What is Digg?118 Comments
- 5hocker, on 08/19/2008, -11/+79Stopped reading at "One big feature is security: all IPv6 traffic is encrypted."
- Iacobus42, on 08/20/2008, -6/+55No need to click the link, I will sum it up for you here in one short sentence:
Windows sucks, Apple rules and I don't know what IPv6 really is but I know Apple uses it therefore IPv6 rules and Windows sucks. - pyrates, on 08/19/2008, -10/+53Vista uses ipv6 the same way Back to my mac does. When a Vista user sends out a remote assistance request, that is established using ipv6.
- colol, on 08/19/2008, -16/+55Sweet, a woefully wrong, ill-informed "AppleInsider" "article".
Buried as inaccurate. - wazzledoozle2, on 08/20/2008, -7/+41"external security diapers that are used to protect Microsoft's Windows"
"A remotely addressable Windows PC on the Internet will almost instantly become infected by malicious probes looking for its wide-open back doors."
Buried as *****. You dont need propoganda to learn about IPv6 - gohepcat, on 08/20/2008, -7/+40"the company pushed for adoption of the MPEG AAC codec with iTunes and the iPod, upgrading the world from MP3 while preventing the world's music from being locked up in Sony's ATRAC or Microsoft's Windows Media DRM."
What....the...*****...are you people smoking? Hard to read the rest of the article with madness like this in it. - lVlyke, on 08/20/2008, -3/+29Well you must be doing something wrong, because I can do all of those things in Vista.
- evilesttoast, on 08/20/2008, -2/+24wow, you just failed extremely hard
my only problem with vista was telling everyone it wasnt BSODing on me every 8 seconds - lowtolerance, on 08/20/2008, -2/+23Ya know...i hear a lot of people bitch about vista...I've been using it for about six months now, and I've never had a piece of hardware not work straight of the box. That includes multiple printers, USB drives, flash drives, a wacom tablet, and a couple of different mice.
- colol, on 08/20/2008, -3/+22Damn accuracy, we need to write a fluff piece that's an advertisement for MobileMe!
- colol, on 08/20/2008, -2/+21Huh?
90% of the article has nothing to do with Apple, and that 90% of the article is flat-out wrong. - SPECOPS, on 08/20/2008, -0/+19It says "One big feature is security: all IPv6 traffic can be encrypted via a built-in component of the protocol." CAN BE ENCRYPTED...
or did appleinsider update their article? (not rare that they do when they find mistakes - but they should show the edit) - CobaltBlue, on 08/20/2008, -1/+19I had all those problems, so I upgraded to Mojave from Vista.
- schemax, on 08/20/2008, -6/+23oh noes, teh internets is dying!!1!
jesus christ,
Every common OS already has that technology. Stop digging these stupid IPv6 news that came up all of a sudden. - cliffzdude, on 08/20/2008, -0/+15"NAT has also become an important part of the external security diapers that are used to protect Microsoft's Windows."
Sure, obfuscation of one's network devices doesn't hurt but the author is making a common mistake of assuming NAT = FIREWALL. NATing does not equal firewalling. A stateful inspection firewall isn't something that just protects Windows boxes. Any private network should be protected from the outside world, regardless of OS or protocol employed. The author implies doing so is archaic, I will flatly say his opinion is patently wrong on this point. An enterprise firewall not only employs a firewall, and NAT to make IP addressing on the outside easier, but to control the silly stuff users will do if allowed to get themselves into trouble. Put together of hard core 'Nix boxen users, all on properly patched 'nix boxen with an IPv6 network without protecting the network from the outside, *without* limiting traffic and protocols (NAT + Firewall) and you still have trouble just waiting to happen. Sure Joe Power User will be *certain* that he's properly throttled his torrent client, but since he didn't he's successfully managed to single handedly soak the entire company's internet pipe.
We could limit traffic on a firewall, and pass IPs transparently but by the time you've implemented enough controls to make such safe (think Router Access Control rules), you've basically implemented NAT, you're just passing IP info as if you were doing port fowarding. But you limit how much you can control the outside's influence on your network. - jack104, on 08/20/2008, -1/+14I think it will be sweet if we don't have to deal with NAT anymore.
- zdiggler, on 08/20/2008, -1/+13iPv6 is invented by Steve Job! its got the 'i' in the front.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -0/+10Im 127.0.0.1!!!!
- XX55XX, on 08/20/2008, -2/+12IPv6 has been around for ages. It's just the matter of pushing ISPs to utilize the technology, which most of them are too lazy to do so until it's too late. Fortunately, though we still have a few years left before the IPv4 pool dries up.
- bassman12593, on 08/20/2008, -1/+10255.255.255.255? Thats Me!!
- yugiohdan6, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9There's no place like 127.0.0.1!
- Enron, on 08/20/2008, -0/+9Because a V6 uses a lot less gas than a V8 or V12.
- Mootabolife, on 08/20/2008, -3/+11Up next, how the iPhone changed the way people think about their phones and the universe.
- Buelldozer, on 08/20/2008, -1/+9IPv4 with NAT is NOT "working just fine" and anything who thinks so isn't experienced enough to comment.
NAT is a band-aid and a terrible workaround. - Lewiji, on 08/20/2008, -0/+8Regardless of how different BTMM and Remote Assistance are, they do both use IPV6 the same way I'm afraid.
- aldolinares, on 08/20/2008, -2/+10There are more things you can do with mojave, that OS its way better than Vista and Mac OSX
Mojave FTW!! - schemax, on 08/20/2008, -3/+10yes, you are right on one side. NAT can be a pain in the ass, but if you could adress every computer in every WAN or LAN directly, the whole purpose of e.g. DMZ and firewalls would be obsolete. One could argue that everyone is responsible for his own security. But as an end-user, you want as few threads to reach you in the first place as possible. So having masqueraded IPs has its advantages.
- aldolinares, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7Well that is not an OS problem that is because you are still using your 486
- 2Deluxe, on 08/20/2008, -2/+9Burried for use of term "killer app".
- Spuy767, on 08/20/2008, -1/+8That's a bit rosy, but if Apple hadn't had the success that it did with the iPod, it wouldn't have been ATRAC, but you can be almost certain that wma would probably be the format that most music was sold in. And furthermore, if the music industry weren't so helbent on using Amazon as a cudgel against Apple, I doubt they'd be selling DRM free music at all.
- Combat247, on 08/20/2008, -0/+7I think your argument actually hurt me physically. Ok, so when we upgrade to ipv6 in a few years, you stay on ipv4 k?
- schemax, on 08/20/2008, -3/+10i can certainly play a lot of games on my mac, dont i ;)
- fuzzmeister, on 08/20/2008, -2/+9"No one is adopting it. IPv4 works just fine."
If that argument were applied to everything, we wouldn't ever actually invent anything new. - inkswamp, on 08/20/2008, -6/+12I think AppleInsider is an unbeatable site for Apple rumors (if that's your thing) but this article is really badly researched. Passages like the thing about IPv4 only being able to accommodate 4 billion "uniquely addressed devices" reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of IP addresses.
- Spire3660, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7We could start by yanking all those Class A subnets. Three is no reason HP or any of those other companies deserve or need that many IPs.
- borez, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6The first IPv6 RFC (1998) :
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460
+ a layman's Cisco run through:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6553/product ... - Ericn84, on 08/20/2008, -3/+9Umm, wow I don't even know where to begin.
First time that I think I have ever heard Windows as being the reason that people do not want to switch to IPv6. The main reason that I hear why people don't want to switch to IPv6 is because of how long the addresses are. Its easy for me to give you a 4 octet address as opposed to a 32 character hex address. Its also easier dealing with the A class, B class and C class networks with IPv4.
I don't even want to imagine how much of a pain in the butt it will be to deal with getting pool of public addresses for a corperate environment. Today if I want to add devices to my network, I create a new network with a private address and have it run through my "outdated" NAT and I don't need to tell anyone that I am making this change. What are they going to do? Give me a million addresses for my comapny from the start so I never have the chance to run out of IP's. Thats being even more wasteful with IP's then what we are doing with IPv4.
IPv6 is a lot of headaches without any additional benefits that I have available today. And don't use IPSec as a benefit because you can run that with IPv4 today... - lrdntwnd, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6Not at all. There are only 4,294,967,296 possible IP addresses in the IPv4 address pool. That means that there are only 4,294,967,296 unique IP addresses. So, anything that doesn't get one of those addresses, but is still on the Internet, must not have a unique IP address. That's not to say there can only be 4,294,967,296 devices on the Internet, but there can only ever be that many addresses. In contrast, IPv6 offers 3.4x10^38 IP addresses. That's 5.7x10^28 IP addresses (roughly) for every person on the planet. That's enough addresses to last us nearly indefinitely. Why wouldn't we switch?
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -3/+9Exactly what lowtolerance said.
- inactive, on 08/20/2008, -6/+12HOW THE ***** IS THIS APPLE RELATED?
This is more internet layer protocol based. If anything the title should be Cisco's push! But Apple?
If anything the first dude had it right when he noted that Vista already supports this.
And the BS about infected by viruses is appletardation as usual. - fuzzmeister, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7"Give me a million addresses for my comapny from the start so I never have the chance to run out of IP's. Thats being even more wasteful with IP's then what we are doing with IPv4."
Not really, considering that there are 3.4×10^38 total addresses. - XX55XX, on 08/20/2008, -0/+6I agree that it's probably going to be hard to get used to, but we don't have much of a choice. If IPv6 doesn't go ahead as the new standard, then your smartphone in 2012 might not be able to connect to the Internet.
- spectre_25gt, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6People like you are why we're suffering from an oil shortage right now. You deny, deny and deny the problems with how you're doing things until everything turns to crap. Then, you scramble to fix things and act like a savior.
- tortov, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5No one's adopting it?
You should reread that Arbor Networks report. Yes, IPv6 traffic is a drop in the bucket compared to IPv4 traffic. But they also found that IPv6 traffic today is *five times* what it was a year ago. That's not one guy reloading the dancing turtle over and over. - iofthestorm, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5If we run out of IPs and IPv6 isn't in place they'll just use NAT more often. It's not that big of a doomsday scenario, although the transition to IPv6 should be accelerated.
- fracktica, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6I believe IPv6 has shorthand.. where "::" represents any number of zero words. So you could have something like A9::65:F2:87:32, which would be A9:00:00:00 ... etc... :00:65:F2:87:32
So it's really only a pain in the ass to humans in the year 376489, who have an inter galactic quantum entangled IPv6 network that are going to be like "that ***** edge router on starpulia and it's 32 hex address" - cthellis, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6http://www.bynkii.com/archives/2008/08/old_knowled ...
- Buelldozer, on 08/20/2008, -0/+5Everything you just brought up can still be done with IP V6. What you think SPI firewalls, IDS, and IPS can only work via NAT and IPV4 addresses? NAT is a band-aid and it's time we tear it off.
- wazzledoozle2, on 08/20/2008, -3/+8Funny, because protected AAC is the last DRM'd music scheme still out there. Everyone else has moved back to mp3.
MP4/AAC is an efficient codec, but you can hardly give apple credit for that. - alex4u2nv, on 08/20/2008, -1/+6Also, I would've thought that dynamic dns and proxies would've been cheaper and readily availble.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is