Comments on: Getting Closer To IPv6?

By: My Ip Address

My Ip Address — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:54:03 +0000

In the IPv4 world, RIPv2 [RFC2453], the integrated IS-IS [RFC1195], and OSPFv2 [RFC2328] are commonly deployed unicast routing protocols in networks of small to middle scale such as enterprise environments, while BGP-4 [RFC4271] is the common routing protocol deployed among large organizations such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
In general, since the routing concept is identical between IPv4 and IPv6, these routing protocols have been naturally extended to support IPv6. Even though the packet formats may have changed, the principles remain largely the same.
But there are IPv6 specific issues. In particular, most IPv6 routing protocols rely heavily on link-local addresses since communication using these addresses is stable in terms of routing, thanks to their limited scope.
On the other hand, the ambiguity of link-local addresses requires special care in implementing these protocols. It is therefore important to understand the details of the protocols and how they should be implemented even for those who are familiar with IPv4 routing protocols.

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:50:07 +0000

@derek of course it doesn’t preclude it, but it makes it a little bit easier to jump on the bandwagon now.

By: Derek Morr

Derek Morr — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:02:39 +0000

Yes, having IPv6 in the DNS root is a very important step forward for IPv6 deployment. I just wanted to point out that it doesn’t preclude organizations from deploying IPv6 themselves, and running IPv6 on their own authoritative name servers.

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:24:44 +0000

@derek wouldn’t deployment of a major Internet service like DNS indicate progress on IPv6 adoption?

By: Derek Morr

Derek Morr — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:19:14 +0000

There are far, far more than 11 DNS root servers. There are closer to 130. ICANN has a nice write up it - http://blog.icann.org/?p=235

I agree that having IPv6 in the DNS root is very important. However, organizations have been deploying IPv6 for years before this announcement.

By: PhoneBoy

PhoneBoy — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:06:52 +0000

@spg NAT makes stuff worse, but then again, protocol designers are stupid for not taking the reality of NAT into account.

Then again, with IPSec as part of the standard, “filtering” content might be a lot harder.

By: spg

spg — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:22:51 +0000

IPv6 will eliminate a lot of headaches with protocols like SIP getting around NAT firewalls, etc. but lets hope that as the ISPs, cell carriers(who will likely be one of the main pipes into the net in 10 years) and the backbone operators do not put no obstacles in place as they upgrade. without net neutrality IPv6 could actually be more of a problem and a help in that the backbone operators and ISP will be able to identify far more about what is connected to you IP connection and throttle as they see fit.