Discussion on:

Are you ready for the next version of IP?

With its lack of any meaningful limit on addresses, IPv6 will expand the address space so that every device we own could have its own IP address and we still wouldn't scratch the surface. However, I haven't seen too many organizations that even have IPv6 on their radar.

Do you have any plans for testing or deployment of IPv6?

Though all started that we should go for IPv6 for shortages of ip's in ipv4 is it that i am in the dark or has any spade work started for version6.

Cisco routers are able to handle IPv6, at least the ones produced over the past couple of years. However, the big problem is going to be installing a new protocol on every desktop out there. The infrastructure is mostly ready, but it is going to take a massive push to make it happen down to the desktop.

Can't you run IPv4 internally and connect externally via IPv6?

Yeah guess it's obvious that I haven't studied up on IPv6 much... OOPS!!!

Feeling your Pain RFink!!!

(Also an ameteur at IPv6)My understanding is that EVERYTHING will need to run BOTH until we are ready as a world to shut Off Ipv4 (Rotuers, PC's, DNS, DHCP, Servers etc). There is not a reasonable transition path that I can see, and some serious problems with how IPv6 is designed. Because of this I only see the world adopting IPv6 at the literal Last minute as corporations start shutting off their Ipv4 (which I don't see them doing that either).

You don't think the coporate type are going to jump right on board???? I alway thought they just LOVED change!!!! 8)

Seriously thanks for the insight..., time to start boning up a bit on IPv6! 8o

This topic was a research project for myself during a class last term. I found my answers from RFC3056:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl

I would highly reccomend viewing Randy Bush's IpV6 synopsis located at the link below - it is great intro into the problems of IPv6 transition.

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/bush.html

I personally think it is time for the IETF to go back to the drawing board. IpV6 needs a variable header size to enable IPv4 and IPv6 to exist together on the wire to allow successful transition. IPv6 is also lacking all the requiste security features that a new standard should bring. I am not sure if IpV6 will ever be implemented as "the internet". If it is (and not say Ipv10 or similar) it will be another decade before there is ANY site that you want to reach that can only be reached via IPv6 address. Randy's presentation also raises some serious issues, like the fact that we have yet to see that Ipv6 works on a large scale implementation. If the performance degredtion, and lack of improvements that his speech outlines are correct, I can see NO compelling reason for companies to ever adopt this protocol.

It is also important to note that the IETF is VERY divided on this subject into two camps, that have very differing viewpoints.
Until the IETF and ICANN are of one mindset, the wheels will continue to spin.

The IETF/ICANN elders have a very strong religious belief of not fracturing the internet. I am not sure if this is a sustainable effort in the long run, and currently as it stands I see a already fractured Net - IPv4 and IPv6 - not only different but also not communicating with each other (incompatible).

I think a more likely near term outcome is larger NAT/DHCP pools from the Fiber and Cable broadband ISP's. They will start charging high rates for REAL public IP's, and most people who have no real need for one will default to a NAT'ed IP address behind their broadband providers NAT box, and use a proxy server for web surfing. Cable companies get a new revenue stream - public is at least kept happy enough to not revolt, and NO MAJOR changes are done to the internet - I'm not saying this the right way, but it to me sounds like a more likely outcome.

Variable size headers won't fix the problem. It would still take years to release updates for the OSes and routers to handle a new version of IP, and there isn't time to do that before the IPv4 pool runs out.

What security features did you want IPv6 to provide?

First they kill my analog cell phone.
Then they kill my low def TV
and now they're taking my IP 4.

I don't think I can take much more of this.

The address is changing yes. Depending on what items you run on your network you will find that some CAN handle V6 and some can't. The problem will be - finding this out and upgrading or adding a translation system (aka IPV6 NAT to IPV4 and back) to allow these systems to work until you are ready to replace.

Most moden OS'es can cope with IPV6 so the actual roll to these should not be that hard. They can even coexist with IPV4. Think running IPX and IP at the same time- no big deal.

The real pain will be the server infrastructure and services such as DNS & DHCP (to name a few).

since I'm 100% linux and it supports ipv6 completely already, roll it out, I don't care.

DHCP? ipv6 ready
DNS? ipv6 ready
NIS/NFS? ipv6 ready

it's only those stuck with windows who have a problem, and that only because Microsoft has fought ipv6 all the way.

I was under the impression that Microsoft supports implementations of IPv6 in Windows XP(SP1), Vista, Server 2003/2008, as well as DHCP and DNS.

Are you saying they really don't or am I missing something? I admit I'm fairly uninformed on IPv6 so...

Reality isn't so simple. Linux has had some form of IPv6 support for a while (so has Windows), but there is still a lot to do.

The DHCPv6 clients for Linux are somewhat buggy (especially the Fedora DHCPv6 one). Even then, the DHCPv6 clients aren't enabled by default (or even installed by default on some OSes). Don't believe me? Install RedHat and select DHCPv6 during the install. It won't be activated upon reboot (and the firewall will block DHCPv6 packets).

Linux doesn't support NFS over IPv6. Samba doesn't yet have IPv6 in a released version (it's there in cvs).

It is not at all accurate to say that Microsoft has "fought" IPv6. On the contrary, they've supported IPv6 for sometime. XP and 2003 have fairly basic IPv6 support. Vista and 2008 have excellent IPv6 support.

None of this is to say that organizations shouldn't start deploying IPv6. There is a lot that does work (Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, FireFox, Thunderbird, etc). But there is still work left to do.

These are Government even United Nations standards.Just another waste of time item on the worry list.