Poll: Have you thought about IP6 implementation?

+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27
Wireless Networks Thread, Have you thought about IPv6 implementation? in Technical; Originally Posted by Michael It's got me thinking - how many routers out there actually support IPv6? Either natively or ...
  1. #16

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,060
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,674 Times in 2,269 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    It's got me thinking - how many routers out there actually support IPv6? Either natively or using IPv6 to IPv4 tunnelling?
    It looks like a few do so far Cisco since IOS 12.2(2)T, Nortel, Juniper
    Router Vendor Implementations of IPv6
    The new procurves:
    ProCurve Switch 2900 Series - Features
    Some D-links:
    D-Link Australia & New Zealand - DGS-3627

    Hopefully most current routers will, at least with a firmware upgrade.

    There is a FAQ on IP6 here:
    IPv6 Networking FAQ

    I do see it uptake taking time though and people only be likely to move when there is enough infrastructure about to get the benefits of it without just adding a lot of extra work for very little initial gain.

  2. #17

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,631
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,442 Times in 1,890 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    somehow this reminds me of the "640kb will be plenty of RAM" ... type thinking :-)

    Even now, I suspect that many people will own 3 or 4 devices which have IP addresses. Add to this all the other devices (bus stops? buses? motorway signs? anything which can be remotely monitored?) and I suspect you're starting to get perilously close to 4 billion. Of course, if you NAT everything then that doesn't matter - I suspect quite a lot of PCs have got 192.168.0.2 as their IP and it all works fine - but it will be simpler to go IPV6 eventually.
    All personal devices shouldn't need public IP addresses, that's for sure. Neither should any devices such as bus stops, buses, etc... They are all private devices and as such should be using private address space. The latter group should not even be internet connected! The prior should use NAT'ing to connect (and indeed, many mobile providers do use private IP addresses for mobile handsets and then use proxies and NAT to connect out).

    It may seem like '640kb RAM' thinking, but it really isn't. Private devices should not be routable to from the internet. This is exactly why private IP address space exists.

  3. #18
    chaz6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark (formerly West Midlands, UK)
    Posts
    19
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Has anyone here thought about or actually implemented IPv6 networking in their networks?
    At my last place, I implemented it across all three campuses, as well as the wireless networks - including separate networks for local users and eduroam visitors. One notable site we served was the Harley Davidson European engineer training centre (that should give you a hint where I worked!). The organization is the only other apart from Cambridge University to have IPv6 glue records in the DNS zone .ac.uk.

    Sadly since I left, it seems that the IPv6 service has not been maintained as I can no longer ping the DMZ servers.

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    129
    Thank Post
    11
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    IPv6

    Qoute "There are over 4 billion addresses in IPv4 address space, and there are most certainly not that many devices on the internet!"

    Add things like mobile internet access from laptops, mobile phones, pda's and the increase in home users of the internet and its easy too see why IPv6 is needed for the ISP side of networking.

    A personal opinion is IPv6 will stay on the ISP side of networking and possibly wont touch home users and the majority of business users apart from as already mentioned some form of business with a very lack infrastructure.

  5. #20
    Jamman960's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London/Kent
    Posts
    987
    Thank Post
    186
    Thanked 194 Times in 156 Posts
    Rep Power
    45
    Other than workstations/routers I'd guess that the main hurdle at the moment would be network printers & IP cameras - I don't think any of ours support IPV6 at the moment although it may be possible via firmware upgrades.
    Last edited by Jamman960; 1st November 2008 at 07:51 PM.

  6. #21
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    I suspect that for many end-to-end unified communications applications NATing presents some awkwardness. Voice and video vendors have had to dream up new techniques and technologies to enable all parts of the communication process to be NAT aware. And it's still far from ideal....in reality it's a workaround to cater for devices behind the NAT-aware firewall.

    It's this move to unified communications and the sheer number of these devices that will want to be connected that means IPv4 and NAT just isn't scalable, and add to that the administrative burden for ISP's then it's obvious that ipv6 has some major advantages. It's not just a numbers game there are some technical advantages.

    As for the IPv4/IPv6 issue.....education backbones i thought were already quite well advanced on ipv4/ipv6 internetworking and tunnelling ipv4/ipv6 [lot of high level technical stuff on this that i can't pretend to understand] so i'm not sure when and if there will ever be a requirement for small and medium orgs to move to IPv6 in whole or in part. My understanding is that ISP's want to make the process as transparent as possible. Already the two are running site by side with downstream organisations blissfully unaware.

    It's good that the big Uni's and colleges have given back big portions of their original IP address allocations. Most orgs don't need anything bigger than a
    /24 block as they won't be needing their own AS numbers for multihoming. And seeing as they are quite experienced with NAT and virtual web hosting then working with smaller address ranges shouldn't be an issue.
    Last edited by torledo; 1st November 2008 at 08:55 PM.

  7. #22
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    All personal devices shouldn't need public IP addresses, that's for sure. Neither should any devices such as bus stops, buses, etc... They are all private devices and as such should be using private address space. The latter group should not even be internet connected! The prior should use NAT'ing to connect (and indeed, many mobile providers do use private IP addresses for mobile handsets and then use proxies and NAT to connect out).

    It may seem like '640kb RAM' thinking, but it really isn't. Private devices should not be routable to from the internet. This is exactly why private IP address space exists.
    IPv6 removes the need for NAT, and NAT itself wasn't intented to be as a security mechanism.....what you'll have is more sophisticated application level gateways and session border controllers for IPv6 addressable clients running a protocl like SIP.

    And with security being built into impementaitons of the IPv6 standard [through IPsec from what i recall] why shouldn't all IP-enabled devices be publicly addressable if they need to be ? The scalability will allow it and the security concerns will be addressed in the protocol itself. That's the whole point of IPv6, you don't need an address conservation technology like NAT.

    That's what i was lead to believe anyway.

  8. #23
    ezzauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Redditch
    Posts
    109
    Thank Post
    18
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    We decided to remove IPv6 from our network as there was no need for this service, and just added another layer of complexity.

  9. #24

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,060
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,674 Times in 2,269 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by torledo View Post
    I suspect that for many end-to-end unified communications applications NATing presents some awkwardness.
    Windows 7 + Server 2008 R2 offer location transparent drive mappings which allow you to connect to shared drives (SSL encrypted) transparently from outside your primary network. This will probably extend to may of the other network services in Windows meaning that logging in anywhere will be a simple matter of having an internet connection.

    This functionality does require the use of IP6 though and depending on Microsofts position in the market at that time may help push it out to the masses.

    I agree that NATing is a horrible workaround that is really not scaleable as the amount of protocols and their complexity increases, you already need vast (from an embedded systems POV) amounts of memory to store NAT translation tables and it is not getting better.

    IP6 will be a lot easier to secure as firewalls can be placed at subneted boundries where people choose to group addresses and the source and destination will remain the same throughout the entire communication rather than this nasty rewriting stuff that has to happen now. This in turn will make VPN type traffic simpler and more securable as you won't need to bend the rules to allow malformed packets through (Cisco).

  10. #25
    chaz6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark (formerly West Midlands, UK)
    Posts
    19
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ezzauk View Post
    We decided to remove IPv6 from our network as there was no need for this service, and just added another layer of complexity.
    It was only three routers, and it wasn't doing any harm! Now I know who to blame

  11. #26
    chaz6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Aalborg, Denmark (formerly West Midlands, UK)
    Posts
    19
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ICTNUT View Post
    My Understanding is that IPv6 is supported and used at ISP / telco level already alongside IPv4 but I can see no business case for going over to IPv6 in education not unless you get complete hardware support for it, this includes your LEA as I can bet if your LEA is anything like mine they could not support it anyways.
    If your LEA does not support it, you can get a tunnel service from JANET. Before I left, JANET were still deciding whether to make IPv6 support a requirement for the regional networks.

    Quote Originally Posted by ICTNUT View Post
    Not to mention the complete nightmare it would be to implement across the whole site.
    That was not my experience, and we had 3 sites and not far off 100 VLANs.

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,154
    Thank Post
    114
    Thanked 527 Times in 450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    All personal devices shouldn't need public IP addresses, that's for sure. Neither should any devices such as bus stops, buses, etc... They are all private devices and as such should be using private address space. The latter group should not even be internet connected! The prior should use NAT'ing to connect (and indeed, many mobile providers do use private IP addresses for mobile handsets and then use proxies and NAT to connect out).

    It may seem like '640kb RAM' thinking, but it really isn't. Private devices should not be routable to from the internet. This is exactly why private IP address space exists.
    Just realised I didn't reply to this.

    I think that this is one area where some people just work differently and organisations which started off using public IP have just stayed with that because it works and there's no need to change; changing to private IPs and NAT etc just makes work which doesn't need doing.

    As an example, try doing an nslookup on machines in the range 155.198.x.y etc - I think the whole of that range belongs to Imperial and is used.

    We only use private IPs for things like management interfaces on routers and for machines which aren't registered on our network - they can connect to a web site and register; at that point they get allocated a public IP.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. have you ever given this some thought?
    By alexknight in forum Other Stuff
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 1st November 2008, 10:51 PM
  2. MIS Implementation Consultant/Project Manager
    By SpecialAgent in forum Educational IT Jobs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th December 2007, 09:30 AM
  3. ProCurve QOS Implementation
    By paul in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24th May 2007, 09:23 AM
  4. Saw this, thought of you
    By CyberNerd in forum Windows Vista
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17th December 2006, 02:07 PM
  5. Just a thought but not sure if its possible ..... ??
    By mac_shinobi in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30th January 2006, 09:05 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •