Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue 442
alphadogg writes "The Obama Administration bills itself as the most tech-savvy political team ever, but until now it has ignored one of the biggest issues facing the Internet: the rapid depletion of IPv4 Internet addresses and the imminent need for carriers and content providers to adopt IPv6. Today, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a workshop on IPv6 that features high-profile executives from government, industry and Internet policymaking organizations. Some observers are hoping the Obama Administration will use the workshop to issue a deadline for all federal agencies to support IPv6 on their public-facing Web sites."
Deadline (Score:5, Funny)
I heard he's going to mandate that all Federal agencies cut over to IPv6 by the time they close Gitmo.
-Peter
Already Run Out (Score:3, Insightful)
agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
and you see this in all sorts of problems in life, from coworker's agendas, to politicians and their bombast:
you can win attention in the short term by describing a threat in worse language than it actually is
but by doing that, you pay the longterm cost of people just not trusting what you say anymore
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but by doing that, you pay the longterm cost of people just not trusting what you say anymore
Well now that's why you swap presidents / parties every now and then. It gives you a chance to sweep away everybody's accumulated distrust in the old let and put in a clean new hope for everyone to start again with.
Of course, that could wear thin eventually, in which case you'd probably get a generation that had no faith in the entire political system. But let's hope that doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how "they" always assume worst case?
Peak Oil will hit in 2005 they told us, but that year came and went. They should have used a more conservative estimate and said 2030 will be the year, instead of going with worst case. IPv4 will probably run out in 2020 +/- a year or two.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Peak Oil will hit in 2005 they told us, but that year came and went. They should have used a more conservative estimate and said 2030 will be the year, instead of going with worst case.
Peak oil is an interesting example. You see, peak oil in the USA was in something like 1967. Mexico has been in oil production decline since 2006.
Similarly, it will be interesting to watch ipv4 addrs run out. Perhaps ARIN will run out before APNIC, or vice versa. That will be an interesting time to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, just because you think you know better than the experts doesn't necessarily mean that you do. For estimates that were made when they were, those estimates proved to be quite good. The only reason we haven't run out of IPv4 addresses yet is the rampant abuse of NAT and reuse of various blocks of private IPs.
Re:Already Run Out (Score:5, Informative)
In reality it's about getting rid of the restrictions of needing network address translation, allowing devices to be accessible by one address anywhere, unifying different forms of addressing like phone numbers, IPv4 addresses, multicast/anycast addresses, etc all into one address space, making routing more efficient, making autoconfiguration more seamless, getting built-in cryptography, etc, etc, etc.
Addresses running out is, for the reasons you give and more, really not what it's about, but it is a bit heart-wrenching to see tech-savvy people say we shouldn't go for IPv6 because we're not really running out; we aren't, but we still need to go for IPv6, and if tech-savvy people don't have one mind on this issue it'll take far longer than it should.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed] [potaroo.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't all addresses supposed to be gone by now?
What will likely happen is that the price of an IPv4 address will rise (it hasn't). As it does, people holding blocks of ipv4 will release them - for example, I think HP has two Class As. Merck has a Class A. Etcetera - the main reason they hold on to them at this point is that they don't want to pay the cost of migrating to a 10.x. At some point, they will become valuable enough that these holders will move (and also Class Bs, etc.)
The price equilibrium will see-saw for a while (price rises, people re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't all addresses supposed to be gone by now? That's problem with doomsday predictions IPv4, warming, God, it never happens as scheduled and then people just ignore you next time you start predicting. If we were more temperate about our predictions, people wouldn't dismiss them as more of the same "sky-is-falling" crapola.
No. That is the problem with people getting the warning early. You simply can't handle it. We said in 10 years, but now you keep saying each year, why has it not happened yet?!. Well duh, because the 10 years not over yet!.
The actual date is May 2011. This should be a short enough timespan that even normals can figure out it is going to happen real soon now.
Re: (Score:2)
Within the DoD (and perhaps other departments are the same), there has for a few years already been somewhat of a IPv6 compliance policy. Basically all it is currently is purchase orders are more likely to be approved if you check the "IPv6 capable" box when you submit it. It means nothing currently.
Also, who the hell cares if government websites support IPv6? That's not going to cause people to pressure their ISPs to cut over.
"Customer Service, how may I help you?"
"When are you going to support IPv6 - I
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to Fox news, just a brain and one rational thought to know king barry is the death panel for America!!!
Right. Because no president before Obama has ever made bad decisions on a large scale. ::eye roll::
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>>>Because no president before Obama has ever made bad decisions on a large scale. ::eye roll::
Right on! It's disgusting to see Obama posters with Hitler mustaches. I used to carry round a sign with Bush == Hitler, but to do it to Obama? Sacrilege.
Re:Deadline (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's disgusting to do that to any American President.
It has nothing to do with the "sanctity" of the office, but the fact that no American President comes even close to the atrocities that Hitler inflicted on other people. It's a bad analogy, one which indicates a ignorance at best and an outright denial of facts at worst.
Re:Deadline (Score:4, Interesting)
I would argue that Jackson comes close. I think it's shameful that he's on the US $20.
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
True...the motivation and scale was different, but the ultimate result was fairly close in message.
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Jackson? The only president to never have a national debt. What's wrong with him?
Re:Deadline (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't pay attention in school, did you. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, Jackson's policies towards American Indians (I'm using that term because that's what American Indian leaders in my area have told me to use) was in many ways just part of a continuing genocide committed by the British colonies and later the United States from 1650 or so to 1900 or so.
That said, Andrew Jackson's removal of the Cherokee was a demonstration that American Indians couldn't avoid their fate by attempting to assimilate into white society. Many of the Cherokee had adopted white li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah it wasn't only Jews that were victims.
In the 1930s, long before the gas chambers were built, Hitler killed his own Germans simply because they were mentally retarded (purify the German race). Communists because they were considered an enemy of the national socialists. He did not kill but did imprison Christians who felt forcing Jews to wear stars was immoral (Pastor Niemoller in 1939, for example) and other white persons who dared question Hitler's rule. And sterilized Germans he considered inferior
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
(Score:5, Insightful) - I used to carry round a sign with Bush == Hitler, but to do it to Obama? Sacrilege.
This is too funny. I was being sarcastic and yet the mods appear to agree comparing Bush to Hitler is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Free Healthcare for All? Check.
- Free Retirement for the Elderly? Check.
- Free Housing/Food for the Poor? Check.
- Free School plus College for the People? Check.
- Not free, but government-subsidized "People's Wagons" for everyone, even the poor? Check.
Hitler and his Parliament of the 1930s looks socialist to me. In fact that was the key goal in Spain, Italy, and Germany: To bring corporations under Direct government control (i.e. strictly regulated), while providing lots of government-and-corporate
Re:Deadline (Score:4, Informative)
I was making a point. During the Bush era I saw Democrats/liberals carrying Hitler signs.
[citation needed]
But now suddenly, that's not allowed. Hypocrites.
Pending your above [citation needed], clearly two wrongs make a right, so you're now allowed to do it? Is that how that works?
By the way fascists ARE socialists.
Incorrect.
"socialist" was in the name of the 1920s-40s fascist parties of Spain, Italy, and Germany. And the parties of Eastern Europe, USSR and China.
[citation needed]
Nazism is a politically syncretic variety of fascism, which incorporates policies, tactics and philosophic tenets from left and right-wing politics. Italian fascism and German Nazism reject liberalism, democracy and Marxism.[67] Usually supported by the far right (military, business, Church), fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.[68] The Nazis' rise to power was assisted by the Fascist government of Italy that began to financially subsidize the Nazi party in 1928.[69]
Of course not all socialists are fascists.
If I am willing to consider that "No" and "Not all" are close-ish, this is the first thing you've said that borders on being marginally correct.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem seems to be, in my eyes, that the shoe just... keeps on fitting.
BO is a huge improvement over bush. Of course, thats kind of like your doctor saying "good news, it turns out its just lupus".
What I find is that, a lot of people talk about the issues where democrats and republicans differ. Frankly, its the vast majority of issues where they agree that scares the bejesus out of me. Neither side has any problem with courts accepting "oh national security" as a lame ass blanket excuse to remove ANY i
Re: (Score:2)
states which banned txting while driving had NO decrease in accident
You misinterpreted the study's conclusion. "Our research shows that texting bans do not decrease crashes. No one should take that as meaning that texting while driving is not hazardous. It is hazardous," said Anne Fleming, spokesperson for HLDI, which is an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "What we are saying is the laws as they now stand are not addressing the hazard," Fleming said.
Probably the same reason DUI laws don't reduce accidents. It's hard to locate those drivers who a
Re: (Score:2)
See I actually think the whole issue misses the real issue. They are playing whack a mole with symptoms. Its one thing to bathe a patient in ice to lower a fever but, any doctor that expects that treating the fever is going to treat the underlying cause would be deservedly laughed at in this day and age.
The real problem is that people are not all that good at judging their abilities and multitasking. Taking away one of the plethora of distractions available to them is not going to fix anything. People can g
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it's not sacrilege.
it's hypocrisy.
sacrilege would be if it was a pope's hat instead of a hitler mustache.
of course, with this pope, i can understand the confusion...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect the point was that Obama won't be death for America, just like all the other presidents who have made mistakes did not result in the death of America.
Rome didn't fall in a day! (Score:3, Insightful)
FEW nations fall quickly; especially democracies and large empires don't fall that quickly either.
It'll be gradual and involve most the population being at fault beforehand.
Obama could be the straw that breaks the camel's back; however, that back was arguably broken already and we are have been seeing a mirage. Obama could be the messenger of doom who is falsely blamed as well. Repair takes a lot of strain, we also may not be up to the task of going the right direction... Lots is possible but what is not
Re:Deadline (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would you exclude Bush from "war and socialism"? Medicare part D is one of the largest expansion of entitlements ever enacted and by far the largest threat to long-term budget stability.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just ignore him, he's another one of those "Both sides are bad! (vote republican)" guys.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem isn't that Fox news isn't objective. The problem is that they have a conservative bias and all of the liberals here think that's a good reason to hate them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about the conservative bias. It that they lie, and are hypocrites, and bullies.
If ti was just a bias, that would suck but hey it's ok. When it's specific lies, promote false hoods, and fanning the flams of anger it impacts every one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FOX is Republican (or Libertariaan) leaning and people don't like Republicans/Libertarians.
Please.
People don't like FOX because FOX is populated by lying sacks of shit. Just look at how the mosque situation in NYC was handled: they attempt (badly) to link the Imam to a Saudi who supposedly funds terror, with no basis for their claims. And on top of it, their fucking hypocrites, conveniently neglecting to point out that that very same Saudi owns the second largest share of FOX corporate.
If they were just
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MSNBC can only be compared to Fox on the basis of their primetime programming (and the overnight repeats). From roughly 5 am until 6 pm, MSNBC is rather balanced, while the Fox propaganda continues unabated. How can you call Joe Scarborough "pro-Democrat" and how does Mrs. Alan Greenspan (is she still on midday?) owe allegiance to anyone other than big business? You won't find a prominent Democratic ex Representative on for three hours on Fox. You won't find the spouse of the head of the UAW with a show on
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was gonna be first but my 6to4 layer adds too much latency.
Re: (Score:2)
If you dont go through a 6to4 relay, you don't have any extra latency at all, aside from the fixed time it takes to strip the v6 packet out of a v4 packet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Infinitesimal on decent hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Join comcast then, they have high performance local 6to4 gateways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations on the first post.
Very difficult to do these days.
First Post is easy. A GOOD first post is hard. This guy nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It is a gating opportunity - by which they can better identify and wiretap all those connections.
NAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we at least all agree that NAT is evil, and destroys one of the nicest features of TCP/IP (and a free Internet): it creates a network of peers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet is an illusion created by the Matrix.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There actually isn't any need for NAT with IPV6. Each public address will have 64000 addresses available to do the equivilent of nat'ing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there still is a need for NAT if you don't like showing the world how many hosts you have behind your firewall.
Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)
And why would you need nat for that? Inbound scans can be blocked by the firewall on the router. Outbound traffic sniffing needs to approximate anyways either by looking at the IP's in use or how fast the ports change in NAT (PAT really). NAT has never been anything but security through obscurity over a standard firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't use Squid or SOCKS5 why? There's plenty of ways to hide the hosts without using NAT. And hosts that don't need a direct connection to the Internet can be hidden via virtual circuits (MPLS for Linux has been out for some time), if you don't want to use a proxy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NAT (Score:5, Informative)
Actually on the current 6rd deployment of comcast they are giving out more ip addresses for free. Mostly because they have to or you can't use the privacy extensions of ipv6.
Re: (Score:2)
but how many people and small business what all printers / desktops and more on the internet with any one can just type in and get to with no need for port forwarding or other stuff like it?
also will when AT&T and comcast even have IPv6? will they give you more then 1 ip other ipv6? this is the same comcast that wants $8 or more per tv to rent there box.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many situations that will still require NAT on IPv6.
Such as?
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say. MobileIP and NEMO allows a computer of one address to receive packets for a different address. Proxy servers (such as Squid) handle most other cases I can think of. Tunnels (IPSec) and Virtual Circuits (MPLS) handle most of the rest. I can think of no useful purpose for NAT given the non-NAT ways of achieving all of the results NAT provides.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Require NAT? As in *REQUIRE* and be the absolutely non-optional best-if-not-only way to do something? Would you mind naming a few of such scenarios?
Amongst the clueless, the answer usually revolves around "statefull firewalls can only be implemented by using NAT" or often some variety of security thru obscurity.
Amongst the clueful, the answer usually revolves around mobile vehicles with substantial LANs that want to talk to numerous fixed station networks, don't want to talk BGP, and don't want to do the proxy server thing. Another clueful application, although in my opinion generally misguided, is some pretty strange cluster based load balancing desi
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with the clueful using migratory endpoints via MobileIP or NEMO? They were invented for precisely the problem you describe. IPv6 is especially good for this as the early design work concentrated on having an endpoint whose address and routing path could change during the course of a session. (ie: it isn't dependent on the mailbox approach that is sometimes used.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eventually, every network gets subdivided at some piece of equipment, be it a transparent bridge or router somewhere. The idea of being a "peer" is an imaginary one really - other than boxes plugged into the exact same switch or router on the same subnet, you're doing a network traversal somewhere. NAT makes this traversal more explicit, perhaps, but evil?
Hell, if you really want other "peers", there's all kinds of VPN stuff you can do that will effectively give you the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are quite a few "peers" I don't want connecting to my network.
Monthly reminder (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, the sun will soon explode. Obama's technical team is doing nothing about this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people follow /. less than others and this is the first they ever 'erd of it
Cool, I can't wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I hope while they are at it, they can make sure they can track all the content, every citizen and device that get's "plugged" into the internet.
Hopefully, they are bringing in the vast collective knowledge of the **IA's to ensure that the rest of the world is represented as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting point... getting rid of nat is going to put a lot of machines out on the internet that are currently hiding behind NAT. Once that's done all those NSA backdoors are now available where before there was no route to host... Before they had to own the NAT device, then the machine. Not as though that's a problem for them, its just an inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that today if anyone owns our NAT devices, it's China. If there are any hidden backdoors on them, they're Chinese. Or did you think that the electronics inside that slick, cheap plastic box were US made? Last I heard, the most common commodity router gut-maker was Xyxel, a Chinese company. Makes you wonder how often the NSA goes to Best Buy, gets a NAT box, and reverse-engineers it, just to see what's really happening inside. Then it makes you wonder about the idea of pre-owning only a fractio
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad there isn't a way to put more emphasis on the quotes around "NSA backdoors".
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see, the last 5 wireless routers I've seen installed in people's houses had the default password still there, no encryption set and their SSID was something like Linksys or Netgear.
When I asked the owner about it, the response was either
1. I don't know how to change that.
2. I know how to change it, but I just stopped screwing with it once I was connected.
3. My house is far from the street, I don't think anyone can get a signal, I barely can.
as for 3. with the huge range on N routers and laptops, then a
Re: (Score:2)
Is that likely to be an issue any more? IPV6 by default only came in with Vista, and Vista also brought along an on-by-default firewall.
that only took (Score:2)
part of me is surprised that they haven't explicitly prevented agencies from getting too far ahead of the curve.
guess all that ipv6 compatible equipment will finally come in handy!
Why not go mobile IPv6? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Microsoft already has strong IPv6 support in Windows as does Linux. So there is no reason why ISPs couldn't switch over at any time but the issue is a chicken and egg problem with it being expens
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier support comes first. Making AT&T, Verizon do it will force phone/OS manufacturers (Apple, Google, etc.) to implement it on their OSes. It won't work the other way around. In either case, apparently Verizon is requiring IPv6 for LTE devices [networkworld.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's their motivation:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
www.v6.facebook.com (Yes, really. Look what it resolves to :)
"Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue" (Score:2, Troll)
Not bloody likely. There's little chance that he has the foggiest notion what an IP number is (well, he may have a foggy notion, but it is almost certainly wrong).
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was subject knowledge a requirement to politicians?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The original article actually points out the real problem that the headline misrepresents. The real problem is that the Obama administration is almost comically clueless about Internet engineering issues related to governance.
tech-savvy (Score:3, Insightful)
tech-savvy != good leadership
Re: tech-savvy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's Jon Postel when you need him...
If Al Gore had won in 2000 (Score:2)
We would all be flush with IPv10 and Al Gore would have a harem of massage women. Woo Hoo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because if there are two things this planet needs urgently, they are definitely 10^2048 IP addresses and images of Al Gore sleeping with women.
The article title is trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the article is trolling, too, I think. The issue here is not whether Obama is personally interested in IPv6. As someone above (who got modded troll) mentioned, Obama, himself, probably knows very little about TCP/IP, IPv4, NAT, and IPv6. It's the NTIA that's running this workshop. Printing a headline that says 'Obama' is highlighting IPv6 is just begging to turn the conversation into a bunch of partisan bullshit re: 'hope and change', Obama's personal technical competency, etc. Looking at the thread, this is exactly what happened. And that's trolling (or maybe flamebait).
Then again, it seems like we've pretty much run the whole 'IPv4 addresses running out ZOMG' topic into the ground, too. I guess it's nice to see that the feds are approaching the issue. But there's not really any controversy in 'Federal Government Explores Adopting Updated Technology'. So we make it into a partisan political issue in order to provoke responses? Bleagh.
The US was supposed to switch to metric in 1976 (Score:5, Informative)
I was visiting my father-in-law in Canada, and we were driving through northern Ontario. I'd gotten used to all the street signs in metric by then, and I was surprised to see an old highway sign with a distance in miles. My father-in-law pointed out that Canada had converted to the metric system in 1977, based upon the US plan to convert to the metric system in 1976.
I worked for a blueprint printing company for several years. One issue that often came up was difficulties in rescaling blueprints for different page sizes, as the arbitrary sheet sizes that were standard each had different ratios of length to width. As a political activist, I also often designed flyers; scaling flyers to half-size always came out ugly. One day, I happened to read up on ISO paper sizes, and how they were all based upon ratios of one to the square root of two, which meant that ratios were uniform and rescaling was easy. Apparently, ISO paper sizes are the standard used everywhere but in the US and a few countries in Latin America; Canada prints in US sizes because of the scale of the US market. The ratio of one to the square root of two was proposed early in the history of printing, centuries ago.
As I understand, all modern operating systems have native support for IPv6, and have had such support for years; part of the impetus is that the US Federal government had, at some point, announced a policy requiring any software it used to support IPv6. From what I can make out, it's the ISPs that are dragging their heels on implementing technology that's been tested and ready to deploy for years.
I can understand hesitancy to deploy radical new ideas. However, I don't understand the hesitancy to deploy ideas that have been tested exhaustively, deployed, and used widely.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Obama Administration plans to increase the amount of Hope and Change budgeted for federal agencies in the hope that it will spur IPv6 adoption.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
IPv6 is Microsoft's latest internet operating system, which isn't selling well because Google doesn't like it.
Obama is the infamous terrorist hiding in Afghanistan, who may or may not have been born in America, but is our President, unless you're a republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Progress is okay if it's ACTUAL progress, and not regress, or just the same thing in a new package. For example DAB is actually inferior to the old AM and FM radio. And from what I've seen Windows 7 isn't any better than the old Vista - just a new color arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP supports IPv6. I tried it first in 2003 (maybe 2002).
If it had been first... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems mostly ok as a protocol if you ignore the context of being in an IPv4 world.
That said, with the IPv4 world, what problems are glaringly obvious. One is that generally, the v6 people threw out a whole lot of babies with the bathwater when they went clean slate. Also, generally, those are coming back in. In the beginning they said 'DHCP is obsolete, mDNS and stateless addressing', now they have a DHCP that is approaching the capability of DHCPv4 almost. They still need to have an interface identifier to go with the host identifier to let the DHCPv4 people get comfortable and give them all the capability they had in DHCPv4.
The other completely botched thing was providing no way for an IPv6-only host to ever talk to an IPv4-only host. They'll say it's impractical as that is a many to fewer mapping of address space and clients cannot be uniquely identified while keeping the pure vision of peer-to-peer or nothing at all in mind. However, having IPv6 hosts that are clients and only clients getting to IPv4 only servers via designated NPT (Network Protocol Translation) gateways would have enabled a great great mass of clients to shuffle right over to IPv6 without a horrible experience. I propose that this is still quite possible if the right people drove it.
The first is a matter of general maturity, but currently things are good enough for most. The rest require adoption to really drive change. The second aspect I also don't view as unfixable, it can still be done today, if the IPv6 leaders extract their heads from their asses and compromise on 'vision' for praticality, comforted somewhat by the knowledge that IPv4 would eventually atrophy away in that scenario.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue is that IPv6 was horribly badly misconceived and misdesigned right from the start, in such a way that it was doomed to become the epic fail we know and love today. I am very skeptical that ipv6 can be fixed.
I'd love to believe you but you give no evidence as to why I should. You could very well be right, but how do I know that? [citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Junta summarized it satisfactorily. I could elaborate, but what would be the point? Oh well. For example going to 128 bit addresses was in a word idiotic. It failed to ameliorate router loading issues as hoped, and in fact made things worse by imposing a bigger cache footprint than necessary. It also broke every network library to a much worse extent than necessary by exceeding the 16 bytes allowed from the dawn of time for socket addresses, which design point was chosen by people who knew what they we
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead it's just another protocol with bad interoperability between V4 and V6. If I'm a V6 client I can't talk to a V4 server without some ugly "help". So how do they expect to move every one to V6 if it can't be done gradually ?
If only every OS sold in the last 5 years came out of the box with the capability of connecting to IPv4 and IPv6 networks at the same time so you could begin using IPv6 services as the DNS records for them became available. Boy, how convenient that would have been!
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time not being sarcastic when people keep trotting out that same dumb argument. Every host I use at home and work is dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 and I have none of the hypothetical problems that people keep inventing to panic over.