4 ms·

Not just a vector of attack, it also causes performance and connectivity problems when misconfigured. As long as there is no critical mass for IPv6, it's not wo

Not just a vector of attack, it also causes performance and connectivity problems when misconfigured. As long as there is no critical mass for IPv6, it's not worth the headache. I know that if everyone had that attitude, IPv6 will never get critical mass, and that is exactly what I'm rooting for. I don't care for toasters with IP addresses.

justincormack 12y ago
Well I noticed today that some random hotel in Germany I was thinking of staying at was on ipv6, and it is way more popular than IE6... People want connected devices, in way more numbers than there are ipv4 addresses, and end to end connectivity is the internet.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.
  - inopinatus 12y ago
    On the contrary, the statement seems correct. End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways. Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.
    - andreasvc 12y ago
      You are stating an opinion/ideal as fact. If you'd look at actual data, you'd see that the vast majority of internet use by consumers is client to server, not peer to peer traffic (e.g., youtube vs. bittorrent), which means there is no need to be "on the internet" for most people. Distributed federation is great and it does not require end-to-end connectivity for everyone. > See also: Everyone Hates Facebook. I don't know in what kind of bubble you are living but 1.3 billion people are on Facebook; whether it's cool to hate it is not germane to the topic at hand.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        I'll point out that much of the reason for most traffic on the Internet being client-server is that most users are behind home routers which make P2P traffic difficult or impossible, slowing innovation dramatically. IPv6 could solve this by giving every computer their own IP address on the actual Internet. Sticking with IPv4 continues to slow innovation.
        e12e 12y ago
        Also note that most uses of p2p are illegal. Then again, much of youtube use is just as illegal -- but people assume (correctly) that they won't be sued for watching or downloading something from youtube (youtube might, or uploaders might -- in theory). So, users are stuck behind asymmetric dsl lines, behind poorly functioning NAT routers and couldn't use p2p for what they want to use p2p for ... legally. There are exceptions of course, like this project: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone or: https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs But after decades of stagnation, and even regression, in the ISP industry -- getting working p2p solutions to catch on is an uphill struggle. And when people don't have software they can, or want, to run as a service -- the demand doesn't exist either. Contrast this with how people used to run their own BBS back in the day...
        andreasvc 12y ago
        I don't think the client-server model is popular because people are behind home routers, but because it reflects the inherent asymmetry of producers and consumers. People being behind home routers is not a cause of that, but a state of affairs that is not-noticed by or tolerable for most because of this asymmetry. This asymmetry is not caused by any technical limitation; even on Wikipedia, which is probably the prototypical crowdsourced site, editors are vastly outnumbered by readers. I don't disagree with the ideal of everyone being able to serve their own content directly to the internet, I just don't think it reflects reality, specifically the abilities and inclinations of most people. I'm curious how people come to hold on to such beliefs when they are so incongruous with actual human behavior.
        12y ago
  - regularfry 12y ago
    If end-to-end is the default, you don't have to be Google or Facebook to play. It's not about the majority, it's about the capability.
kjs3 12y ago
I don't care for toasters with IP addresses. Which means we'll have toasters sporting some proprietary, dumber-than-IPv6, less-functional-than-IPv6, less-secure-than-IPv6, IP address equivalent on the IoT. With DRM preventing you from toasting bread not approved by the vendor. Because there will come a point where buying a toaster without IoT enablement (in the future, toast marketing is nichy but profitable) will be about as easy as buying a 2014 production TV that doesn't sport cable hookups. Tilt at those windmills...
- andreasvc 12y ago
  No need for anything proprietary, IPv4 + NAT suffices. Solves the common problem of me accessing the toaster, and leaves the less common problem of remote toaster operation to some kind of tunnel. IoT and everything getting an IPv6 address are interesting ideas, I just doubt whether people care about it enough for it to pan out. If it's not really necessary, it's difficult to justify the cost of switching.

justincormack 12y ago

Well I noticed today that some random hotel in Germany I was thinking of staying at was on ipv6, and it is way more popular than IE6... People want connected devices, in way more numbers than there are ipv4 addresses, and end to end connectivity is the internet.

andreasvc 12y ago
I'd say putting mobile devices behind carrier-grade NAT goes a long way. > end to end connectivity is the internet. It was definitely the original idea of the internet, but I'd say it no longer is the reality. People want to access Google and Facebook. The vast majority of users don't need or want their device to be directly reachable from the internet but communicate through cloud services.
- inopinatus 12y ago
  On the contrary, the statement seems correct. End to end connectivity is the Internet.... and by contrast, privately addressed networks are not on the Internet but must reach it via gateways. Reaching one another via centralized services rather than distributed federation is a problem, not a solution, in communications protocol design. See also: Everyone Hates Facebook.
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    You are stating an opinion/ideal as fact. If you'd look at actual data, you'd see that the vast majority of internet use by consumers is client to server, not peer to peer traffic (e.g., youtube vs. bittorrent), which means there is no need to be "on the internet" for most people. Distributed federation is great and it does not require end-to-end connectivity for everyone. > See also: Everyone Hates Facebook. I don't know in what kind of bubble you are living but 1.3 billion people are on Facebook; whether it's cool to hate it is not germane to the topic at hand.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      I'll point out that much of the reason for most traffic on the Internet being client-server is that most users are behind home routers which make P2P traffic difficult or impossible, slowing innovation dramatically. IPv6 could solve this by giving every computer their own IP address on the actual Internet. Sticking with IPv4 continues to slow innovation.
      - e12e 12y ago
        Also note that most uses of p2p are illegal. Then again, much of youtube use is just as illegal -- but people assume (correctly) that they won't be sued for watching or downloading something from youtube (youtube might, or uploaders might -- in theory). So, users are stuck behind asymmetric dsl lines, behind poorly functioning NAT routers and couldn't use p2p for what they want to use p2p for ... legally. There are exceptions of course, like this project: http://vodo.net/pioneerone http://vodo.net/pioneerone or: https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs But after decades of stagnation, and even regression, in the ISP industry -- getting working p2p solutions to catch on is an uphill struggle. And when people don't have software they can, or want, to run as a service -- the demand doesn't exist either. Contrast this with how people used to run their own BBS back in the day...
      - andreasvc 12y ago
        I don't think the client-server model is popular because people are behind home routers, but because it reflects the inherent asymmetry of producers and consumers. People being behind home routers is not a cause of that, but a state of affairs that is not-noticed by or tolerable for most because of this asymmetry. This asymmetry is not caused by any technical limitation; even on Wikipedia, which is probably the prototypical crowdsourced site, editors are vastly outnumbered by readers. I don't disagree with the ideal of everyone being able to serve their own content directly to the internet, I just don't think it reflects reality, specifically the abilities and inclinations of most people. I'm curious how people come to hold on to such beliefs when they are so incongruous with actual human behavior.
        12y ago
- regularfry 12y ago
  If end-to-end is the default, you don't have to be Google or Facebook to play. It's not about the majority, it's about the capability.

kjs3 12y ago

I don't care for toasters with IP addresses. Which means we'll have toasters sporting some proprietary, dumber-than-IPv6, less-functional-than-IPv6, less-secure-than-IPv6, IP address equivalent on the IoT. With DRM preventing you from toasting bread not approved by the vendor. Because there will come a point where buying a toaster without IoT enablement (in the future, toast marketing is nichy but profitable) will be about as easy as buying a 2014 production TV that doesn't sport cable hookups. Tilt at those windmills...

andreasvc 12y ago
No need for anything proprietary, IPv4 + NAT suffices. Solves the common problem of me accessing the toaster, and leaves the less common problem of remote toaster operation to some kind of tunnel. IoT and everything getting an IPv6 address are interesting ideas, I just doubt whether people care about it enough for it to pan out. If it's not really necessary, it's difficult to justify the cost of switching.