Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IP version 6

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Re: IP version 6

    I used to work for a corporation that got started on the Internet in a pretty small way in early 1992. But we had a number of divisions around the country, and we were planning to grow our Internet presence, so I asked our first ISP (PSInet) for a class-B network (i.e. /16 in CIDR terms). We got one, almost no questions asked. At that time, there was no NAT, no classless routing (CIDR), and no private address spaces defined. When we left that ISP, we took our addresses with us (and the ISP expected us to do so). To this day, the company still has all that address space, and is probably still using it internally.

    I do not see any sign of a worthwhile transition plan to retire IPV4 in favor of IPV6. IMHO the fact that the stacks do not interoperate in a useful way is a serious defect in making this transition practical.
    Last edited by Uniballer; 06-22-2014, 06:17 PM.

    Comment


      #22
      Re: IP version 6

      What seems to be happening is have all newer OS to be "dual stack" and eventually try to silently make ipv4 go away. But yeah this will not be an easy transition.

      I just enabled 6rd on my home network router, still trying to figure out ipv6, enabling dual stack...

      Comment


        #23
        Re: IP version 6

        How Ipv6 Is Benifical for network.

        Comment


          #24
          Re: IP version 6

          NAT Is a total illusion to security. Nat or not, if your network is not set up properly im getting in.. no if ands more buts about it. All NATs doing is making me more pissed off bc it makes me think a bit more bc extra layer of useless complexity. Makes me curse and drink more while doing so. Do you want pissed off/sloppy half drunk hacker or happy hacker roaming your network? LOL jk. jk but my point remains.

          NAT is just a bandage. Def not how true networking intended to be. NAT is a workaround to why my ISP wont allocate me a nice block so i can assign an address for every device I want, yes my coffee pot needs to have an IP....

          I think my main point is.. Why would you want to do something a much harder/complex way when you don't even again anything out of it? If you gain something sure, i get it, but you don't... Im a fan of work smart not hard...

          It would be great if a lot people would just do away with NAT, learn proper security configuration and have a butt load of address (ipv6 that is).

          Regarding security. doing just nat is an easier (read lazy/sloppy) way to implement some *sense* of security rather than learning how to use/code/or impliment a firewall. (for example a password is sense of security bc it can be guessed) I remember the beginnings of Linksys cable routers only had NAT, no firewall. Whoopsies! Now a day you don't see any product like that anymore on the shelf. You see all advertise spi or some cool term for firewall with advanced features. So the moral of the story. Nat is a pain, a bandage. Firewalls provide *part* of the overall security solution. nat provides *no* security


          In a perfect world NAT would be non existent. end of story.
          Heard.

          sorry for my rant. One of those days.

          Comment


            #25
            Re: IP version 6

            Originally posted by MarieShaw View Post
            How Ipv6 Is Benifical for network.


            the benefit you get from 6 is the same as 4. You can talk communicate over the wires.

            We just run out of 4 so we create some crazy workarounds..NAT. So real benefit if 6 is less complex networks.

            Comment


              #26
              Re: IP version 6

              Originally posted by eccerr0r View Post
              What seems to be happening is have all newer OS to be "dual stack" and eventually try to silently make ipv4 go away. But yeah this will not be an easy transition.

              I just enabled 6rd on my home network router, still trying to figure out ipv6, enabling dual stack...
              IOS? if you need help lemme know. super easy to make it dual stack. Essentually adding a secondary v6 address converts to dual stack.

              Comment


                #27
                Re: IP version 6

                Yes, NAT is about IPv4 address multiplication. Here is the earliest description I know of for the many-to-one type of NAT that we use today. Even though it appeared on the Firewalls mailing list it says it is about addressing, not security. Look at the date (1992): this was before the WWW was widely available.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Re: IP version 6

                  What I don't get is why each of the machines I have are apparently getting globally UUID IPV6 addresses but I cannot ping between machines on the same subnet. I can ping their link local IPV6 addresses, just not the globally unique addresses.

                  Each of the globally unique addresses are gotten through DHCP6 on my dual stack DSL modem through 6RD...

                  My guess so far is that packets that are intended to go over the same net that are not link local addresses needs to be forwarded through the router, namely the DSL modem, which it is not doing. This is completely different than how IPV4 works where a ARP points the machine... or should the IPV6 analog, NDP, be doing the same for GUID IPV6 addresses and not just LL addresses which are working?

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Re: IP version 6

                    From OReilly
                    IPng, Internet Protocol next generation, was conceived in 1994 with a goal for implementations to start flooding out by 1996 (yeah, like that ever happened). IPv6 was supposed to be the "god-send" over the well-used IPv4: it increased the number of bytes used in addressing from 4 bytes to 16 bytes, it introduced anycast routing, it removed the checksum from the IP layer, and lots of other improvements. One of the fields kept, of course, was the version field -- these 8 bits identify this IP header as being of version "4" when there is a 4 in there, and presumably they would use a "5" to identify this next gen version. Unfortunately, that "5" was already given to something else.

                    In the late 1970's, a protocol named ST -- The Internet Stream Protocol -- was created for the experimental transmission of voice, video, and distributed simulation. Two decades later, this protocol was revised to become ST2 and started to get implemented into commercial projects by groups like IBM, NeXT, Apple, and Sun. Wow did it differ a lot. ST and ST+ offered connections, instead of its connection-less IPv4 counterpart. It also guaranteed QoS. ST and ST+, were already given that magical "5".

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Re: IP version 6

                      Originally posted by eccerr0r View Post
                      I don't know about having every TV, refrigerator, alarm system, etc. having their own IP address - they probably should be behind a NAT router just for security.
                      The two issues are not incompatible. Whether you hide behind a firewall or choose to NAT is completely independent of how "big" your address space should be. E.g., every TV, refrigerator, alarm system, (and several score more different TYPES of devices that "talk") already has a 48bit MAC address -- despite the fact that the MAC isn't visible beyond the local subnet. So, there's no inherent need for it (the MAC) to be that "big".

                      But every person in the world should be able to, at their decision, have their own IP address if they want it. It would be great if a lot of people could do just fine behind NAT.

                      (Things like STUN/TURN/uPNP/etc. are helping, these are simply hacks to get around issues with programs like p2p VoIP which have NAT traversal issues...)
                      How many "addresses" do you want to hide behind an appliance (e.g., router)? Are you willing to ensure the load on the router is "manageable" by dictating that MOST of those hidden machines won't be passing traffic THROUGH it? (i.e., using it as a gateway) The point behind a larger address space is that you aren't REQUIRED to use an appliance as an "address multiplier" (e.g., via NAT)

                      FWIW, I have some 300 nodes, here... and it's just a "modest suburban home"!

                      [Also, note that IPv6 is more than just "bigger/wider addresses"...]

                      Comment


                        #31
                        Re: IP version 6

                        Originally posted by mattch View Post
                        NAT Is a total illusion to security.
                        NAT isn't intended as a security mechanism. Rather, it allows for address multiplication. AND, gives control over these address extensions to "other parties" without having to register them, specifically. I.e., the rest of the world doesn't need to know if I have ONE host at this IP or 100,000!

                        NAT is just a bandage. Def not how true networking intended to be. NAT is a workaround to why my ISP wont allocate me a nice block so i can assign an address for every device I want, yes my coffee pot needs to have an IP....

                        I think my main point is.. Why would you want to do something a much harder/complex way when you don't even again anything out of it? If you gain something sure, i get it, but you don't... Im a fan of work smart not hard...

                        It would be great if a lot people would just do away with NAT, learn proper security configuration and have a butt load of address (ipv6 that is).
                        NAT provides (and will continue to provide, even in an IPv6 world) features that a larger address space wouldn't, by itself. E.g., being able to change how addresses are assigned, hiding traffic from an upstream switch, anonymizing connections, etc. In exactly the same way that many businesses still live comfortably without DID! (there's no reason each station set can't have a unique "address"!)

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Re: IP version 6

                          The only possible real-deal show-stopper I can see right now, is software compatibility, even if IPv6 existed as far back as 2003!
                          ASRock B550 PG Velocita

                          Ryzen 9 "Vermeer" 5900X

                          16 GB AData XPG Spectrix D41

                          Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 6750 XT

                          eVGA Supernova G3 750W

                          Western Digital Black SN850 1TB NVMe SSD

                          Alienware AW3423DWF OLED




                          "¡Me encanta "Me Encanta o Enlistarlo con Hilary Farr!" -Mí mismo

                          "There's nothing more unattractive than a chick smoking a cigarette" -Topcat

                          "Today's lesson in pissivity comes in the form of a ziplock baggie full of GPU extension brackets & hardware that for the last ~3 years have been on my bench, always in my way, getting moved around constantly....and yesterday I found myself in need of them....and the bastards are now nowhere to be found! Motherfracker!!" -Topcat

                          "did I see a chair fly? I think I did! Time for popcorn!" -ratdude747

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Re: IP version 6

                            Originally posted by RJARRRPCGP View Post
                            The only possible real-deal show-stopper I can see right now, is software compatibility, even if IPv6 existed as far back as 2003!
                            "Legacy" devices will be handled by bridge appliances. I.e., you can map an IPv4 subnet into an IPv6 subnet and diddle with the protocol issues in an appliance; penalize legacy devices as the only alternative is to let them die off so the "penalty" is a small price to pay -- sort of like trying to support current-loop devices (which reminds me that I have to put my ASR33 up for sale).

                            Comment


                              #34
                              Re: IP version 6

                              Originally posted by mattch View Post
                              the benefit you get from 6 is the same as 4. You can talk communicate over the wires.

                              We just run out of 4 so we create some crazy workarounds..NAT. So real benefit if 6 is less complex networks.
                              If you think the only difference (improvement!) that IPv6 offers is a larger address space, then you've not looked into the nitty-gritty of it. You don't push a big specification change on an established population for something that can already be addressed -- albeit with "hacks" -- using existing technology.

                              Comment


                                #35
                                Re: IP version 6

                                Originally posted by MarieShaw View Post
                                How Ipv6 Is Benifical for network.
                                From the perspective of the network itself (i.e., the fabric), the biggest win is the elimination of the need to support fragmentation and reassembly in devices "on the route". This means those devices (esp routers) don't have to accumulate portions of some (potentially large!) number of larger packets just to accommodate an MTU constriction. Instead, the "storage" is pushed back into the sending node (where the data already exists).

                                As all IPs are intended to be routed, you want exposing them to have very little cost to the fabric along the way.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Re: IP version 6

                                  Originally posted by Curious.George View Post
                                  ... As all IPs are intended to be routed ...
                                  No, not all IPs are intended to be routed. Take the 10.x.x.x block of IPs for example. These are commonly used in internal networks where nothing on the other end needs a direct route to the Internet. They were meant to be private and is actually marked as reserved by the IANA for private use.
                                  Don't buy those $10 PSU "specials". They fail, and they have taken whole computers with them.

                                  My computer doubles as a space heater.

                                  Permanently Retired Systems:
                                  RIP Advantech UNO-3072LA (2008-2021) - Decommissioned and taken out of service permanently due to lack of software support for it. Not very likely to ever be recommissioned again.
                                  Asus Q550LF (Old main laptop, 2014-2022) - Decommissioned and stripped due to a myriad of problems, the main battery bloating being the final nail in the coffin.


                                  Kooky and Kool Systems
                                  - 1996 Power Macintosh 7200/120 + PC Compatibility Card - Under Restoration
                                  - 1993 Gateway 2000 80486DX/50 - Fully Operational/WIP
                                  - 2004 Athlon 64 Retro Gaming System - Indefinitely Parked
                                  - Main Workstation - Fully operational!

                                  sigpic

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    Re: IP version 6

                                    Originally posted by TechGeek View Post
                                    No, not all IPs are intended to be routed. Take the 10.x.x.x block of IPs for example. These are commonly used in internal networks where nothing on the other end needs a direct route to the Internet. They were meant to be private and is actually marked as reserved by the IANA for private use.
                                    Just because they aren't routed to The Internet, doesn't mean they aren't routed within the organization! 10/8 (along with the rest of the RFC1918 address spaces) is a sh*tload of addresses; expecting them to be on a single segment is silly!

                                    (how is traffic from my 10/8 devices connected to my 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 devices without routing?)

                                    Comment

                                    Working...
                                    X