7 ms·

While certainly concerning, I think the OP is proving the opposite pole. The fact that solutions are continually evolving globally to solve the IPv4 address spa

While certainly concerning, I think the OP is proving the opposite pole. The fact that solutions are continually evolving globally to solve the IPv4 address space issue, and pretty seamlessly too, speaks volumes to how amazing the internet and it's associated technology stack truly is. IMO, the main issue with IPv6 is it's overall complexity compared to IPv4. While it's end goal is laudable, I agree with another comment in that there may have been a better halfway solution (IPv4.1) which could have eased the transition. I say this knowing full well that the problem is very complex and the people working on it brilliant which makes me believe that there may have been no other way.

XorNot 13y ago
Like what? People keep suggesting we could've somehow gone half-way, but it's an illogical proposition. Router ASICs are keyed for IPv4 - that is the only thing they will ever do. Change anything about IPv4, and you have to replace all the routers (heavy duty ones, which do the heavy lifting of the internet). There is no half-way solution to this problem that is somehow "easier" then existing transition mechanisms.
- LukeShu 13y ago
  IPv4 and IPv6 are both complex protocols. Changing anything does mean that you have to replace all the routers, but if you only change the address length, the new routers are almost the same as the old ones, nothing needs re-engineered. Nobody needs retrained. Most software just needs a struct in a header file modified. You do need to replace everything, but you don't need to re-engineer everything. (Not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of GP's opinion)
  - purephase 13y ago
    That is sort of what I meant. I stick by my caveat at the end though and recognize that it is likely far more complex than that which is why we're in the situation we're currently in.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    If you change the address length, no old router and route packets to a new longer address. Nor can they route packets from long addresses to short ones. Game over. You can't "just change the address length". They're hardware ICs. If the address is not 32 bits long, then its a malformed packet that should be ignored. They cannot handle it differently. They can't be reprogrammed. There's been some consternation over Cisco stuff in this capacity, since they use an ASIC for IPv4 and a software-mechanism for IPv6 which is not nearly as fast. The cost and complexity of changing hardware is enormous compared to every other part of the process. IPv6 in software has been solved, and where it can't be solved you can shim-it trivially by comparison. Software is not what's holding it back.
    - mprovost 13y ago
      They could have made the change backwards compatible. Basically by doing something along the lines of designating a part of IPv4 space for use with the new protocol, and then stuffing the extra address into the optional header field. Then if you're running an older device that doesn't understand the new header it will just forward it along until it gets to a device that can.
      - XorNot 13y ago
        Which puts you in the same problem: to any device (i.e. one with a hard-wired ASIC - the largest and fastest hardware generally) the new address space does not exist. The internet goes to some lengths to avoid routing loops as well, so once a packet is passed one router we're not going to be able to easily spin it around and send it back to get to the right place. The net effect is going to be to randomly DDoS a bunch of devices which happen to be behind non IPv4.5 hardware, and so receive 50% of the internets traffic which doesn't get routed properly by an upstream router.
- oasisbob 13y ago
  Change anything about IPv4, and you have to replace all the routers That's a broad oversimplification. Use the Cisco 6500 line as an example: it's a platform that's very long in the tooth, and through modularity is still functioning quite well, even for IPv6. Also: let's not pretend that similar issues weren't hit with v4, eg, the routing table explosion. You can change plenty of things without fork-lifting entire platforms, and serious long-term challenges exist even without considering v6.
Zash 13y ago
What overall complexity of IPv6 are you talking about?
rurounijones 13y ago
Depends if you consider widescale NAT a solution or not since that is what ISPs seem to be considering. Personally, I don't.
- purephase 13y ago
  I don't either. But, you have to admit a grudging admiration of our ability to procrastinate and not have the whole thing collapse around us in the meantime. We've been talking about IPv6 for years in alarming tones about address exhaustion and yet, we're still ok. I guess I'm a glass half-full person on this one.
ianburrell 13y ago
At this point, IPv4.1 wouldn't solve the problem since it would require upgrading lots of software and hardware that already supports IPv6. If it had been developed ten years ago, then a slight modification to IPv4 might have flown. One possibility that might have worked would be an option field to store the internal IP address from NAT. This would allow software that knew about the option to work around NAT. The expanded address would basically become a list of IPv4 address. Unfortunately, this would require support from NAT routers and the consumer routers are probably the slowest equipment to upgrade. This would also require support from operating systems at least, but might be possible for most applications to be unchanged. Protocols, like FTP or SIP, that include addresses would need to be extended but would get the most benefit from easier NAT traversal. All of the changes have already been done for IPv6 (or not done like with Skype).
tacticus 13y ago
So instead of an update to everything that handles addresses we have an update to everything that handles addresses and no change other than that 4 octet is now 5 octets.
josteink 13y ago
IMO, the main issue with IPv6 is it's overall complexity compared to IPv4. And what complexity would that be, if I dare challenge you? I say it's the contrary: IPv6 is dead simple. IPv4, having to deal with NATs and other networking hacks like it makes everything which should be simple complex. Really: IPv6 is a no-brainer, and the only thing remotely "complex" about it would be that addresses are larger, and that would be because IPv6 was designed to accommodate a larger address-space. But since end-users will be using DNS anyway, that's not going to bother anyone except techies. Techies who should be able read a few simple FAQs on the subject and be done. TLDR: If you find IPv6 "complex", that's because you've been too lazy to look into it. I recommend you go do something about that.
- purephase 13y ago
  Since you called me lazy (thanks for that), I'll respond. Keep in mind, I'm not remotely an expert nor do I claim to be. A few FAQs? I think you're being a bit disingenuous. While the protocol itself is relatively simple to understand, the complexity related to its implementation is immense which is why we're still talking about it and not fully doing it. Why it's complex: 1. The recommended approach is dual-stack. This means that network admins/system administrators will essentially have to manage two separate networks. Of course, this is assuming you have core-to-edge IPv6 support. If not, then you're upgrading all of your hardware. 2. Cost. Predominantly why we're still here. Often easy for us to push aside in our cosy developed world, but ignores an enormous number of legacy hardware deployed all over the world that will simply not work and, quite frankly, the solutions like tunnelling read a lot like the supposed pitfalls of IPv4. 3. Training. It's not a matter of a few FAQ's to learn, for a lot of technicians it is a matter of re-certification as all hardware has to be replaced which likely means new operating systems and firmware, proxying/tunnelling servers/devices ala Teredo/ISATAP. For anyone that says it's a "no-brainer", I say that you have little to no experience in managing large heterogenous networks in cost-strapped organizations which, up until now, have had little to no reason to upgrade as the IPv4 address exhaustion issue does not really affect them (yet).
  - josteink 13y ago
    While you bring up quite a few valid points, I strongly oppose that "the complexity related to its implementation is immense". These so called complexities has to be weighed against the cost of keeping patching IPv4 networks into still working as functional networks. And that job gets more complex and costlier for every passing day. With IPv6, most issues you have in IPv4 space would be the solved the instant you enable IPv6. All the hacks goes away. It's a nice, clean network again. The cost of getting IPv6 capable routers should be negligible as anything worth the money bought the last half decade already supports it. Chances are if you haven't replaced it yet, you will anyway, due to stupendously increased bandwidth requirements we've seen the last years. I'm not saying it's a free ride, but I'm saying it's a no-brainer. Because keeping patching the rugged IPv4 landscape we have now is not going to stay viable. And then you might as well invest in the proper solution right away instead of wasting money, time and resources on a stop-gap solution.

XorNot 13y ago

Like what? People keep suggesting we could've somehow gone half-way, but it's an illogical proposition. Router ASICs are keyed for IPv4 - that is the only thing they will ever do. Change anything about IPv4, and you have to replace all the routers (heavy duty ones, which do the heavy lifting of the internet). There is no half-way solution to this problem that is somehow "easier" then existing transition mechanisms.

LukeShu 13y ago
IPv4 and IPv6 are both complex protocols. Changing anything does mean that you have to replace all the routers, but if you only change the address length, the new routers are almost the same as the old ones, nothing needs re-engineered. Nobody needs retrained. Most software just needs a struct in a header file modified. You do need to replace everything, but you don't need to re-engineer everything. (Not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of GP's opinion)
- purephase 13y ago
  That is sort of what I meant. I stick by my caveat at the end though and recognize that it is likely far more complex than that which is why we're in the situation we're currently in.
- XorNot 13y ago
  If you change the address length, no old router and route packets to a new longer address. Nor can they route packets from long addresses to short ones. Game over. You can't "just change the address length". They're hardware ICs. If the address is not 32 bits long, then its a malformed packet that should be ignored. They cannot handle it differently. They can't be reprogrammed. There's been some consternation over Cisco stuff in this capacity, since they use an ASIC for IPv4 and a software-mechanism for IPv6 which is not nearly as fast. The cost and complexity of changing hardware is enormous compared to every other part of the process. IPv6 in software has been solved, and where it can't be solved you can shim-it trivially by comparison. Software is not what's holding it back.
  - mprovost 13y ago
    They could have made the change backwards compatible. Basically by doing something along the lines of designating a part of IPv4 space for use with the new protocol, and then stuffing the extra address into the optional header field. Then if you're running an older device that doesn't understand the new header it will just forward it along until it gets to a device that can.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Which puts you in the same problem: to any device (i.e. one with a hard-wired ASIC - the largest and fastest hardware generally) the new address space does not exist. The internet goes to some lengths to avoid routing loops as well, so once a packet is passed one router we're not going to be able to easily spin it around and send it back to get to the right place. The net effect is going to be to randomly DDoS a bunch of devices which happen to be behind non IPv4.5 hardware, and so receive 50% of the internets traffic which doesn't get routed properly by an upstream router.
oasisbob 13y ago
Change anything about IPv4, and you have to replace all the routers That's a broad oversimplification. Use the Cisco 6500 line as an example: it's a platform that's very long in the tooth, and through modularity is still functioning quite well, even for IPv6. Also: let's not pretend that similar issues weren't hit with v4, eg, the routing table explosion. You can change plenty of things without fork-lifting entire platforms, and serious long-term challenges exist even without considering v6.

Zash 13y ago

What overall complexity of IPv6 are you talking about?

rurounijones 13y ago

Depends if you consider widescale NAT a solution or not since that is what ISPs seem to be considering. Personally, I don't.

purephase 13y ago
I don't either. But, you have to admit a grudging admiration of our ability to procrastinate and not have the whole thing collapse around us in the meantime. We've been talking about IPv6 for years in alarming tones about address exhaustion and yet, we're still ok. I guess I'm a glass half-full person on this one.

ianburrell 13y ago

At this point, IPv4.1 wouldn't solve the problem since it would require upgrading lots of software and hardware that already supports IPv6. If it had been developed ten years ago, then a slight modification to IPv4 might have flown. One possibility that might have worked would be an option field to store the internal IP address from NAT. This would allow software that knew about the option to work around NAT. The expanded address would basically become a list of IPv4 address. Unfortunately, this would require support from NAT routers and the consumer routers are probably the slowest equipment to upgrade. This would also require support from operating systems at least, but might be possible for most applications to be unchanged. Protocols, like FTP or SIP, that include addresses would need to be extended but would get the most benefit from easier NAT traversal. All of the changes have already been done for IPv6 (or not done like with Skype).

tacticus 13y ago

So instead of an update to everything that handles addresses we have an update to everything that handles addresses and no change other than that 4 octet is now 5 octets.

josteink 13y ago

IMO, the main issue with IPv6 is it's overall complexity compared to IPv4. And what complexity would that be, if I dare challenge you? I say it's the contrary: IPv6 is dead simple. IPv4, having to deal with NATs and other networking hacks like it makes everything which should be simple complex. Really: IPv6 is a no-brainer, and the only thing remotely "complex" about it would be that addresses are larger, and that would be because IPv6 was designed to accommodate a larger address-space. But since end-users will be using DNS anyway, that's not going to bother anyone except techies. Techies who should be able read a few simple FAQs on the subject and be done. TLDR: If you find IPv6 "complex", that's because you've been too lazy to look into it. I recommend you go do something about that.

purephase 13y ago
Since you called me lazy (thanks for that), I'll respond. Keep in mind, I'm not remotely an expert nor do I claim to be. A few FAQs? I think you're being a bit disingenuous. While the protocol itself is relatively simple to understand, the complexity related to its implementation is immense which is why we're still talking about it and not fully doing it. Why it's complex: 1. The recommended approach is dual-stack. This means that network admins/system administrators will essentially have to manage two separate networks. Of course, this is assuming you have core-to-edge IPv6 support. If not, then you're upgrading all of your hardware. 2. Cost. Predominantly why we're still here. Often easy for us to push aside in our cosy developed world, but ignores an enormous number of legacy hardware deployed all over the world that will simply not work and, quite frankly, the solutions like tunnelling read a lot like the supposed pitfalls of IPv4. 3. Training. It's not a matter of a few FAQ's to learn, for a lot of technicians it is a matter of re-certification as all hardware has to be replaced which likely means new operating systems and firmware, proxying/tunnelling servers/devices ala Teredo/ISATAP. For anyone that says it's a "no-brainer", I say that you have little to no experience in managing large heterogenous networks in cost-strapped organizations which, up until now, have had little to no reason to upgrade as the IPv4 address exhaustion issue does not really affect them (yet).
- josteink 13y ago
  While you bring up quite a few valid points, I strongly oppose that "the complexity related to its implementation is immense". These so called complexities has to be weighed against the cost of keeping patching IPv4 networks into still working as functional networks. And that job gets more complex and costlier for every passing day. With IPv6, most issues you have in IPv4 space would be the solved the instant you enable IPv6. All the hacks goes away. It's a nice, clean network again. The cost of getting IPv6 capable routers should be negligible as anything worth the money bought the last half decade already supports it. Chances are if you haven't replaced it yet, you will anyway, due to stupendously increased bandwidth requirements we've seen the last years. I'm not saying it's a free ride, but I'm saying it's a no-brainer. Because keeping patching the rugged IPv4 landscape we have now is not going to stay viable. And then you might as well invest in the proper solution right away instead of wasting money, time and resources on a stop-gap solution.