Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Networking The Internet Technology

IPv6 Achieves 50% Reach On Major US Carriers (worldipv6launch.org) 150

Long-time Slashdot reader dyork brings new from The Internet Society: IPv6 deployment hit a milestone this month related to the four major US providers (Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint, AT&T): "IPv6 is the dominant protocol for traffic from those mobile networks to major IPv6-capable content providers."
A graph on their "World IPv6 Launch" site shows those carriers are now delivering close to 55% of their traffic over IPv6 to major IPv6-capable content providers -- up from just 37.59% in December. "This is really remarkable progress in the four years since World IPv6 Launch in 2012, and the growth of IPv6 deployment in 2016 is showing no signs of abating." In fact, the NTIA is now requesting feedback from organizations that have already implemented IPv6, noting that while we've used up all the 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses, IPv6 offers 340 undecillion IP addresses -- that is, 340 followed by 36 digits.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv6 Achieves 50% Reach On Major US Carriers

Comments Filter:
  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Saturday August 20, 2016 @05:45PM (#52739687) Homepage Journal

    Here, let's get the resistance out of the way:

    "But, but, if we can't have NAT then we'll be h4xx0r3d! And I can't remember all those hex digits LOL."

    • ip6tables -t nat -- this NAT? There are good uses of NAT, although not what most people are thinking of.

    • You can NAT IPv6. Works just like NAT in IPv4.

      As for address length, my public IPv4 network number is 15 characters long, whereas my IPv6 network number is only 13 characters long.

      • I read his statement as being facetious. Last few times we discussed IPv6, we did bring up the fact that the IETF officially endorses NPT - Network Prefix Translation - RFC 6296 [ietf.org]
        • Actually RFC 6269 dis-endorses NAT. RFC 6269 provides the least worst form for those that irrationally just have to have NAT.

          For reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not
          recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6.
          Where translation is implemented, however, this specification
          provides a mechanism that has fewer architectural problems than
          merely implementing a traditional stateful Network Address Translator
          in an IPv6 environment. It also provides a useful alternative to the
          complexities and costs imposed by multihoming using provider-
          independent addressing and the routing and network management issues
          of overlaid ISP address space. Some problems remain, however. The
          reader should consider the alternatives suggested in [RFC4864] and
          the considerations of [RFC5902] for improved approaches.

    • And I can't remember all those hex digits LOL

      And THIS is the best thing about IPv6: it might finally stop enterprise IT teams and programmers from using IP addresses to access everything, rather than using their names. Because IPv4 numbers are easy to remember, it's tempting to use them in config files, command lines, and code. But this is a dangerous practice, considering that many IP addresses change assignments regularly, even if they are "fixed" addresses. I've seen entire VM clusters inadvertently wiped out by IT staff because they mis-typed a

      • by jrumney ( 197329 )

        it might finally stop enterprise IT teams and programmers from using IP addresses to access everything

        It doesn't help when enterprise IT teams come up with DNS naming conventions that cryptically encode all the info about an asset into the name, and then apply that naming policy not only to desktops and laptops, but the servers that everyone needs to access, and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the existence of CNAME records. The IP address is the easiest thing to remember where I work (there are only two

  • I'm really impressed that there have not been a lot more vulnerabilities exploited as IPv6 has grown in popularity. It was common in early supported routers to have all kinds of security on IPv4, but IPv6 was pretty close to wide open due to lack of understanding. With this kind of spread I'm sure the interest will rise soon. I have no doubt a lot of those old routers haven't gotten appropriate updates, and even if they have, the updates haven't been applied.
    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Many of the routers with ipv6 support are linux based, the linux ipv6 stack is quite mature already...
      V6 also comes with some security improvements that v4 never had, like temporary privacy address and a huge address space - scanning an ipv4 range for targets is commonplace but scanning someone's /64 ipv6 space is impractical.
      Also although v6 typically has fully routable addresses, all the consumer oriented routers i've seen block inbound connections by default so it's no worse than the default ipv4 setup w

    • Routers? The only routers here are high end IPv6 routers used in mobile networks. The majority of cheap home routers are still very much on IPv4 and those who aren't (like myself) have incredibly shit IPv6 support.

      • That's my point. IPv6 in home routers is over a decade old, but the support started as terrible implementation.
        • No I didn't make my point clear. IPv6 support in shitty routers is not attacked because it's not used. No one is running around actively scanning for open IPv6 connections, and by far the default configuration even if IPv6 is available is to use the IPv4 (carrier grade NATed) connection first. I have an IPv6 connection, but good luck actually talking to it. In the mean time a browser exploit through an ad network will give you a few millions of hits or so.

          Malware is now a industry and follows the rules of c

          • And that's why I'm suggesting that the proliferation of it will make it a sweeter pot. I know there are far better vulnerabilities, but the obscurity is going away.
            • by sjames ( 1099 )

              You'll still see intrinsic difficulties that aren't there for V4. For example, if I set my AP wide open, you'll have all kinds of fun finding the 5 out of 4 billion addresses in my prefix that have anything on them.

              I suspect malware will continue more or less as is in the form of drive bys and trojans. v4 or v6 won't matter much. The router won't matter much.

              • You'll still see intrinsic difficulties that aren't there for V4. For example, if I set my AP wide open, you'll have all kinds of fun finding the 5 out of 4 billion addresses in my prefix that have anything on them.

                There are some new problems that didn't exist before too. Using the example above one of them is now external actors spamming a /64 results in ND broadcast transmissions of router asking network if anyone matching spammers request is home. Given /64 is essentially infinite for purposes of response caching this can negatively affect available bandwidth between systems on switched networks and eat away at batteries of mobile devices connected via wireless Ethernet.

            • And that's why I'm suggesting that the proliferation of it will make it a sweeter pot

              That was the second part of my point. The proliferation that we're seeing now is not new home networks but rather carrier grade routers in mobile towers used to cope with 1.5 billion smart phones that have been added.

              One would hope that someone with a brain programmed the IPv6 implementation on those rather than the lowest cost H1B import from India that seems to be in charge of home routers.

    • An attack vector would have to penetrate 2^64 addresses (not 2^32). Assuming that once it gets past a firewall, it does a multicast to all nodes in the network (since there are no broadcasts in IPv6). But 2^64 is still 4 billion times more difficult to penetrate than the entire IPv4 internet
    • What kind of vulnerabilities do you think would exist in IPv6, but not IPv4?

      • Early router implementations of it showed a large list of security measures for IPv4, but IPv6 generally was just a on/off. I'm not suggesting the flaw is in the stack, but in the 2005-2010 era routers that allowed IPv6 traffic.
  • This isn't progress at all. We've done little to nothing to move people to IPv6. The only problem is that we've run out of addresses and the easy solution to adding millions of smartphones was IPv6. The majority of home connections are still IPv4 and the majority of ISPs still only offer this.

    As is true with all human nature where a profit centre is involved, we won't make "progress" until we're absolutely forced to.

    • There has been quite a lot of progress in residential broadband too. The "Networks" tab of Akamai's IP adoption visualization page [akamai.com] shows Comcast at 44%, TWC at 22%, and Sky Broadband at 53.5%, alongside the mobile carriers moving to IPv6.

      The smartphone migration is also progress as it has helped to remove the old chicken-and-egg problem for IPv6. Why should websites take the effort to support IPv6 when the eyeballs aren't there? Well now the IPv6 eyeballs are there, and there's a lot of content for them:

    • It is a good first step, however. Everybody was never gonna move to IPv6 at the same time, so it's good that the carriers - the main area where the growth has been - have adapted them in such a big way.

      As far as the broadband providers go, they do need to get moving. At Comcast, I have IPv6 at work - the Comcast Business (from my look at it, it seems to be dual stack lite or maybe dual stack - when I run IPconfig, I don't get a public IPv4 address) but at home, there is no IPv6. The default settings on

    • We've done little to nothing to move people to IPv6. .... The majority of home connections are still IPv4 and the majority of ISPs still only offer this.

      What you say is not wrong, but many people will interpret it incorrectly as suggesting that there is a "switchover" from IPv4 involved. That's not how IPv6 was designed and planned at all. IPv6 was designed right from the start to run alongside IPv4, and "migration" or "transition" are poor words for what will mainly be an expansion of IPv6 use, and it

      • I understand that the changeover from 4 to 6 has to be gradual, and I suppose the fact that all the new cellphones are using IPv6 is significant. Still, I wonder if we will ever be able to shut off IPv4 in home installations -- or on phones. Realistically, we can't do it until every server out there supports IPv6.

        With Comcast service, I am now fully dual stack, and it's nice to see more of my traffic using IPv6. But there have to be extra overhead and security issues when running two IP systems compared

        • You can mostly run a NAT64+DNS64 network with no native v4 right now -- the only problem with it is v4-only client software (not v4-only servers). And even that could be fixed by client OS support for 464XLAT or some sort of automatic mapping of v4 sockets into a v6 prefix (which is something that everything should've supported years ago but unfortunately doesn't look like it's ever going to happen).

      • That's not how IPv6 was designed and planned at all. IPv6 was designed right from the start to run alongside IPv4, and "migration" or "transition" are poor words for what will mainly be an expansion of IPv6 use, and it may have very little early effect on IPv4.

        Indeed. My point is that IPv6 is now legally old enough to vote in the USA and yet the most recent router I received from my ISP still doesn't have support. Based on the useful life of even industrial grade gear the entire world should be at IPv6 by now.

        Instead we've done little. A crumb or two here and there, and a growth so slow and painful that it makes you wonder if it's actually moving at all. In the mean time all those lovely adoption figures are for new technologies like the mobile market where someo

    • What do you mean we've done nothing to move people to IPv6? Do you think it is magic? Do you think we just wave a wand and people are on v6? No, what it takes is rolling out support on the OS, router, ISP, and so on. That has been happening, lots. Have a look at Google's IPv6 chart: https://www.google.com/intl/en... [google.com] what you see is exponential growth happening. This is actual IPv6 connections as well, Google is counting the percentage of people hitting their site with v6, which means an end-to-end connectio

      • What do you mean we've done nothing to move people to IPv6? Do you think it is magic?

        Yes. It should have been magic. IPv6 is now 18 years old. Think about that for a moment. You could have had a child and raised him to an eligible voter in the time IPv6 has been around. How many routers did you replace in that time? 3? 5? I probably would have gone through around 4 with my jumping between ISPs. The most recent of which was last year. Guess what my router does NOT support.

        That has been happening, lots. Have a look at Google's IPv6 chart: https://www.google.com/intl/en [google.com]... [google.com] what you see is exponential growth happening.

        And thus you missed my point. People haven't been moved to IPv6. People have been given new devices on new networks which

        • No, that's not the approach you take. If you think it is, well you need to grow up. You don't cause massive compatibility problems and huge disruptions just for the fun of it. Instead, you do things as smoothly as possible. There is no need to rush out IPv6, it isn't like the world will blow up. IPv4 works, and will continue to work.

          You thinking that implementing something like this on a worldwide scale being cheap, easy or quick just shows a massive lack of experience and perspective.

          • What the fuck are you talking about. I was agreeing with your last point, just pointing out that it isn't actually happening.

  • I recall a joke scenario from a couple years ago:

    Earth is in the throws of a Nanotech Grey Goo scenario. The microscopic self-replicating robots have converted about half the planet to more of themselves. And then they stop. The few surviving humans, observing from space, are puzzled.

    Zoom in. Thought balloon from the mass of Grey Goo: "Damn! We shouldn't have stuck with IPV6. We've run out of addresses!"

  • by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Saturday August 20, 2016 @07:03PM (#52740059) Homepage Journal

    Still frustrated that the ISPs in Canada are still lagging on getting IPv6. The biggest failing ISP is Bell, with no publicly announced plans.

    There has been the "Call Your ISP for IPv6" campaign by the guys over at Sixxs:

    https://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Cal... [sixxs.net]

    • by c-A-d ( 77980 )

      Telus is offering native ipv6 as well. Teksavvy, by extension, is also offering native IPv6 when using Telus as the carrier. Shaw is still stuck in ipv4 land though, which prevents Teksavvy from offering ipv6 on those links.

    • This story was more about cellular carriers rather than ISPs: even in the US, ISPs are really pathetic in terms of IPv6 support. How are Canadian cellular carriers, like Rogers, in terms of IPv6 support?
      • Cox is dual-stack on their entire network. Comcast is likewise. Time Warner is about 90% done with IPv6 on their network. That most of the US's cable providers right there, with Charter being the only major that doesn't have IPv6 yet and they are working on it actively.

        Not every ISP has it, of course, when you count DSL CLECs, dial up, and so on there are literally thousands of ISPs in the US. However it seems that most of the major cable providers do, and combined those guys serve a massive part of the US

        • I have Comcast. Like I said above, at work, we have a Dual-Stack Lite or a Dual-Stack setup from Comcast Business. But at home, I don't have IPv6. I'm talking about the defaults Comcast gave, w/o me saying a word.

          I had Charter in Atlanta a year ago, and TWC in Charlotte a year before that. Both of them had pages that described IPv6, but vaguely spoke about their plans. But in both these cases, I tested IPv6, and got it on neither. If TWC has it, it has to be more recent: it certainly wasn't there in

          • I can't speak authoritatively to Comcast, not having it, but everything I see says they have dual-stack on their entire residential network. Have you tried it? You have to set up DHCP-PD on your router (that is how most ISPs are doing it) and they should give you a prefix that your devices can use.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        This story was more about cellular carriers rather than ISPs: even in the US, ISPs are really pathetic in terms of IPv6 support. How are Canadian cellular carriers, like Rogers, in terms of IPv6 support?

        Which isn't surprising, actually, because I believe LTE, besides eliminating pure voice support (LTE is data-only), LTE also has NO support for IPv4. That's right, LTE is forward-facing and IPv6 only. Of course, most people want to hit IPv4 sites, so there are mechanisms that get you over - like IPv5 to IPv4

  • by destinyland ( 578448 ) on Saturday August 20, 2016 @07:20PM (#52740147)
    I just think it's cool that the Internet Society's Dan York is posting to Slashdot (and has a six-digit UID).
  • Unfortunately, and as far as I can tell, I am either a human or a holographic projection with limited storage capacity. I need IPv4 cause I can't memorize an IPv6 address. Seriously, who can remember an address like 2001:0db8:0a0b:12f0:0000:0000:0000:0001 .. you have got to be kidding me

    • Have you actually used v6? It's not really that hard. For starters, that address is 2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1. (Why did you write it with all the extra zeros?) Secondly, let's compare the v6 case with the inevitably-NATed v4 case:

      2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1
      vs
      192.0.2.215+192.168.189.1

      So, v6 is shorter. If you have trouble memorizing v6, then you should be having even more trouble with v4.

      I'd also like to introduce to this wonderful thing called DNS [wikipedia.org] that eliminates the need to remember most addresses. It's a pretty matur

    • IP addresses - whether IPv4 or IPv6 - are for digital networks, not humans. If they were human, we'd be using things like 123 Elm Street. Using IPv4 is like trying to use just the names Todd and Tammy for a group of 10 guys & 10 gals. IPv6 blows it up to 1000,000 names of which 20 can be given to the above population, w/ the remaining 999,980 left for others.
  • What's clear is that huge swaths of the address space will be wasted by being bought up, monopolized, misallocated, and overused. I expect us to functionally exhaust the IPv6 space within a decade or two.

  • Every time I see a "new big features" announcement from the big 3-5 cloud vendors (AWS, Google, Azure, etc). I keep hoping that one or the other is going to really buy in to IPv6. And I keep being disappointed.

    There are some ways to get them playing moderately nicely with IPv6 (especially if you're buying load-balancing services from them), but most of their networks are IPv4 internal-routing subnets.

    Meanwhile, the middle range VM places (Linode, DigitalOcean, etc) are far more IPv6 friendly. My understand

    • > 's amazing IPv6 has as much traffic as it does.

      It's really not been necessary. I've not seen a single business or service provider failing to find, or provide for its customers, some IPv4 space to host their services, even if it's a name based proxy. Can you think of or find a single commercial service whose IP addresses are only IPv6, without any accompanying IPv4?

      • That's because those businesses are paying extra money to continue to support v4 -- which is of course being passed straight on to their customers.

        Would you rather have waited until companies were being bankrupted by the need for v4 support until we did anything about it? (Because it sure seems like a lot of people would...)

    • insanity like the Cogent-v-Hurricane split of the IPv6 internet (holy crud... it's SEVEN years now since Hurricane baked Cogent that cake begging them to peer with the world's largest IPv6 network... and it's still broken),

      It's irritating that those companies care more about interconnection politics than about serving their customers but I don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things. Decent hosting providers are usually multihomed and thus reachable from both HE and Cogent.

  • IPv6 often is faster to address and has been better monitored however

    end user equipment that route's is lacking for example google OnHub is not IPv6 compliant
    ( https://on.google.com/hub/ )

    whats the process for certification ?

    thanks

    John Jones

  • I had to switch it off. All of a sudden Netflix decided that my registered tunnel with my own IPv6 subnet was an indication of me not being in the place I was supposed to. So netflix just stopped working. (I'd cut them off by that point, but the rest of the family didn't see it that way...)

    So the final and workable fix was to switch off IPv6 on my internal network. Now it's only my gateway that is v6 routable.

    Talk about "giant leap for mankind" backwards. Thanks Netflix. (Or rather "MPAA" I guess.)

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan

Working...