Apple says all apps must support IPv6-only networking by June

Posted:
in iPhone
Apple in an announcement Wednesday reminded developers of an upcoming change to App Store policy that requires all iOS apps include support for IPv6-only networking.




Come June 1, all submissions to Apple's App Store must be compatible with IPv6-only standards, the latest internet protocol version for hardware identification and network routing. The company first announced iOS 9 would be transitioning to IPv6-nly network services at last year's Worldwide Developers Conference.

According to an announcement on Apple's developer website, many existing apps are already compatible as the protocol is supported by NSURLSession and CFNetwork APIs. Developers using IPv4 APIs or hard-coded IP addresses will need to modify their app code to comply with Apple's new policy.

For Apple, the switch to IPv6 comes amidst wider industry acceptance of the protocol, especially from cellular carriers running networks on which iPhone and iPad operate. The proliferation of internet-connected devices, accelerated with the introduction of smartphones, is quickly depleting IPv4 address allotments. IPv6 is a successor technology and is expected to replace IPv4 in the near future.

Apple offers a set of tools for testing IPv6 network compliance as part of its developer program. In its post on Wednesday, the company pointed developers to a technical paper detailing methods of building in support for IPv6 DNS64/NAT64 networks, and linked to a WWDC 2015 session video entitled "Your App and Next Generation Networks."
ratsg
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,163member
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.
    jbishop1039chiajbdragonstevehmcarling
  • Reply 2 of 31
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,637member
    I don't understand the implications of this. 


    Edit:
    After reading the technical paper linked in the article. It makes more sense and can still support IPv4 through a secondary IPv4 DNS server, that only works with named services not hard coded IP addresses. That is not such a big issue since almost every server has a name, or at least should have.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 3 of 31
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,442member

    Doesn't Skype use/require IPv4?

  • Reply 4 of 31
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 151member
    Strictly, IPv4 has been deprecated, and what used to be called IPv6 is now just IP. So they're requiring that applications support IP networking.
    jbishop1039
  • Reply 5 of 31
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,721member
    Advantage of this, each device can be individually addressed and ID'd; should simplify routing and security
    edited May 2016 moreckjbishop1039chia
  • Reply 6 of 31
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,171moderator
    IPv6 would have been a non-issue if they hadn't gone crazy with the formatting:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup

    "to do a reverse lookup of the IPv4 address 8.8.4.4, the PTR record for the domain name 4.4.8.8.in-addr.arpa would be looked up.
    the pointer domain name corresponding to the IPv6 address 2001:db8::567:89ab is b.a.9.8.7.6.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

    172.16.254.1 (IPv4)
    2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:8:1 (IPv6)

    Human readability is a huge factor, there was no reason to switch to hexadecimal nor to colons. There was no reason to use that many digits. 340 trillion, trillion, trillion is about a trillion trillion more than needed.

    If they had just added a single string up to say 8 characters to the front of IPv4, people would have dropped IPv4 overnight. They could have said IPv6 is now like apple:255.255.255.255 and Apple owns all ~4 billion numbers after the string apple. Only major institutions would reserve the strings. Amazon would own all ~4 billion after the string amazon. Existing IPv4 numbers could have been cast automatically to a:255.255.255.255. The string variations with just case-insensitive letters would give over 208 billion combinations then multiplied by ~4 billion for 832 billion billion options, which is still over 832 billion times what the internet is using.
    edited May 2016 mdriftmeyerwonkothesane
  • Reply 7 of 31
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,501member
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.
    There is a few things I don't like about Apples policies but this is one I can easily support.   Someone has to set the standards and force the stragglers onto modern protocols. If we don't the risk of running out of addresses becomes very real.   So screw the people that can't get with the program!

    jbdragonchiaelijahg
  • Reply 8 of 31
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,501member

    Marvin said:


    Human readability is a huge factor, there was no reason to switch to hexadecimal nor to colons. There was no reason to use that many digits. 340 trillion, trillion, trillion is about a trillion trillion more than needed.

    If they had just added a single string up to say 8 characters to the front of IPv4, people would have dropped IPv4 overnight. They could have said IPv6 is now like apple:255.255.255.255 and Apple owns all ~4 billion numbers after the string apple. Only major institutions would reserve the strings. Amazon would own all ~4 billion after the string amazon. Existing IPv4 numbers could have been cast automatically to a:255.255.255.255. The string variations with just case-insensitive letters would give over 208 billion combinations then multiplied by ~4 billion for 832 billion billion options, which is still over 832 billion times what the internet is using.
    I have to disagree the addresses are increased dramatically but that will mean a viable IP solution for years to come.    This effectively allows an address for anything on the planet, Mars and anywhere else we go.   The approach is very forward looking if you ask me something the IT world isn't all that good about.    IPv6 is one of the few things that seems to have been done right not just for the present but well into the future.

    The complaints I've heard seem more like the whining associated with the Python 2 crowd that makes every excuse possible to stay on Python 2 instead of pulling on their big boy pants and switching over to the vastly improved Python 3.
    chiaelijahg
  • Reply 9 of 31
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,721member
    wizard69 said:
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.
    There is a few things I don't like about Apples policies but this is one I can easily support.   Someone has to set the standards and force the stragglers onto modern protocols. If we don't the risk of running out of addresses becomes very real.   So screw the people that can't get with the program!

    It's not just the risk of running out of address, we in fact have done so a long time ago; it's the increasingly immense kludge we have to go through to go around the current limitations.  If you have to program/limit your program to follow some inane backward standard, well it's time to upgrade.

    Those kluge and all sort of limitations in what you can or cannot do with them are now becoming almost unbearable in this hyper-connected world; just handoff between networks is a huge mess it doesn't need to be these days.
    edited May 2016 jbdragonVisualSeedchiaelijahgmcarling
  • Reply 10 of 31
    VisualSeedVisualSeed Posts: 217member
    Marvin said:
    IPv6 would have been a non-issue if they hadn't gone crazy with the formatting:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup

    "to do a reverse lookup of the IPv4 address 8.8.4.4, the PTR record for the domain name 4.4.8.8.in-addr.arpa would be looked up.
    the pointer domain name corresponding to the IPv6 address 2001:db8::567:89ab is b.a.9.8.7.6.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

    172.16.254.1 (IPv4)
    2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:8:1 (IPv6)

    Human readability is a huge factor, there was no reason to switch to hexadecimal nor to colons. There was no reason to use that many digits. 340 trillion, trillion, trillion is about a trillion trillion more than needed.

    If they had just added a single string up to say 8 characters to the front of IPv4, people would have dropped IPv4 overnight. They could have said IPv6 is now like apple:255.255.255.255 and Apple owns all ~4 billion numbers after the string apple. Only major institutions would reserve the strings. Amazon would own all ~4 billion after the string amazon. Existing IPv4 numbers could have been cast automatically to a:255.255.255.255. The string variations with just case-insensitive letters would give over 208 billion combinations then multiplied by ~4 billion for 832 billion billion options, which is still over 832 billion times what the internet is using.
    Making them human readable is what we have DNS for.

    Adding string prefixes opens up all kinds of problems and another gold rush for owning a limited number of language based names. When we start thinking about addressing nanobots and all the other things we will create in the future 832 billion is not nearly enough. 
    cornchipchiajbdragonmcarling
  • Reply 11 of 31
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 610member
    Marvin said:
    IPv6 would have been a non-issue if they hadn't gone crazy with the formatting:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_DNS_lookup

    "to do a reverse lookup of the IPv4 address 8.8.4.4, the PTR record for the domain name 4.4.8.8.in-addr.arpa would be looked up.
    the pointer domain name corresponding to the IPv6 address 2001:db8::567:89ab is b.a.9.8.7.6.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

    172.16.254.1 (IPv4)
    2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:8:1 (IPv6)

    Human readability is a huge factor, there was no reason to switch to hexadecimal nor to colons. There was no reason to use that many digits. 340 trillion, trillion, trillion is about a trillion trillion more than needed.

    If they had just added a single string up to say 8 characters to the front of IPv4, people would have dropped IPv4 overnight. They could have said IPv6 is now like apple:255.255.255.255 and Apple owns all ~4 billion numbers after the string apple. Only major institutions would reserve the strings. Amazon would own all ~4 billion after the string amazon. Existing IPv4 numbers could have been cast automatically to a:255.255.255.255. The string variations with just case-insensitive letters would give over 208 billion combinations then multiplied by ~4 billion for 832 billion billion options, which is still over 832 billion times what the internet is using.
    Any consecutive groups of zeros can be replaced with :: , saving a fair bit of typing time.
     
    Your thinking is the same as that of the DARPA engineers in the 70's, which has caused our current IP address exhaustion. It's better to have too many addresses than too few.

    AI doesn't support IPv6 yet, maybe it's about time? Maybe switch (again) from this abysmal forum software to something decent at the same time?
    edited May 2016 jasenj1cornchipchiapscooter63tokyojimu
  • Reply 12 of 31
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,127member
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.
    Millions upon millions of ADSL modems do not have support for IPv6 without the likes of CenturyLink, and more trading these in.
  • Reply 13 of 31
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,721member
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.
    Millions upon millions of ADSL modems do not have support for IPv6 without the likes of CenturyLink, and more trading these in.
    Considering how long IPV6 has existed, and how easy these days it would be to support it (if not use it); I find really outrageous that this is still the case.

    There really is no excuse, except pure greed in not wanting to put one engineer on that for a few months (tops) maybe..

    It's not like IPV6 is something nobody knew was coming, it was old news a long long time ago (likely years before any other ADSL modems were ever conceived)
    anomechia
  • Reply 14 of 31
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,715member
    IPv6 = iPhone, version 6.  ;)
  • Reply 15 of 31
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,413member
    Is Server.app one of the requirements?
    elijahg
  • Reply 16 of 31
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 843member
    I support this! Changing from IPv4 to IPv6 is not just about expanding the number of address availability, the technology of IPv6 is much much more than that! Let's see... - auto-configure when connected to IPv6 network - default internet protocol security - default multiple destinations in single operation - IPv6 utilize MAC address when using address auto-configuration for public IP, make it easier to identify the hardware - mobile version no longer require triangular routing - migration to new router allow entire subnets without renumbering - simplified packet header and forwarding -> less processing required in routers, more efficient that IPv4 despite twice the size - and of course 128 bits length means a lot more addresses
    edited May 2016 elijahgpatchythepirate
  • Reply 17 of 31
    anomeanome Posts: 1,030member
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.

    If you can call no-one being able to roll it out en masse for the past 20 years "sooner".

    Converting to IPv6 was always seen as being too hard, and the longer we delayed it, the harder it got.

  • Reply 18 of 31
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,315member
    Some say that a full transition to IPv6 would mean that everyone can now have a static IP because we’ll never run out, and that this is a good thing.

    I say that IPv6 is all the more reason to make dynamic IPs even more dynamic. Obfuscate all traffic.
    volcan
  • Reply 19 of 31
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,721member
    anome said:
    lkrupp said:
    Some are in for a big surprise. I see lots of bad advice being given on the Apple Discussion Forums to turn off IPv6 to resolve home networking issues. Not a good idea since it’s coming sooner rather than later.

    If you can call no-one being able to roll it out en masse for the past 20 years "sooner".

    Converting to IPv6 was always seen as being too hard, and the longer we delayed it, the harder it got.

    That's the funny thing, when they talked about it, it would have been a piece of cake compared to now to roll it out; complete utter greed and lazyness and lack of forward (or a thinking really) (a good combination)
    anome
  • Reply 20 of 31
    PichuChenPichuChen Posts: 1member
    So, does apple.com supports IPv6?
Sign In or Register to comment.