Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Death of IPv6

By mybostinks in Internet
Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

At some point in the near future the Internet will run out of IPv4 address space. This problem has been recognized and addressed since 1992. IPv6 (IPng, IP next generation) was selected as the replacement.

There is one big hurdle however, no one is implementing it. In fact, my bet is that IPv6 will never be implemented, at least not with the current specification of IPv6. I predict IPv6 as it stands now will simply fade away.


IPv4 has a finite and quickly depleting address space. IPv4 has 2^32 addresses available or 4,294,967,296 addresses. The world population is around 7,000,000,000 people. It is easy to see that if every person on earth had a computer they could not have an IP address allocated to them. Not everyone has one now but then not everyone will need a computing device or their own public IP address. A vast majority of Internet users use NAT whether at home or at work and don't realize or care about it. Besides, some of us are IP address hogs. Many of us use more than a desktop computing device. I have a home LAN, a cell phone, VOIP and a GPS to name just a few. All these devices have IPv4 addresses. Most people that have these devices consider them critical to their lifestyle. At some point, someone will get the last IPv4 address or so it seems.

But we have IPv6. IPv6 has a definite advantage over IPv4. The main advantage is that it has 2^128 addresses or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses...virtually an infinite number. Clearly then this solves the IP address problem. With these numbers you could have as many IP addresses as you wanted for every person in the world for now and in the forseeable future. There are other advantages to IPv6 such as auto-configuration (mandatory), security (IPSec is mandatory) and many others related to engineering.

The problem is that not only are the big guys not migrating to it, but also no one has any motivation to use it. Currently, IPv6 traffic is .0026 per cent of IPv4 traffic. When was the last time you configured your desktop or notebook to go to an IPv6 web site? When did you last send or receive email via IPv6?  When was the last time you used IPv6 ftp or connect to a game server using IPv6? Call your ISP sometime and ask them when they plan to start migrating users to IPv6. If your ISP helpdesk is like mine  the customer support person won't have any idea what you are talking about.

Google just recently implemented IPv6. ISPs, Telcos, Microsoft, Facebook, MySpace, K5 and Yahoo have not implemented it and have no working plans to implement it or migrate to it in the near future either. So why aren't they doing something about it? In short they're not or at best they have it running on a few servers.

Since henny penny announced that the IPv4 sky was falling there have been workarounds that have held off the total depletion of IPv4 address space. The most significant of these has been the use of NAT (Network Address Translation). It allows a large number of devices to share one IP address. Some but not all of the earliest adopters of the Internet have given back millions of IPv4 address blocks and these have been placed back into the pool of available addresses. Even so, available IP address space continues to shrink.

Everyone in Internet engineering agrees that something needs to be done. Not everyone agrees that IPv6 is the way to solve the problem. The most visible aspect of this is inoperability failure. Most Internet servers/routers/switches are not currently talking to IPv6 clients. IPv6 clients however are able talk to IPv6 servers but at this point...so what?

U.S. government agencies for example had to be IPv6 compliant by June 30th of this year. This mandate though met, did not say it had to be used, it just had to be IPv6 ready. The U.S. government agencies having met the goal however did not translate into significantly more IPv6 traffic to these government agencies. The U.S. and Europe own most of the IPv4 address space but Asia, which is the largest user of IPv4 address space is also the largest user of IPv6. Even so, there little to no content on IPv6 and therefore there is little usage of it. This fact alone is preventing migration to IPv6; no one uses it so why migrate to it.

The cost of migrating




The fundamental issue is that the specification states that IPv6 is an alternative to IPv4 when it should have been an extension of IPv4. For anyone providing content on the Internet to make IPv6 available they have to:



  1. Acquire IPv6 address space

  2. Configure DNS to announce the IPv6 names alongside IPv4 names

  3. Then configure all their public servers to answer to IPv6 as well as IPv4 requests.



In other words, businesses and consumers have to go through an extra expense and effort to transition to IPv6 and when they do, they receive no benefit in doing so. This also applies to the clients doing essentially the same thing and when they do, they have no immediate benefit either. Migration to IPv6 has to be automatic and transparent. Otherwise it will be a bigger problem then Y2K. There needs to be a universally accepted plan that when implemented will bring everyone that has a computer on board at roughly the same time. This is the big failure of IPv6 as it is today. There is every reason to do it countered by every reason to not transition to IPv6.

As it stands right now, who will be the first person to disconnect from the current IPv4 network where they can send and receive email, buy products and services via e-commerce sites like Amazon.com or Ebay, conduct searches on search engines, look something up on Wikipedia, surf for porn  and do their personal banking? If that person decided to do that would he now be able to reach any of those sites?

The Address Translation solution


Address translation was a band-aid that was developed to address the IPv4 problem. Address translation and its subset port address translation however are only temporary solutions. It still puts off the inevitable. If you have a broadband firewall/router and a number of internal computing devices on your LAN you are likely using address translation. What this does is it allows a large number of devices to access the public internet with the same IPv4 address plus a port number. Each port number is different and is stored in a table in your firewall/router. When you receive an Internet response to your request the firewall/router then knows which computer to send the response to.

For years address translation has worked very well. The only problem is that it doesn't scale indefinitely. There are a limited amount of ports. On your home network this isn't a problem. You are not going to use 65000+ ports even if you could connect every electronic device in your home. The problem arises with large enterprises or ISPs that use address translation. When it does, they request more IPv4 addresses and the depletion of IPv4 addresses though slowed, still occur. Address translation has delayed the inevitable to some point in the future.

The IPv4 'Stock Market': The next wave


There have been quite a number of discussions about buying and selling IPv4 addresses as a finite commodity. There are many users of IPv4 address space that have more IPv4 address space then they need. Here are a few holders of /8 CIDR blocks (each /8 consists of 16,777,214 public IP addresses). Some of these businesses and agencies might need this many but do they?:

General Electric - 3.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Level 3 Communications - 4.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense - 6.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses - critical military use is on their own non-public networks

United States Department of Defense - 7.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Level 3 Communications (originally BBN) - 8.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

IBM - 9.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 11.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

AT&T WorldNet Services 12.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center - 13.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Hewlett-Packard 15.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Hewlett-Packard (originally DEC, then Compaq) - 16.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Apple Inc. - 17.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 18.0.0.0/8 16,777,214 addresses

Ford Motor Company - 19.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Computer Sciences Corporation - 20.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 21.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 22.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Chopped up between different Cable Networks - 24.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Royal Signals and Radar Establishment - 25.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 26.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 28.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 30.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

AT&T Global Network Services - 32.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 33.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Halliburton Company - 34.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Merit Network, Inc. - 35.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Performance Systems International - 38.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Eli Lilly and Company - 40.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Amateur Radio Digital Communications - 44.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Interop Show Network - 45.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Bell-Northern Research - 47.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Prudential Securities Inc. - 48.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Department for Work and Pensions of UK - 51.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. - 52.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Cap debis ccs (Mercedes-Benz) - 53.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

Merck and Co., Inc. - 54.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Department of Defense Network Information Center - 55.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

United States Postal Service - 56.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

SITA - Société Internationale De Telecommunications Aeronautiques - 57.0.0.0/8 - 16,777,214 addresses

These are just a few. Some of the above are scheduled to give back blocks. But clearly there are companies and Department of Defense that do not need that much address space. Does Merck, Ford Motor Company, Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Prudential Securities, etc need that much address space? I doubt they do. The DoD alone has 167,772,140 public IP addresses.

The Final Solution: Let IPv6 Die


What I think should be done now is to scrap the IPv6 specification as it stands. Retain the useful parts of IPv6, form a new engineering group and come up with a sensible and workable plan that seamlessly transitions from IPv4 to something similar to IPv6.

I find it hard to believe that with all the world's brain power in this field, that the only solution possible is the IPv6 specification that we have now. The current half-baked plan as it stands is doomed for failure and extinction or at best setting back Internet usage 10 years by creating isolated islands of content providers and users.

Requirements for a new plan should include the following:



  1. It should be a seamless migration to users of the public network. Waiting for the last IPv4 address to be used should not be an issue.

  2. It should be backwards compatible with IPv4 and extend IPv4 until the new IP address space is the only IP version being used. IPv4 should just fade away.

  3. It should be required and NOT available as an alternative. Everyone needs to jump on the bus.

  4. It should be easy to set up and be maintained by content providers. Running dual systems should not be necessary.



It's been 16 years since the problem has been addressed and very little to nothing has been done to migrate away from IPv4. We still have time to scrap IPv6 and come up with a more solid, reasonable and workable plan. The time to start is now.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Yahoo
o Also by mybostinks


Display: Sort:
The Death of IPv6 | 65 comments (56 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Why do I care? (1.70 / 10) (#1)
by Kariik on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST

Oh, right, I dont.

You seem to be submitting this to the wrong audience.

Any new system is going to require some work (2.00 / 2) (#5)
by Zombie Schrodingers Cat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST

and that costs money.

Now when they start charging money for an ipv4 address while the ipv6 address is free, that will provide businesses and individuals to spend the extra time/money to get ipv6 working.

this article is myopic and premature (2.55 / 9) (#9)
by lonelyhobo on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST

The facts:
  1. DNS servers just started supporting IPV6 a couple months ago. This means that the infrastructure JUST got into place for companies to switch over.  And you've already got google, one of the leaders in what's "technologically fashionable" to switch.
  2. IPV4 is backwards compatible to IPV6.
  3. The IP address space is 2/3rds exhausted and expected to be completely exhausted nearabouts 2010.
  4. Most drivers/firmware for routers and critical network infrastructure IS ipv6 capable. This with #2 provide it will be a pretty seamless transition.  There will be problems, but there are problems in ANY transition like this.
  5. Requiring a transition like this will cause an even bigger mess than the Y2k freak-out.

NAT is not a solution.  And this article sucks balls.

something sensible and workable to replace IPv4 (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by rhiannon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:48:41 PM EST

It's called IPv6 terry, I don't know where you get your information from, but v6 is the future and everyone knows it, they are just waiting for someone else to do all the heavy lifting and make it easy for them.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
Re-section to "Op-ed" (1.00 / 4) (#24)
by gr3y on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:23:56 AM EST

and I'll vote section.

Otherwise, I'll vote to dump tomorrow, if I can, before this story posts.

I am a disruptive technology.

your point about compatibility is well made (none / 1) (#25)
by GrubbyBeardedHermit on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:23:39 AM EST

I mean, it's as if this IPv6 thing was thought up by a bunch of pie-in-the-sky head-up-arse academic working groups or something

oh wait...

GBH

NAT gets a bad name (3.00 / 5) (#26)
by ccdotnet on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:35:57 AM EST

I've never understood why so many techs consider NAT to be so evil. Even leaving aside the issue of address shortage, NAT made it very easy for an endpoint to connect multiple devices to a single Internet connection.

It's just so much easier for your ISP to give you one address "and do whatever you want internally buddy" than go to all the trouble of routing another block (not to mention making the customer technically justify having one).

The humble hardware-based NAT router gets a lot of bad press. Sure it's not an impressive security measure, but consider how less connected millions of devices in the home or small office (beyond the first PC) would be without one.

Likewise with host-headers and web hosting. Could you really be bothered assigning a new public IP to each and every web site you host? Of course not, you stuff them all on one IP except those which really need their own (SSL, etc).

Host-headers, like NAT, have played an important role in getting us to this point (global, common, ubiquitous), and not just because of address conservation.

IP v6 will happen when it happens - when it needs to happen and not a moment before. That's both human nature and network nature.

the only way we adopt ipv6 (1.66 / 3) (#27)
by circletimessquare on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST

is if some governmental body, like the fcc, mandates it, like it does the upgrade to hdtv in feb 09 for the usa. after that time, 4:3 televisions just stop working

of course, for the internet, there is no such governmental body, so there is no one who can enforce the switch

without an authority to enforce the switch, it doesn't matter that ipv6 technology is better, the network effect keeps ipv4 entrenched and inert


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Your vote (-1) was recorded. (1.00 / 4) (#28)
by gr3y on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST

Nothing follows.

I am a disruptive technology.

If you're serious this is inane and you're a moron (1.25 / 4) (#29)
by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:25:36 PM EST

if not, you get points for trolling the shit out of lonelyhobo.

___
I'm a pompous windbag, I take myself far too seriously, and I single-handedly messed up K5 by causing the fiction section to be created. --localroger

I call bullshit (2.00 / 4) (#35)
by Harry B Otch on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:47:51 AM EST

the world's population is well over 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 if you count germs.

-----
Right now the world is madly racing along, the future is reinventing itself every second, and you're missing out, because you're hanging out here with a bunc

The real problem (2.33 / 3) (#38)
by b1t r0t on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:33:08 AM EST

The real problem (aside from the already inefficient legacy of Class A allocation) is allocating large blocks of ipv4 space for zerg-rush stuff like cell phones, which are numerous, but have no benefit from a permanently-assigned ipv4 address. In the end, this is probably the only place where ipv6 will have any significant hold. Even the "im two stewpid too yews virtualhost" web servers have nothing on cell phones.

At the ISP subscriber level, most ISPs have things set up so most normal customers only get one real address, and have to use one of the readily available (often even from the ISP) devices that provide NAT.

If my ISP (at&t DSL, formerly SBC) offered it, I would have implemented it already (I already have a fixed /29 block on my DSL and run DNS, SMTP, HTTP, etc.) But to my knowledge they haven't, and I've heard nothing that indicates they will.

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.

Extension of IPv4? (3.00 / 5) (#41)
by molo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM EST

So you advocate scrapping IPv6 and redoing it as an extension of IPv4 that is fully backwards compatible?  Can you suggest how that would actually work?

I don't see how such a thing is possible except how IPv6 already does it.  How can you address 32+X bit addresses from a backwards-compatible 32-bit address?  Only through a proxy or tunnel, like we have now with IPv6.

Also, you state that there is no benefit or motivating factor to make ISPs and companies upgrade to IPv6.  How would that change with your new IPv4++ compatibility layer?  Institutionalized inertia would discriminate against your protocol extension as much it does against IPv6.

IPv6 is a solved problem as far as the tech goes.  The OSes support it, the software supports it, the routers support it, the higher-layer protocols support it.  The problem is that companies are not motivated to deploy it.  None of those positives are true in the case of your non-existent IPv4 extension, and such an extension still has to overcome the same negative.

As for NAT, it works fine for a company-private network, or a network for media-consumers only.  But the internet was created as a network of peer hosts, where any machine can be both a client and a server.  NAT breaks that for many applications, and requires workarounds and protocol-layer translation help on the router for others.  This is not an acceptable solution for the long term.  Designing protocols to deal with NAT hamstrings network applications.

-molo


--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn

Also see http://www.ipv6experiment.com/ - nt (none / 1) (#42)
by tx on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST



Hmm.. (none / 0) (#43)
by boxed on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:54:47 PM EST

I heard China was using IPv6 quite a bit, so soon there might be more than a billion people that you can't do business with unless you support IPv6. IPv6 will, as you point out, not win by making the US switch, but you know, with the US economy collapsing and the dollar losing its position as the de facto base currency, who the fuck cares about the US? It's not a growth market, in fact, its a shrinking market.

no backwards compatible option possible (none / 0) (#46)
by danny on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST

No "backwards compatible" protocol of the kind you want is possible.  Old IPv4 implementations are never going to be able to handle 128 bit (or even 36 bit) addresses and the associated packet headers.

IPv6 has been designed to make various compatibility options - such as tunnelling or encapsulation - as easy as possible.  There is no magic solution of the kind you envisage, so scrapping IPv6 would be a really bad idea.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]

IPv6 is the solution we have (none / 0) (#49)
by Morally Inflexible on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:05 AM EST

not the solution we want. But I suspect it may be the easiest way out of our problem.

the problem with the 'legacy solution' is that at our current rate of use, we are allocating a /8 every month. add to that the fact that it is hard to get someone to give up a /8, and going after the legacy holders starts looking like more trouble than it's worth.

Selling You Thin Air (3.00 / 4) (#51)
by A synx on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:41:50 AM EST

IPv6 is not being blocked by technical barriers (these people aren't idiots), nor from cost to implement. It would cost more to upgrade everyone's home router to IPv6 than to do it to the big backbone routers of the Internet, and lo and behold those already support IPv6! The people who will never ever support IPv6 or anything of the like are the giant telecommunication companies, the ISPs. Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. The barons in control of the wires. And the reason is not that it's difficult or expensive. Those are minor concerns. The reason is they're selling you thin air.

When bastards win the game of capitalism by destroying the free market, they discover that when people are happy and content, that's too high a supply on the supply-and-demand curve. Optimum profits means restricting the supply and making people unhappy, uncomfortable, desperate. Make people beholden to you and powerless to stop your wealth, and that's the maximum profit. Great for Verizon, not so great for 99% of the rest of us.

So the companies quite gleefully cling to IPv4, because of the restricted address space. They want to hurt you, make you less able to fend for yourself. They want you to come crawling to their door and pay $90 a month for a rotten dynamic IP address. They want to shut you behind a NAT prison claiming it keeps you safe. They want to micromanage your bandwidth so they decide what sites you can use, until your Internet is nothing more than a glorified cable TV service. And they want to sell you IP addresses for more and more money, not because those addresses are more in demand, but because the addresses are so conveniently restricted in supply. Only by fighting their soulless profit mongering will you ever get IPv6, and I don't think you have the power to do that. None of us do. We were born losing at their game and they attack us if we refuse to play by their rules.

the future is here... (none / 0) (#53)
by NotInTheBox on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:15:29 AM EST

I am running on IPv6 for already 2 years here in the Netherlands.

The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet


IPv6 is available NOW. (none / 0) (#56)
by pyro9 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST

With 6to4 and Teredo, there's no need to wait for the ISPs to join us in the 21st century. The 6to4 standards allow anyone to use a public IP they are assigned as the enmdpoint of a v6 tunnel with a built-in IPv6 /48 prefix.

I've had that set up along with a dual v6/v4 LAN at home and at work for 2 years now.

Every recent Linux distro enables v6 by default so all you have to do is have a router announce a prefix and you're set. In Mac, you just check a box. In Vista, it's pre-enabled. You'll get Teredo by default or a regular dual stack if you announce a prefix on your LAN. In XP, it's just a few clicks to add the v6 protocol stack and get the same behavior as Vista.

The only thing missing for the vast majority of people to get on v6 with ZERO knowledge of networking is a new router/WiFi box?

There are lots of people out there on the IPv6 network right now who have never even heard of IPv6. We would see a lot more traffic except that MS snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by failing to follow the standard of preferring v6 over v4 in cases where both are available.

My prediction is that the v6 conversion will happen at the edges of the net through 6to4 and work it's way inward. Once it becomes more common, home users and admins alike will wonder how/why we ever put up with the intrinsic clunkiness of NAT. ISPs will still (as always) say HUH???

For the home user, an advantage is that ISPs are too clueless to monitor 6to4 traffic at all.


The future isn't what it used to be
OMG TEH END OF TEH INTERNETS!!!! (none / 0) (#58)
by Wen Jian on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:33:57 AM EST

HELP MEEEEEEE!!!!!!
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
It has to be an alternative (none / 0) (#63)
by it certainly is on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST

it can't be an extension, i.e. just add a few more extra flags and bytes onto existing IPv4 packets.

Why? Because it presumes THERE WILL BE MORE INTERNET TRAFFIC.

Decoding and re-encoding an IPv4 packet is an intricate process. This is why most networks completely avoid touching the IPv4 payload if they can avoid it. But at some point, someone has to look at the IPv4 headers, and pay the expensive cost of decoding them.

IPv6 is solving (at least) two problems in one move. If we're going to fix the address space problem, an inhibition to scaling the internet, we should also fix the other main inhibition to scaling the internet: routing packets is fucking expensive. Hence the simplified packet structure and inherent routing based on the address.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

The Death of IPv6 | 65 comments (56 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!