IPv6 support on Naim networked devices

Posted by: Aleg on 21 March 2011

Hi All esp. from Naim R&D

I'm looking into this IPV6 change-over and I'm also considering gradually changing my LAN and all the node and host devices on it, to provide at least dual IPv4/IPv6 support and ideally sometime change to IPv6-only network traffic. I know there are all kinds of tunnel mechanisms to avoid any change overs on small LANs, but I'm just curious if I could do it internally on my LAN as well (and not just on the outside edge).

All my computers support at least IPv4/IPv6 dual stacks or dual layer stacks.
I have an ISP providing IPv6 connectivity, I have an IPV6 capable router that nicely advertises all the IPv6 prefixes etc for IPv6 autoconfiguration of devices on the LAN,
I'm using a managed switch capable of handling and supporting IPv6 traffic on my LAN.

I wondered if anybody could tell me if the Naim Audio network connected devices (HDX, NDX, Serve, Qute, Unity, etc) offer any support for IPv6?
Being products based on Windows I can imagine they could, but do they actually do it?
Is Naim looking into this or do they have it on the roadmap already?

Just being curious and preparing myself for IPV6.

-
aleg
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by Phil Harris
Although we are very much aware of IPV6 it is generally expected that the transition to external IPV6 as far as domestic networks are concerned will be handled by the customers router. The servers are capable of IPV6 and could handle IPV6 if necessary but the current non-OS based platforms would not.

Remember that IPV6 has been around for about 12 years now and has made little headway so far. The explosion of domestic networks ensures that there are a huge number of private LANs that still need to be supported so although preparing for IPV6 is perfectly viable we aren't worried about our current (and in development) kit suddenly becoming obsolete.

Phil
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by 0rangutan
Aleg, AFAIK NDX, Qute and Uniti are not Windows based.
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by Mr Underhill
Originally Posted by 0rangutan:
Aleg, AFAIK NDX, Qute and Uniti are not Windows based.
Hope not. I'm sure Naim would use a decent OS!

M
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by Phil Harris
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill:
Originally Posted by 0rangutan:
Aleg, AFAIK NDX, Qute and Uniti are not Windows based.
Hope not. I'm sure Naim would use a decent OS!

M
But I hate lentils and, given the lack of hair on my head, if I grew the requisite beard I'd look more like I'd been put in front of a fire and had melted...

 

Phil
Posted on: 21 March 2011 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Phil Harris:


       


         class="quotedText">

        Although we are very much aware of IPV6 it is generally expected that the transition to external IPV6 as far as domestic networks are concerned will be handled by the customers router. The servers are capable of IPV6 and could handle IPV6 if necessary but the current non-OS based platforms would not.

Remember that IPV6 has been around for about 12 years now and has made little headway so far. The explosion of domestic networks ensures that there are a huge number of private LANs that still need to be supported so although preparing for IPV6 is perfectly viable we aren't worried about our current (and in development) kit suddenly becoming obsolete.

Phil





Thanks for the reply Phil



I'm not worried about devices becoming obsolete, there won't be many consumers going over to IPv6 on their LAN is my guess. And then there are plenty of methods to keep using IP4 devices.



I was just wondering what capabilities the Naim devices have when I would decide to use IPv6 on my LAN.



So the server products should be able to handle it, but reading between the lines, there may be no active support for it in e.g. user interface. It might have autoconfiguration?



Thanks so far



-

aleg
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Guido Fawkes
Whatever happened to IP v5? 
Does anybody use IP v6?
Posted on: 22 March 2011 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes:


       


         class="quotedText">

        Whatever happened to IP v5? 
Does anybody use IP v6?





In the late 1970’s, an experimental protocol named ST — The Internet Stream Protocol — and later STP+ was given the number 5, but it never took off.



My internet provider fully supports ipv6 and I now use it sometimes accessing ipv6 only sites just for experimentation.

On my LAN all computers and iPod support ipv6 and also there I just use it for experiments to get acquainted with the technology. It is mainly the media devices I have that don't support it and also one old wireless bridge.



I was just curious how Naim is looking at this since I recently read that some manufacturers are going to support it.



-

aleg
Posted on: 23 March 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Aleg I was interested in your question and can understand Naim's response. For most private network address ranges I think ipv4 is fine, of course the challenge is with public Internet addresses where the pressure is on for ipv6.



Therefore I would have thought dual stacks is the way forward for DSL or consumer Internet  type accesses for the medium term which is also implied in rfc4241 submitted by NTT. In which case unless there is a need to communicate with an IPv6 external device directly then ipv4 would be fine for devices on your LAN for the medium term. Of course there is almost certainly a time when our ipv4 private networks will be replaced by ipv6 /48 local site  networks, but perhaps that is a little time away. I think once the key ISP start offering dual stacks then I would ramp up support and interoperability tests, but as Naim say it's the CE router that does the hard work. But unless its plug and play and supported by most consumer routers as well as ISPs then I can see why Naim would keep a watching brief for the time being.



Simon
Posted on: 23 March 2011 by 0rangutan
Nobody really wants IPv6 and I'd love to hear the use case for a public IPv6 exposed NDX!
IPv4 is way beyond the technical understanding of most consumers and v6 beyond that of most techies.
The continuing use of NAT has prevented any real need to transition from v4 to v6 and I think that most people would hope that it stays that way.
Posted on: 23 March 2011 by Phil Harris
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Thanks for the reply Phil

I'm not worried about devices becoming obsolete, there won't be many consumers going over to IPv6 on their LAN is my guess. And then there are plenty of methods to keep using IP4 devices.

I was just wondering what capabilities the Naim devices have when I would decide to use IPv6 on my LAN.

So the server products should be able to handle it, but reading between the lines, there may be no active support for it in e.g. user interface. It might have autoconfiguration?

Thanks so far

aleg
Technically the core of the server products can handle IPV6 if we enable it however it is highly unlikely that we would do because it would appear to have no real benefit for the forseable future...

Phil
Posted on: 23 March 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Orangutan, yes NAT/PAT  and private networks have lengthened ipv4, but the address allocations by IANA are fast running out, and it's getting harder to request large address ranges here in Europe through RIPE. The advent of mobile and Asia onto ipv4 has accelerated the need for addresses, and I think the last free blocks are expected to go this year. Of course the major existing global ISPs have large ranges already so they will be initially ok, as they can release current reserved subnets to customers, it's the new ISP  entrants onto the Internet that will push for ipv6.

I agree to the layman ipv6 would be bewildering, and as you for us techies it forces us to think of addressing differently.

Simon

Posted on: 24 March 2011 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Simon-in-Suffolk:
Orangutan, yes NAT/PAT  and private networks have lengthened ipv4, but the address allocations by IANA are fast running out, ...
Simon


Simon

they're already gone

Update: ICANN assigns its last IPv4 addresses

By Stephen Lawson
February 3, 2011 03:01 PM ET

-
Posted on: 24 March 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Aleg, indeed you are right, and the regional allocation ( not quite sure which region) runs out in 40 days estimated.



http://penrose.uk6x.com/



Simon

Posted on: 25 March 2011 by Guido Fawkes
There are 4,294,967,296 IP addresses out there - somebody is hoarding them - of course some are not available, could not some of these dudes give a few back, as each line is no less than 16,777,216 IP addresses.
Posted on: 25 March 2011 by Phil Harris
Hi,

When IP addresses were initially allocated out they were doled out in larger "chunks" than they are now - of course it would be great to get some of those allocated addresses back into the pool but if it were possible then it would only be a short term solution.

The real issue with getting IP addresses back into the pool from the ranges above is that usage of those ranges is likely to be quite fragmented and so its unlikely that there'd be a clean range to be returned back anyway...

Phil
Posted on: 25 March 2011 by Aleg
If you've got some IPv4's left you could make a nice buck out of it

Microsoft just spent $7.5 million to buy a block of 666,624 IPv4 addresses from Nortel in bankruptcy court

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...2011-3#ixzz1HcgE7sW3


-
aleg
Posted on: 25 March 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Phil, and of course if odd subnets were returned back to the pool, it would massively complicate the Internet routing tables becaue of the compromised ability to auto summarise  and the Internet  routing could grind to a halt.

Simon

Posted on: 26 March 2011 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Aleg, Phil,



Been considering some of the changes with IPV6 and what it might mean to hifi and audio streaming, and of course there is much more to it than just increasing the address range to 128 bits from 64.



The overheads in the protocol layer are reduced in terms of checksum, and larger packet sizes. This should reduce CPU overhead on renderers which are a ipv6 host. Also broadcasts are eliminated and replaced with multicasts which are more targeted and potentially less disruptive to hosts on the network, thereby aiding a more consistent CPU load on the renderer host which should aid design and less side affects to jitter, sound quality due to physical interactions etc. The flow label is introduced which potentially allows better handling of audio streamed data as it traverses the network, and indeed fragmentation is reduced with ipv6. This should make remote streaming from audio jukeboxes and Internet 'radio' at higher bandwidths more reliable over the Internet and give the option of priority routing to subscribers etc. Finally from a consumer point of view the days of dhcp and needing to limit the number of devices on a network would be gone. Multicast and EUI-64 self addressing make future devices completely consumer friendly and plug and play. So contrary to what I said earlier with ipv6 on reflection should be more transparent to the end user than ipv4 is now, and from a hifi point of view have more control over the network performance and host performance.



I guess it's like many things, the better the technology is the less the user has to get involved or understand it. Interesting times..



I think  Ipv6 should give us a network protocol that supports how we use the Internet in all it's guises today and perhaps for a few decades into the future rather than how it was originally conceived in the 70s and 80s which we really have outgrown.



Simon



Posted on: 26 March 2011 by garyi

This is like woosh over my head.