Will Anantech support IPv6?

[imported_Gatak]

This is currently not the case, which is why IPv6 is not worth the investment in the immediate future.

Even for AnandTech that could receive more visitors/customers because it reaches a new target group?

 

[Ninjazx]

Look, the point is, IPv6 is the wave of the future, and you can choose either to accept it, fight it, or ignore it. Those accepting it now, learning its features and proper use will have a distinct advantage over others.

Those fighting it are wasting their time. You can sit here and argue about how its not needed yet, and that its going to open new security holes, but the truth is, adding a firewall infront of having actual ICANN IP's instead of virtual IP's barley changes security. You can fight change, and say that IPv4 has been working for 20 years, why change it.

If you've ever worked in the IT industry, you know that whevever a new technology or set of software is pushed out to consumers, particularly in the business environment replacing old systems, users reject it, claim its un-needed, and is overlyl complicated. They complain about it, and talk about wanting to go back to the old system, it worked, why change it.

Sure sounds like the same argument. Ask those same workers in a year if they would want to switch back to the old system. 99% of the time, they wouldnt even consider it. Now that they are acustomed to it, and know its usefulness, theres no reason to even think about the ancient system once in place.

Sounds familiar.

Those ignoring it are probably in for the easiest change. Windows (something) will eventually come out and force IPv6 on the world. But those users who are ignoring it, are generally the ones who have no idea what an IP is anyway. It doesnt matter to them, the Internet will still work, and thats all they know.


Conclusion: you can choose to embrace it now, and be a part of the transition, or you can fight against it in an absolutely losing battle. I personally think it would be neat for a site like anandtech.com to offer the ability to use IPv6. It would provide a stimulus and opportunity to those who have yet to actually try it out to see what this new concept is all about. It might also provide for an interesting article... in the end, its up to anand, and its not going to change history dramatically either way, but its just an idea.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Ninjazx
Look, the point is, IPv6 is the wave of the future, and you can choose either to accept it, fight it, or ignore it. Those accepting it now, learning its features and proper use will have a distinct advantage over others.

Those fighting it are wasting their time. You can sit here and argue about how its not needed yet, and that its going to open new security holes, but the truth is, adding a firewall infront of having actual ICANN IP's instead of virtual IP's barley changes security. You can fight change, and say that IPv4 has been working for 20 years, why change it.

If you've ever worked in the IT industry, you know that whevever a new technology or set of software is pushed out to consumers, particularly in the business environment replacing old systems, users reject it, claim its un-needed, and is overlyl complicated. They complain about it, and talk about wanting to go back to the old system, it worked, why change it.

Sure sounds like the same argument. Ask those same workers in a year if they would want to switch back to the old system. 99% of the time, they wouldnt even consider it. Now that they are acustomed to it, and know its usefulness, theres no reason to even think about the ancient system once in place.

Sounds familiar.

Those ignoring it are probably in for the easiest change. Windows (something) will eventually come out and force IPv6 on the world. But those users who are ignoring it, are generally the ones who have no idea what an IP is anyway. It doesnt matter to them, the Internet will still work, and thats all they know.


Conclusion: you can choose to embrace it now, and be a part of the transition, or you can fight against it in an absolutely losing battle. I personally think it would be neat for a site like anandtech.com to offer the ability to use IPv6. It would provide a stimulus and opportunity to those who have yet to actually try it out to see what this new concept is all about. It might also provide for an interesting article... in the end, its up to anand, and its not going to change history dramatically either way, but its just an idea.

Or we can wait until it's actually needed and spend or time and money elsewhere meanwhile.
Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Ninjazx]

I guess I should have addressed that in my post, I meant to, but was in a bit of a rush.

Although Im not sure I see where it would be a financial strech to offer this? Time? Sure, and I'm sure you guys here at AT are 100% busy. (no sarcasm) I guess it falls into a middle group, where its a situation of "we would if we could" (time+money) but its not exactly fighting the upgrade (which was what my post was primarily about, those suggesting that IPv6 is a complete waste)

 

[spidey07]

IPv6 IS NOT THE FUTURE!!!!

It is IMHO a stalemated and dead end venture.

We simply don't need it. Nobody has given a single reason why we need it. Thankfully microsoft is not in the network business and cannot force us to do anything.

Oh - an another correction. it was mentioned that IP addresses are bought.

They are not bought. They are applied for. Give a good network plan and you'll get the address space you need. There is no cost. Getting a class A nowadays would be difficult, but otherwise - if you have the plan you'll get it.

http://www.nanog.org for good info

<---not a provider, I'm enterprise with strong ties and background in the tier one provider area

 

[imported_Gatak]

We simply don't need it. Nobody has given a single reason why we need it.

One would be Multicast.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gatak

We simply don't need it. Nobody has given a single reason why we need it.

One would be Multicast.

We have great mcast capabilities right now????

What more do you need from multicast? The routing protocols are baked and it works flawlessley?

<---setup 500 router PIM network over 3 years ago.

 

[imported_Gatak]

So you think that it is a good thing that more and more users can only access the internet through local IPs and NAT? Just this fact alone makes IPv6 the better choice.

Take China for example. There maybe is 100 million mobile users there. If they are going to access internet and to be able to actually receive data externally without special tricks they truly would need IPv6.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gatak
So you think that it is a good thing that more and more users can only access the internet through local IPs and NAT? Just this fact alone makes IPv6 the better choice.

Take China for example. There maybe is 100 million mobile users there. If they are going to access internet and to be able to actually receive data externally without special tricks they truly would need IPv6.

that's what NAT is for. i simply don't see anything wrong with NAT/PAT.

 

[imported_Gatak]

That's what NAT is for. i simply don't see anything wrong with NAT/PAT.

How would two users behind NAT do to talk to eachother? The only way now is that one of the users forwards a port, or they use a third party to communicate through.

It is very unlikely that normal users could actually change NAT settings with their ISP.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Gatak

That's what NAT is for. i simply don't see anything wrong with NAT/PAT.

How would two users behind NAT do to talk to eachother? The only way now is that one of the users forwards a port, or they use a third party to communicate through.

It is very unlikely that normal users could actually change NAT settings with their ISP.

??? They're on the same network. They wouldn't be translated to communicate with each other.

that's what routing is for.

 

[imported_Gatak]

??? They're on the same network. They wouldn't be translated to communicate with each other.

I meant two users on DIFFERENT ISPs.

 

[Ninjazx]

whoah, hold on there spidey07, what makes you think as more users climb onto more ISP's (and this is world wide, millions and millions will be joining over time) do not want their own IP?

What you are proposing is that we make it hundreds of times more complicated than it needs to be (meaning, ISP's will be giving out internal IP's only, and trying to route it all properly).

 

[Ninjazx]

the problem isnt lack of addressing NOW, its addressing in the FUTURE.

how many devices will require an IP in 20 years.. not just PC's, but all devices?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Ninjazx
whoah, hold on there spidey07, what makes you think as more users climb onto more ISP's (and this is world wide, millions and millions will be joining over time) do not want their own IP?

What you are proposing is that we make it hundreds of times more complicated than it needs to be (meaning, ISP's will be giving out internal IP's only, and trying to route it all properly).

that's what I'm trying to say.

NAT/PAT solves all of these problems.

there currenlty is no concern of running out of addresses that I know of.

http://www.nanog.org

 

[imported_Gatak]

NAT/PAT solves all of these problems.

No. They create problems. One which you did not answere was if two separat users want to talk to eachother and they are both behind NAT at their respective ISP?

This type of collision is getting more and more common.

 

[Ninjazx]

ok, lets put it this way...

your at your PC one day, and you notice your ip is now begins with 192.168.144
are you telling me you would be happy with that?

 

[Ninjazx]

might want to add, that this is just a simple connection to the ISP, no router involved

 

[Ninjazx]

might want to add, that this is just a simple connection to the ISP, no router involved

 

[DainBrammage]

blah blah blah

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Gatak

That's what NAT is for. i simply don't see anything wrong with NAT/PAT.

How would two users behind NAT do to talk to eachother? The only way now is that one of the users forwards a port, or they use a third party to communicate through.

It is very unlikely that normal users could actually change NAT settings with their ISP.

That's the unfortunate consequence, of being stuck on the "3rd-world internet". To the rest of the world, you don't exist as an individual. It's not surprising those that still live in the "1st-world internet" don't even want to admit the problem, nor the existance of the "3rd-world internet", let alone do something positive to change it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Gatak

NAT/PAT solves all of these problems.

No. They create problems. One which you did not answere was if two separat users want to talk to eachother and they are both behind NAT at their respective ISP?

This type of collision is getting more and more common.

Why should those in rich and powerful corporations care if the "plebs" can communicate with one another, as long as they can initiate communications to those corporations to buy things. Nothing else matters, really. (At least from their viewpoint, anyways.)

I mean, what if every non-business end-user got allocated the same address, say 10.0.0.2, everywhere, worldwide? Yeah, sure, NAT will solve everything... LOL.

Face it, NAT does "break the internet", and a lot of smarter people than I have said so.

It breaks the end-to-end connectivity assumption that the entire internet architecture is based upon. It also breaks end-to-end security protocols, so in fact the existance of NAT directly negatively affects the security of internet communications. (Then again, there are those forces that actively oppose widespread adoption of IPSec technologies. Who is to say that likewise, they are not working behind the scenes to oppose widespread adoption of IPv6 in the US.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: spidey07
that's what NAT is for. i simply don't see anything wrong with NAT/PAT.

I hope you wont mind, then, when global IPv4 address space allocation shortages hit severely, and businesses and individuals alike get a single IP address each. (Hypothetical worst-case situation here.)

Have fun configuring NAT throughout your organization to deal with this. Have fun telling your boss that he can't videoconfrence with his wife on vacation from work, because of the IPv4 address shortage and having to use NAT (with no end-to-end network connectivity), instead of switching to IPv6 at some prior date.

Originally posted by: spidey07
IPv6 IS NOT THE FUTURE!!!!
It is IMHO a stalemated and dead end venture.

Then what should replace IPv4? You know that it will not last, the IPv4 addess space is already highly-constrained, and will eventually be depleted, perhaps in only a few years.

Btw, I just came across this, it's a slide from a presentation done in mid-2002, it's interesting for the fact that you can actually see the speed IPv6 adoption between the US and the rest of the world. (Hint, they seem to be on the uptake twice as fast as us. Not too surprising though, the US still uses the "english" measurement system, while the rest of the world has gone metric. I really hope the same doesn't happen with IPs, the US runs IPv4, while the rest of the world runs IPv6.)

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/ppt/cathy/sld011.htm

Originally posted by: spidey07
Oh - an another correction. it was mentioned that IP addresses are bought.

They are not bought. They are applied for. Give a good network plan and you'll get the address space you need. There is no cost. Getting a class A nowadays would be difficult, but otherwise - if you have the plan you'll get it.

http://www.nanog.org for good info
<---not a provider, I'm enterprise with strong ties and background in the tier one provider area

Slightly incorrect. It is true that IP address space cannot be privately owned, but there is a cost for "registering" to recieve an IP address allocation, and its certainly not cheap, at least not for smaller networks or end-users. NANOG isn't really directly relevent here, ARIN is who is in charge of actually allocating IP addresses, although I know that they work together.

Here's a link to an article that I found from 1997, talking about upcoming fees for IPv4 address-space allocations.

http://www.opus1.com/www/jms/iw-apr97.html

Ok, found the link to the current ARIN fee schedule for IP address blocks. They are not free, far from it.

http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html

Also see this, the overview of the process of obtaining IPv4 addresses from ARIN, for anyone that is interested.

http://www.arin.net/library/training/isp_initial/index.html

Ironically, in not switching to IPv6, firms may actually be paying more money, as these costs for IPv4 addresses can only increase, as available allocations decrease, whereas the IPv6 address space is... nearly as open and free as the wind, so to speak. Not to mention the administrative overhead cost of managing multiple layers of NAT, and and lack of productivity dealing with network failure modes arising from the complex NAT structures of an organization, and the lack of true end-to-end connectivity for communications, not to mention security.

 

[Sunner]

Won't say anything about ARIN since I've never dealt with them, but I've applied for several nets with RIPE, got all of them, and the cost was that of the paper and the fax call.

Of course someday something(IPv6 or even something entirely new) will replace IPv4, that is the nature of the business we're in.
Right now, we aren't ready, and we don't have the need. It's that simple.

 

[darkamulets]

Just a comment on VoIP I work for a company who's main source of income is VoIP in latin america to say the least it is coming along and at a reasonable price, give it about 6yrs.