IPv6 Tested in Space 207
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?"
Pointless? No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pointless? No. (Score:5, Funny)
Even with a stepladder.
Re:Pointless? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IPv6 is stable and ready for deployment. It has been for a long time.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pointless? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just in case it catastrophically fails.... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Thank you,
your NASA team
Cosmic Rays (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This surely is bullshit! (Score:4, Funny)
Cisco's New Marketing Campaign (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is no one running IPv6 on the ground? Well, I'll tell you why I don't run 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
What we need is someone to show them that China is leading the way in IPv6 uptake and that in 10 or 20 years when IPv4 is expended they'll take it in their stride while the West is struggling with network infrastructure failing all around us. We'll be at the mercy of communism. Sorry, I mean COMMUNISM!
This sounds like a job for Al Gore. "An Inconvenient IP Truth" anyone?
Re:Imminent death of Internet predicted, film at 1 (Score:2)
Or are you just one of the other idiots I mentioned in my post who thinks that it's too far in the future to be worth worrying about? Yeah, let's wait 10 or 20 years until the last possible moment then rush about to fix the much much larger number of peices of software
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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
That's nominal GDP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sortof, but not quite. You could probably forward all protocol 41 (6to4) packets to an internal machine (say, if you've got a linux server or something) running radvd and route all your v6 traffic through that. That would make it possible without support on the NAT box, but I wouldnt exactly call it elegant.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
People who need to configure DNS, DHCP, and apache servers, that's who.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I also don't know why you think apache needs ip addresses. It understands DNS hostnames perfectly well, in VirtualHost blocks, Listen, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But it is still flaky.
Re:Gee, why is no one switching to IPv6? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
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)
That doesn't mean they're running it. My MacBook right now says this:
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Sprint & Verio (Score:3, Interesting)
As for Sprint, they often brag about their L2TPv3 core, with MPLS, and other private-IP services off
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why your routers don't have it. (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
ip changed to protect me
It's a security feature (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:2)
- Necron69
ps. Take my bitch ex-wife while you are at it.
Ignorance is NOT bliss (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Please correct me if I failed to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
New meme (Score:5, Funny)
Examples:
Re: (Score:2)
Just gotta phone my lawywer...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(now THAT'S an old, stillborn meme)
i dont like it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. ???
3. Profit... in Space!
Re: (Score:2)
In space... no one can hear you ping!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But alas, we did not head that way...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IPv6 was designed by a lot of smart people who work on end-systems, with not a whole lot of folks who actually run very large networks being involved - that's why multihoming still remains a problem (yes, yes, I know, get some PI-space, or is Shim-6 still the suggested approach? Oh wait, that
Cellphones don't need unique addresses (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice feature, one that seems to be designed to promote IPv6, but there are techniques to implement that with NAT/PAT using asymmetrical routing.
I'm not entirely sure how giving every phone the same IP and NATing achieves anything beyond confusion
It's a thought experiment that demonstrates that you don't need 80 million IP addresses t
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a mobile phone that even supported ipv6 let alone got given an address. The security implicitions of giving mobile phones public addresses... heck that's why ipv6 still has NAT and NAT will continue to be deployed at the border routers of every major company even l
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see IPv6 deployed, I don't want to lose my routable address even if I don't run a server, and I expect that's going to happen sooner or later. But it's not up to me, and address space pressu
I wonder if that Cisco has been patched... (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
If only I could hack the ISS (Score:3, Funny)
It'd have a fun effect, to be sure.
You want IPv6 adoption? Make it reasonable. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at that page before posting the link?
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem. There are enough companies that have a vested interest in seeing this do well that they could benefit from deductible contributions to an international non-profit to oversee IP address allocations.
Windows Vista is nativly IPv6... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
In space? (Score:2)
Other than the greybeards nobody on earth seems to be using it.
IPv6 is here, get ready for it (Score:2)
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
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not true (Score:4, Interesting)
Such as?
First, what does a networking potocol have to do with a business model; And second, how can any company survive with a business model dependant on something not supported by most ISPs?
Serious questions, not sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go look up Communication clients and services, from simple IM and Voice to remote clients and client tracking.
And second, how can any company survive with a business model dependant on something not supported by most ISPs?
Go look up, "tunneling."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple of 3G phones and none of them even appear to support ipv6.
Re: (Score:2)
First, what does a networking protocol have to do with a business model
And second, how can any company survive with a busine
um, no. (Score:3, Informative)
And Apple's business model is absolutely not dependent on Bonjour: I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the term "business model." An example of a business model is:
"We give away high-quality software for free to get people to buy our hardware, where we make high margins" - that's an example of Apple's business model.
"By becoming
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
France: Great way to get govt. funding for R&D and keep a telecom business alive while you develop
You don't seem to know anything about this. Are you trolling, or just an ignorant american?
France Telecom, at least the major parts of it such as OpenTransit and Orange, are junking all of their old Alcatel kit (which was never that predominant) for Cisco and Juniper. They are doing this because they have so many customers, and so much equipment, they have been specifying IPv6 for yea
Re:Not true (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.S. federal government has mandated it, so anyone wishing to get into that business needs it.
That being said, my university has been running IPv6 for a few years now -- we luckily have native IPv6 feed from I2 -- and all of our routers (Cisco IOS), servers (various variants of Linux) and clients (MacOS X, Linux, Windows XP) have supported it just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? [microsoft.com] I thought it was supported on Windows 2000, [microsoft.com] Windows XP, [microsoft.com] Windows Server 2003, [microsoft.com] and Windows Vista? [microsoft.com] And I thought there was a whole upgrade plan [microsoft.com] laid out?
Perhaps I'm wrong. Thanks for letting me know!