobh ( 65811 )
          Sprint and Verio run IPv6 in the core, as well as v4.

          • Sprint & Verio (Score:3, Interesting)

            by thegameiam ( 671961 )
            I assume by "Verio" you mean NTT (AS2914). NTT is an incumbent Japanese telco, which bought the US-based Verio some years ago. I know that NTT offers IPv6 services, and their brochure is here [ntt.net], which claims that they're running dual stack on all of their routers. That brochure also claims that they have 500 customers for their IPv6 services, and claims that they're the largest provider of IPv6 in the world.

            As for Sprint, they often brag about their L2TPv3 core, with MPLS, and other private-IP services off

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dodobh ( 65811 )
              Sorry, NTT-Verio rebranded last year, so I still think of Verio as a telco (Verio is now only the hosting division. The T1/T3 stuff was sold to Cogent last year as well, when they rebranded.). NTT is a fairly large backbone carrier, and their customers tend to be other large providers/companies.

              I do know some engineers at Sprint, and they tell me they have dual stacks in the core.

              There aren't too many consumer type ISPs offering IPv6 in the US, true.
    • To a large majority of the market, IPV6 support is not a required feature.
      Thus, any hardware manufacturer that does not include IPV6 support now can count on repeat business when it becomes a highly wanted/required feature.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keeboo ( 724305 )
      force organizations such as Apple, HP, IBM, Merck, and Halliburton justify their IP allocation request

      How much I agree with you.
      The problem is that anything and anyone outside the USA is pretty much powerless on this matter (the IPs are already allocated), while the USA itself is the least affected by IP shortage.
    • Fatal error: Duplicate entry '0' for key 2 query: INSERT INTO sessions (sid, uid, hostname, timestamp) VALUES ('2fc2ba681282e862af2a6ae8e9518927', 0, '255.255.255.255', 1176091135) in /srv/www/kim/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66

      ip changed to protect me
  • By using an obscure and unused protocol they are able to confuse most hackers.
     
  • Mars needs IP space!

    - Necron69

    ps. Take my bitch ex-wife while you are at it.

  • Ignorance is NOT bliss (Score:5, Informative)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:08AM (#18655593) Journal
    Since nobody runs ipv6????? Sad, that so many Americans are clueless. Asia has moved into IPv6 in a big way, esp. China. They are all hoping to get a jump on it before we do. China, Japan, and even South Korea have pushed it like there is no tomorrow.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by thegameiam ( 671961 )
      sort of - there's a lot more IPv6 there than here, but there are still a whole bunch of thoroughly under-implemented pieces of IPv6 (like, has anyone written an actual implementation of IPv6Sec yet?), and actual traffic rates using native v6 native v6 all the way through are exceptionally low.

      If you go to one of the good latency calculators [sixxs.net], you'll see that the delta between IPv6 performance and IPv4 performance is substantial, with IPv6 performance showing as a heck of a lot worse (about twice as poor).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GooberToo ( 74388 )
        Isn't that because it's tunneling IPv6 over IPv4? So of course the latency is going to be much higher. I would be hard pressed to imagine why latency would be higher for IPv4 versus IPv6 so long as it's an apples to apples comparison. If what I read is correct on the URL you provided, it's like comparing IPv4 verses IPv4 traveling over an VPN. So of course the latency is going to be higher...but one has nothing to do with the other if a fair comparison is your intention.

        Please correct me if I failed to
        • You're correct about the reason, but the implication is that there isn't the quantity of native service deployed to support the need.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ffejie ( 779512 )
      Nobody runs IPv6 -- yeah, like your rinky-dink corporate network. You know, no one, except the federal government and the 3 of the 4 largest service providers supporting them. Networx deal [telephonyonline.com].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by thegameiam ( 671961 )
        None of the significant US ISPs support native IPv6 transport across an infrastructure without any IPv4 present at this time.

        No government agency does either.

        Evidence? Try to get OSPFv3 working without an IPv4 router-ID. Try to get encryption (IPv6SEC) working without using IPSEC (over IPv4 transport). Try getting VoIPv6 working, or looking for hardware support for multiple queues for IPv6 packets.

        Networx was just awarded a couple of days ago, and specifies those services which are to be orderable over t
        • This is starting to change. More and more government projects are starting to mandate IPv6 support.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by thegameiam ( 671961 )
            Many governement projects treat IPv6 support as a checkbox, not as something to be actually used. There are big, big, holes in the implementations, and nobody really wants to go first...

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by anticypher ( 48312 )
          Try to get OSPFv3 working without an IPv4 router-ID

          Router IDs, at least in OSPF (all versions) and BGP, are not IPv4 addresses. They are a 32 bit number, that in some implementations are displayed as dotted quad. It is only common practice to make your publicly available router ID to match one of your assigned IPv4 addresses, so that collisions between Router IDs will rarely happen.

          I still run across companies that have router IDs of 1, 2, 3 etc. Some router implementations will randomly grab the lowest IP

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        My contract with Jeppesen ran out in Sept. Since early Feb, I have been working at Verizon Business. Please look up the players in Networx. I can tell you that very little IPv6 is currently being used. The FEDS are wanting to move to IPv6, but none of the players in Networx currently use it (they have small networks of it, but they are all IPv4 shops). Hopefully, that contract will change things.

  • New meme (Score:5, Funny)

    by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @11:41AM (#18655897)
    Pretty please can we make this into a new meme?
    Examples:
    • IPv6 Tested ...in Space
    • SCO Vs. IBM Leaks Exposed ...in Space
    • O'Reilly Opens Online Tech School ...in Space
    • Microsoft Opposing California Open Doc Bill ..in Space

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thegameiam ( 671961 )
      IPv6 is one possible solution to the address shortage (which is hardly at the *dire* stage, but will be soon enough). Other solutions include widespread adoption of NAT and/or adopting some entirely different layer-3 paradigm.

      The IPv6 designers have hampered adoption by insisting on solving problems which are not directly related to address size (like autoconfiguration, QoS, etc) and rolling those into the protocol - because so many of these useful features which were steadily glommed onto IPv4 have not ye
      • > IPv6SEC is not yet implemented.

        Use secure protocols, instead.

        > Autoconfiguration in a truly native v6 environment (i.e. no v4 at all) doesn't have a mechanism for learning about DNS servers.

        I'm pretty sure DHCPv6 solves this. There's also anycast DNS.
    • Remembering there are about 250 million usable addresses, what if you want to IP enable 80 million cell phone customers for web, video, IM, e-mail and other services?

      Since every phone has a unique address (PSTN address, AKA phone number) within the cell network, you don't even need to touch 10.0.0.0. You can give every phone the address 192.168.0.2, router 192.168.0.1, and NAT them all by PSTN at your border router.

      I would *prefer* to have my cellphone be something like $CARRIER:PREFIX::$PSTN:IN:OCTETS but
  • For this configuration exploit [securitytracker.com], this SNMP vulnerability [cisco.com], this IP sequence generation problem [securityfocus.com], this ICMP vuln [auscert.org.au], this H.323 problem [auscert.org.au], and this buffer overflow [auscert.org.au].

    NOTE: Some of the listed problems indicate a "Cisco 3200 Catalyst", which may not be the same as the orbiting "Cisco 3200 Mobile Access Router". IANACG (I am not a Cisco geek).
  • Slightly off topic, but if there was some way I could figure out how to connect to and hack the ISS computers, I'd love to get in there and replace whatever is on the display to read simply "All of these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there".

    It'd have a fun effect, to be sure.

  • You want IPv6 adoption? Make it reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Sunday April 08, 2007 @01:04PM (#18656497) Journal
    Start an open site dedicated to CONTENT providers who have made their content available for IPv6 and give blue ribbon graphics to IPv6 only sites. Then.. and this is the biggest one.

    Make getting address space cheap and easy!!! IPv6 is huge, why do I have pay ridiculous recurring fees to get a block? Make small allocations free, registration free and online, then just make me return a confirmation letter/call/email once every 5 years to renew. IPv6 space is monstrous, it is terrible that you have to pay outrageous fees to become a member organization and then huge recurring fees for addresses. Why do ISP's have to go through the same backflips and outrageous pricing schemes that served to reduce demand for IPv4 addresses.

    Once you have major content providers onboard and make it free and easy to get address space, then ISP can advertise access to the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' internet.
  • All you need is two Vista machines, and you have an IPv6 network.

    So there must be at least a dozen IPv6 networks in the world...

    Retail Vista has already outsold Windows XP (N)

    all kidding aside, Vista does have some improvements, but it's the first of the new generation. Like 3.0, 95, and ME... it'll be better when it's updated to 3.1(1), 98 (se), or XP(sp2) level.

    Third times the charm.
    • 2 vista machines *and* an ipv6 capable router, unless you're suggesting connecting them via crossover & limiting yourself to a 2 machine network.

      Oh and an ipv6 capable ISP... at least one that routes 192.88.99.1 (few do any more) or even one that does routed ipv6 (Don't know what the situation is in the US but there's only one in this country - most don't).
      • You don't need a router, any passive Eathernet hub (or several) will suffice for a smallish (50 or so) multimachine ipv6 network or a network of any other protocol of your choosing. And yeah if you want to connect to the net with an eathernet decvice yes, but if you areusing a machine as a gateway/firewall then yo can have IPv6 internally (you know for fun) and IPv4 externally.
  • Good place for it.

    Other than the greybeards nobody on earth seems to be using it.

  • > Since no-one is choosing to run IPv6 on the ground

    I call bullshit. I see lots of v6 everywhere. There is IPv6 native in the backbones in Europe, there are ISP:s with v6, there are large organizations with v6, and important servers. From many places I've seen, a traceroute to the SourceForge download mirror in Ireland shows exactly the same path regardless of if you use IPv6 or IPv4. That is, it's native all the way, no tunnels.

    IPv6 is here. The only piece missing is home ISP:s (unless you count 6to4, i

Slashdot Top Deals

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Close