Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
coondoggie on Apr 13, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite

Note: this is a submission by a single-purpose account that does nothing but shovel NetworkWorld stories onto HN so we can argue about them and drive traffic to NetworkWorld.

NetworkWorld, a trade press rag, is virtually never a good source.

The coondoggie account has ~734 karma from just submitting NetworkWorld links. No comments or any submissions, but. Isn't this against HN policies?

No, but it should be.

Presumably that account isn't submitting for karma, but rather because they're being paid to do it.

The "article" reads like a comcast press release.

Apple's action, if true, are a huge step backward, imho. Pissing in the village pond and all that.

The article says Comcast will be first ISP to provide IPv6 to residential customers.

But my AT&T DSL modem gets an IPv6 address from AT&T, and it assigns IPv6 to client computers via DHCP, and my client computers (Mac, Linux, Windows) all accept the IPv6 addresses. And I'm able to ping to IPv6 addresses.

All out of the box.

I actually faced an interesting problem because this OOB IPv6 support was being used by a few programs, unbeknownst to me. Some website (IIRC, related to python's pip) was sending both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses via DNS.

And curl was following spec and trying to download from the IPv6 address first. This had apparently been going on without my noticing for a long time without problems.

Until I attached a half-assed wifi-to-ethernet bridge (Asus WL 330GE), which didn't support IPv6. My client machine still got the IPv6 addresses via DHCP, so curl tried to download via IPv6, but alas, the packets never made it to my router.

Thankfully Apples 'action' isn't true.

All that's happened is that they released a new style Airport Utility, with a simpler UI that doesn't support IPv6 yet.

They are still supplying a version with IPv6 support, and presumably a point release will add it to the new style utility soon enough.

> The article says Comcast will be first ISP to provide IPv6 to residential customers.

In the US. We've had native IPv6 with Free (3rd biggest ISP) in France since January 2008, and I wouldn't be surprised if other ISP elsewhere did it even sooner.

> We've had native IPv6 with Free

Actually, you don't. What Free and AT&T have deployed is 6rd, a 6to4 derivative. This tunnels your IPv6 packets over IPv4.

That is perfect timing, considering that this document[1] by the IETF (RFC6540) basically defines IPv6 as a requirement in hardware and software alike and that is classified as "Best Current Practice" while also being published this month.

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6540.txt

Why does Apple care what some random RFC says? That RFC, in particular, is pretty silly. A couple guys from TWC might just as productively get together and write a document declaring the sky to be plaid.

Because Apple's current success hinged on support of RFC-literate early-adopters who thought that Apple > (MS, Blackberry).

Eventually, the suits were too embarrassed to pull out their handsets in educated company.

But Apple sans Jobs apparently doesn't get it. This is going to make all the cool kids laugh and point. Again. sigh

Ever had a friend whose folly you just get exhausted defending to your other friends?

Apple's current success "hinges" in no way on the IETF. In absolutely no way.

Typical Apple (lately): release a dumbed-down, simplified version of a previously "pro" app. Gradually add features to it and everyone will be happy at the end (except poor early adapters and pro customers).

No reason to worry. They'll add ipv6 support in a few short(!) weeks/months.

Well, that's just the nature of rewrites.

If you're running Lion and need the old Airport Utility (5.6), it's available here:


The new Airport Utility also doesn't give lists of DHCP leases, and graphs of wifi signal strength per connected device.

I couldn't find anything that indicates WHY Apple removed IPv6 support. I'd love to understand if this was an oversight or intentional. If intentional was it to simplify the user experience, fix a technical problem, or because "it was broken and we couldn't fix it"?

The new AirPort Utility is basically a clone of the iOS version, and is extremely dumbed down compared to previous versions. It removed the ability to configure all kinds of useful "advanced" features, of which IPv6 is just one. I assume this was done to simplify the UI, but the new version is a huge step backwards in general. We can hope that they'll add the missing features back in as time goes on, but it remains to be seen.

IPv6 still works fine, and Apple still provides an official download of the previous configuration utility that allows IPv6 configuration and all the rest.

Yes, it looks like the new AirPort Utility was released a little too early. It's fine for basic configuration but the advanced features are missing. It is a rewrite however, so hopefully these features are added as time goes on.

I think the title of this article is a bit misleading.

Wasn't IPv6 on by default in AirPort Extreme? Why do you need to configure it?

It is link-local by default. You can configure it to actually get an IPv6 address to route with, as well as configure IPv6 tunnels on it.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact