Do we need more ipv6 servers?

[HM2K]

As a follow up, I would say that any type of server is welcomed, considering the loss of a few servers last year (december) and lack of new servers recently, so as I said before its not a case of need its more avalibility.

Enjoy.

[Silence]

I dont see the need for more IPv6 servers to be honest.
I am of the firm belief that servers should only be linked when or if there is a need, exceptions for large ISPs that might attract their customers to efnet. As for IPv6, efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl currently peaks at 1K users and is configured to hold up to 16K clients. So, we can more than handle the current load of IPv6 clients.

Considering there is two other servers also accepting IPv6 clients, I really dont see the need for more servers.

My 2 cents.

[Hardy]

I dont see the need for more IPv6 servers to be honest.
I am of the firm belief that servers should only be linked when or if there is a need, exceptions for large ISPs that might attract their customers to efnet. As for IPv6, efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl currently peaks at 1K users and is configured to hold up to 16K clients. So, we can more than handle the current load of IPv6 clients.

Considering there is two other servers also accepting IPv6 clients, I really dont see the need for more servers.

My 2 cents.

Those 3 servers are all in europe, and two of them in netherland. I would like to see a north american ipv6 server linked tho.

And i dont see why we have to wait until we have a need to link in more new servers. The more rock stable servers we have the less are the loss if another one have to go. Its better with one to many then a lack of servers. The more servers and coverage we have the more picky can we be on what we accept from new servers also, and that way ensure we get the best servers, both bandwith , staff and by company support.

[x]

IPv6 will be the future, so why to not have good "roots" in that area rather early than late? I consider at the moment EFnet and IRCnet as the best networks, they're ready to take this new thing (well new thing to a normal user) in. So what if it's not mainstream yet? Other gigants such as Quakenet and Undernet conservatively stay in IPv4. Things will anyway change, not now but soon. I respect the networks which take IPv6 support in use.
Yanks got so much IPv4 addresses that they prolly won't care so much yet about IPv6 though, but one server there would be of course good also for testing use and when thinking about connections from Asia - more stable to there I guess.

[seiki]

will it really be the future though? there honestly isn't an ipv4 shortage, despite the hype from 1998.. fact is, well under 50% is currently allocated, and less is currently announced and routable.

ARIN is just a bunch of greedy cash-whores

-douglas

[x]

I really hope that it will be, I myself participate in testing work of it. It costs here a lot to have a static IPv4 from any ISP. IPv6 would change that cause there would be enough addresses to allocate static address even to any 56k user. We all know that there is more Internet users to come from mostly Asia and other countries in near future, at least that's what I highly assume. I am not saying that I would have suffered for that fact I couldn't get static IPv4 without paying a bunch of money, but at the moment I have also static IPv6 address and I don't pay for it anything as it was natively static

Don't know how much ARIN has those IPv4-addresses still left but at least it seems that here on Europe it's not so easy to get those more from RIPE.
Tell me if I am wrong

[munky]

correct me if i'm wrong, but:
the definition of "shortage" could be debated, but i know when comcast first bought mediaone, they had a serious shortage of IP addresses. it took a couple months before you could turn on your cable modem and instantly get an IP address. whether this is due to comcast stupidity, ARIN delays, or an IP shortage, i don't know.
i believe, also, that you have to show ARIN that you have something like 90% usage of your current allocations before they will allocate you more IPs. this is more strict than the past, where the percentage had to be more like 50-75 or so.
i think the development/spread of IPv6 was also brought about by the late 90s tech boom when every one thought it would be a matter of 5 years before our toaster ovens were online... (though laundry is online now)

[Osc]

wrt comcast ...

Lack of choice dictated kaybull moedumb for my home. At the time (dec 03) one could purchase additional addresses for the (ripoff) price of $4.95usd per address per month with a limit of 4 additional addresses. Total would be $19.80usd.

On May 3rd they changed the price. Now addidional addresses run $4.95usd for one OR $9.90usd for up to 4 additional addresses. My bill droped $9.90usd per month.

If addresses were difficult or expensive to obtain, I would think comcast would not lower prices.

[munky]

there's a difference between supporting a couple dozen customers getting an extra IP for junior, and buying out a cable company with several thousand customers for which you have to share your existing IP pool with (afaik, comcast didn't buy mediaone's IP blocks, just the existing wire and customer base)

[x]

HERE is a website with some statistics concerning IP-allocations, I am not sure how accurate that is but there's only one country with over billion IP-addresses:

Total IPs: 2,069,188,504
UNITED STATES: 1,281,524,843

Population in the USA: 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.) (source: CIA world factbook)
When dividing the amount of IP-addresses the USA has by the number of people that means about 7 IP-addresses for every citizen in the USA.
Population of the whole world is: 6,302,309,691 (July 2003 est.) (source: CIA world factbook).

I quickly counted that maximum number of individual IPv4-addresses would be around 4-4,2 billion addresses, not sure though.

[HM2K]

I have pretty much "washed my hands" with IPv6, the only people I find using it are people who are hiding behind it to stop people attacking their ipv4, I think the packets just end up going else where instead... Kinda sad if you ask me...

[x]

Sad to hear, but I remind you to not judge the whole thing for those peeps you see doing that. For example to me IPv6 is more "insecure" than IPv4, atm because my IPv6 is static and it has been allocated only to me everyone can go to check from whois-database that IPv6 of mine, they'll see my name, address, phone number and so on... so it's to me kinda more risky.
But I don't care about it, why should I? I am not doing anything what for I would get someone hunting me down on the Net. We can't just stop this IPv6 expansion because of a few packet kids and those who hide behind IPv6 address, they could hide also behind IPv4 address as well, so it really doesn't make so big difference. Those are poor excuses.

Mostly computers which nowadays have IPv6 addresses have IPv4 addresses as well, so hiding behind IPv6 isn't really saving most of the peeps. Should the whole thing anyway become judged because of these hiding people? That sounds a bit simple way of thinking, sorry to say that.
Things aren't that black and white ever.

If you were pointing especially to IRC users with those "hiders" I must say that IRC-users actually don't represent so big percentage of the ALL Internet users that decisions should be made only by looking at their acting, and more little percentage of IRC users are those who use these things to wrong meanings.

[Silence]

Hardy,

I too want to see an ipv6 server in north-america.
However, since the thread was "do we _need_ another ipv6 server?" I just considered the basic needs... and I think we can agree that we dont _need_ it, although we may want it.

I know.. im just being a smartass

[Noam]

I totally agree with Silence, more servers that support v6 would be nice, but the current ones are not close to their maximum... so its not a 'need'.
in regards to one in US, maybe HE.net can support one? as they have IPv6 set up and an EFNet server

[Hardy]

I totally agree with Silence, more servers that support v6 would be nice, but the current ones are not close to their maximum... so its not a 'need'.
in regards to one in US, maybe HE.net can support one? as they have IPv6 set up and an EFNet server

True, we dont -need- a new ipv6 server, just as we dont -need- half of the client servers we have on efnet today. Many of them are way from their max too.

However, we need redundancy to be able to make sure users can connect even on bad days and its also good users have alternatives. Currently there is no North American (NA) servers with ipv6 support, just two in .nl and one in .no

Canada used to have the most popular ipv6 server on efnet so far ( most users and i dare to call it most stable aswell ) , so adding another one to compensate for the lost of Qeast wouldnt be done to add vanity, rather to give NA users/tunnelproviders a alternative closer then across the pond and 400+ms away.

And when it comes to he.net hosting a ipv6 server, that was asked some time back and they didnt want to do it. Not sure why but i last i checked they dont "allow" their own ipv6 tunnel users to use it for irc either.