IPv6 to Finally Go Mainstream in June 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

p05esto

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2001
186
0
18,630
0
Good to hear. Now the problem: We've all been disabling IPv6 on all devices, computers, servers, etc for yers now becuase it wasn't being used and unnecessary. Now we'll have to go and enable all of that again and reconfigure. I'll assume IPv4 will be compatiable as well and work just fine during the transition..... but now I wish I left IPv6 turned on for all my devices and servers, lol.
 

jdenova007

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2011
66
0
18,590
3
[citation][nom]guano33[/nom]Where is IPv5?I want a BJ.[/citation]

Nobody likes odd numbers..... or BJ's.... ok, maybe just odd numbers...
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
74
0
18,580
0
This quote:

[citation]For the uninitiated, IPv4 only supports approximately four billion IP addresses. But due to the "explosion" of people, devices, and web services now accessing the global network, that large number is nearly depleted. To resolve this, a next-generation protocol -- IPv6 -- is slowly being introduced which will provide more than "340 trillion, trillion, trillion" addresses. That should be enough to sustain the Internet's growth "indefinitely."[/citation]

Will go down with the now infamous, "...you'll only need 640k of memory".
 

LuckyDucky7

Distinguished
May 5, 2010
131
0
18,630
0
MPAA Calls the Internet Society's IPv6 Launch Day Dangerous and Irresponsible!!
No, they don't; because IPv6 addresses are tied to devices thus giving grounds to overturning the fact that an IP address is not a person. Making it easier to hunt people down and wreck their lives for fun.

Censorship too hard? Having trouble pushing bad legislation? Ha!
Just implement IPv6 on your country's network, push it as an "technological advancement", and you can finally track people on a device-based level (the MAC address of the machine is embedded into the IPv6 address).

If someone accesses sites that aren't friendly to your country's (or business's) views, just ship them off for re-education somewhere.

Plus, the 128-bit address is a clusterf*ck. You can memorize 12 numbers but you can't do that for a very long string of numbers.
So when DHCP isn't working, who are you going to call?
When you have to have a static IP, how are you going to remember those numbers and letters? How about hundreds of devices that need them?

You wanted NAT? Oh, sorry; there's just no conceivable need we can see, so we'll not put that into the standard. Of course you couldn't see that; it was 1996 when you thought that up! Of course, someone's come up with a solution but that should NOT have been necessary!

Oh, and the group that created this standard won't change it to be more useable.
So there's that too.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into IPv6. Make version 7/8, do it right, and then I'll join you.
But as it stands IPv6 just isn't ready and shouldn't be implemented because it's not the protocol we need.
 

nurgletheunclean

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2007
46
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]balister[/nom]Will go down with the now infamous, "...you'll only need 640k of memory".[/citation]
I don't think you have a grasp of just how big 2^128 is. To put it into prospective you could have the entire IPv4 space (2^32) 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 times. This is not some memory analogy since these units represent hosts, where as a host could be a giant system that scales on it's own independent of it's host ip. I think the statement "indefinitely" is quite valid.
 

alexapi32

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2010
7
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]This just in...MPAA Calls the Internet Society's IPv6 Launch Day Dangerous and Irresponsible!![/citation]
Jesus...
 
G

Guest

Guest
@LuckyDucky7
While I agree with IP tracking becoming more of a problem you're a bit of an oaf if you think IPv6 will be used on private networks.
 

danimal_the_animal

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2006
151
0
18,630
0
You just need a cable modem/dsl modem/t-1 cisco/ whatever that is ipv6 capable or at least can be flashed to support it.

Youre existing internal network will continue to function just fine.
 

g-thor

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
118
0
18,630
0
And on June 5th, the major players ( AT&T, Comcast, Free Telecom, Internode, KDDI, Time Warner Cable and XS4ALL) will announce that they aren't ready yet, they've been too rushed to implement this properly and need another 10 months, maybe a year - plus they have to raise proces because it's costing them a fortune to make the changes.
 

CaedenV

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
532
0
18,960
16
News From 2030:
Due to the explosive use of nano machines which each carry their own individual IP address, people are now being forced to IPv8 (IPv7 apparently disappears just like IPv5 due to being an odd number).

In other news... looks like it may be time to upgrade my old wireless router soon...
 

stonedatheist

Distinguished
May 13, 2010
37
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]I don't think you have a grasp of just how big 2^128 is. To put it into prospective you could have the entire IPv4 space (2^32) 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 times. This is not some memory analogy since these units represent hosts, where as a host could be a giant system that scales on it's own independent of it's host ip. I think the statement "indefinitely" is quite valid.[/citation]

This. If every person on Earth got a new device every single second for the rest of their lives that each required its own IP address, we still wouldn't even come close to using 1% of the available addresses. Indefinitely is a very valid term to use.
 

palladin9479

Distinguished
Moderator
Jul 26, 2008
193
0
18,640
3
[citation][nom]m467386876[/nom]@LuckyDucky7While I agree with IP tracking becoming more of a problem you're a bit of an oaf if you think IPv6 will be used on private networks.[/citation]

Except it has to be. IPv6 requires every device to have a uniquely addressable address to enforce "end to end" connectivity. If your internal network is IPv4 it won't be able to access IPv6 address's. 6 to 4 NAT is not automatic, you need to configure it for each site on the router.

Anyhow this is all moot, as NAPT66 has been created, and it works.

http://code.google.com/p/napt66/

The very thing the IPV6 working group was trying to avoid, an ad-hoc non-standard creation of NAT ended up happening because they refused to make their own standard.
 

balister

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2006
74
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]I don't think you have a grasp of just how big 2^128 is. To put it into prospective you could have the entire IPv4 space (2^32) 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 times. This is not some memory analogy since these units represent hosts, where as a host could be a giant system that scales on it's own independent of it's host ip. I think the statement "indefinitely" is quite valid.[/citation]

I understand perfectly how big this is. I also understand that they have assigned ranges to the various planets. The point is thus, the internet is only about 40 years old and we almost used up every IP address under IPv4, if it weren't for things like NAT, we'd have exhausted IPv4 several years ago.

Likewise, when the 640k memory comment was made, that was 20 years ago (at the end of the 80s, start of the 90s), and yet now we see a lot of systems that require 2G minimum to run effectively, some run effectively on less. Look no further than the amount of RAM that has gone into Smart phones in just the last 3 years.

So, saying that you'll have more than enough IP addresses, other areas show exactly the opposite is the case. Will it be 40 years before we're looking at IPv8? Who knows. But saying that with IPv6 means you'll have all you'll ever need, that's been proven wrong before in several cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
I Streaming Video & TVs 0
I Streaming Video & TVs 0
D Streaming Video & TVs 13
E Streaming Video & TVs 2
seancaptain Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 8
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 16
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 4
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 11

ASK THE COMMUNITY