What is Digg?47 Comments
- nefarious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18For those who dont know what IPv4 or IPv6 is or dont know why there is a difference, a brief explanation can be found here:
http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/itpriorities/networking/wan/0,39020540,2133533,00.htm
Nef - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16when.will.this.all.end.
we.are.running.out.of.time. - wesmoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Pitiful and misleading title. Yes, they are shutting down the EXPERIMENTAL (aka: Beta) IPv6 network and forcing all of those users over to their PRODUCTION IPv6 network. Sheesh..
- IcarusAngelus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Am I the only one who has no idea what any of that means? The "article" doesn't seem to explain whats actually going on to those of us who aren't familiar with IP tech.
- MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Will we ever see any mainstream market adoption of IPv6 that isn't forced?
Or will we have to run out of IPv4 addresses first - khag7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11i.dont.think.they.got.the.joke
- agdros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7you have no clue what your talking about.. don't make stuff up.
ipv6 has nothing to do with the "export [of] services via Internet which have been unrealized previously".
and the statement "the infrastructure just couldn't handle the traffic/bandwidth" is completely false.
nefarious has a good link below.. or google ipv6 to enlighten yourselves people.. - mikesol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I'm just going to point out the obvious:
06/06/06 is a good day to shut down the 6Bone IPv6 network.
Say that six times in a row quickly! - jfox00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything, but if you don't understand a topic posted on digg, do a little research. Read the article. I'm sure some nice diggers will point you in the right direction if you ask, but do you really need to? I'm afraid this social networking nightmare we have created has damaged some of the more elemental problem solving techniques. Like searching on your own.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But I like using my circa 1999 router.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"IPv6 has MORE overhead."
Um that's not true. A few extra digits is nothing to the 20% of your bandwith wasted with each packet right now. - wickedsun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5For those who think that IPv6 is not any more secure than IPv4.. IPv6 has IPSec as part of it.
NAT is a big problem, actually. I can't wait for the day when I log into a router and just look at IPs without having to figure out the NAT between 2 distinct sites. If you're played with a huge network with NATing involved, you know that NAT is not a solution. We're not talking about IPs for the customers, but for providers. A network with 3 NAT in it is no fun (except for security reasons).
NAT is a workaround, IPv6 is the solution. - drtyfrnk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6you and me both buddy.
I know OF IPv6, just not what this is or what it can do. - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Basically they are saying that the Testbed network they have been running the last 10 years are being phased out and the IPv6 addresses and networking paths are being put into a production enviroment for permanent implementation. Who knows if it will actually happen though.
- NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4umm, IPv6 has MORE overhead. the header has to accomodate all those extra address bits. Most of the various 'feature' bits that were jammed into IPv4 are also explicit bits in the header and take up space. On large packets that doesn't matter much, but on small ones it can be a very large percentage. There would be a small (single digit or low teens) loss in efficiency with IPv6 regarding bandwidth utilization.
Please forgive the fuzziness I havn't read the RFC in years now, and published statistics tend to be debatable.
The nice thing about the 6bone was you could use your existing ipv4 addresses and just map them into V6 space. You didn't need to request addresses from a registry or anyone else. Is ther still a way to do that? or do I need to fill out twenty pages of forms to justify a new address request when the time comes for V6? - Shaft0rz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's actually 2^32 and 2^128, which is a much bigger difference than 128^2 - 32^2 (= 15,360).
Sorry to be pedantic, but I had to... - pmag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Bone is short for IPv6 Backbone, I dont know if anyone already stated that or not.
I was a network engineer on a DoD contract for many years and we held many IPv6 meetings about 3 years ago about switching. The DoD is attempting to make the switch to IPv6 by 2008 themselves. The DoD announced in late 2003 that it would start purchasing only network equipment that supported IPv6. Obviously DoD has a great impact on the internet and if they do make the switch it will probably begin a trickle down effect. However, the whole process of switching to IPv6 will be a very slow process and will rely on some special methods (dual stacking, IPv4 translation) to make the transition less painful. Its def not going to be an overnight change, more like years. One of the best things to do if you want to really know is just to read the RFC for IPv6...
http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=2460
Once you read about it and see the possibilites it really will be amazing. We could all have a few trillion addresses ourselves. Just for kicks here is the diff...
IPv4 -> 4,294,967,296
IPv6 -> 430,282,366,920,938,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
Oh, and get good at hexadecimal ! - aclements, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It is going to need to be forced. Supply and demand say the those that own the IPv4 addresses won't make any money on the IPv6 addresses, there are just too many of them.
- thecwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hansmast: IPv6 does have a backwards compatible migration path. You can access IPv4 addresses from IPv6 (if your IPv6 provider supports it iirc) and an interface can be assigned both an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address. Therefore, servers just need to be assigned both IPv4 and IPv6 and it's fine.
NAT is ugly, the sooner we get away from it the better. And no, NAT is not a good firewall... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Jimboxcr was likely referring to the reduced overhead of IPv6 compared to IPv4. That alone makes it worth it in the long run. Any network literate person can tell you that. But IPv6 is a long term gain when most businesses look at immediate costs and benefits.
Seriously though, imagine reducing bittorrent traffic by 15%, that's a huge increase in efficiency and savings for ISPs and consumers that pay by usage. - drtyfrnk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Thank you Nefarious!
At least one digger came up with the goods :D - YourTechSupport, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I know that IPv6 is the eventual future. But switching will be a pain, and all our addresses will be really, really long.
- einsfahrt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is similar to the gigabit testbeds of the 90s that brought you the gigabit Ethernet you know today, only apply it to IPv6 this time.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I second that. Someone enlighten us. IPv4 doesn't have enough numbers. Other than giving us more, what does v6 do?
- jeaguilar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3OK. I'm ready: How do I migrate my business to IPv6?
- seanmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wouldn't 64 bits of address space have been more than enough? Why 128 bits? Wait, I know, In case we we meet alien lifeforms and decide that IPv6 is the network protocol of the galaxy.
- Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Jimboxer - incomplete statement out of context. The federal government has mandated a change to IPv6...for the federal government. Current belief is that this will spur movement in the private sector as well. Time will tell.
ipv6 is still needed, despite the use of NAT and classless subnetting. Due to the simple fact that the number of network aware devices is expanding exponentially. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yes.they.did.
it.got.plus.eight - twollamalove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hansmast may be right in some regards. NAT is so prevalent that it really has eased the burden. This doesn't seem to eliminate the need to IPv6, but it certainly seems like it will prolong it for a long while. Maybe whilst IPv6 is being prolonged, it will give time for network app authors to make their code compatible with both protocols. Haha. Right.
- dan90251, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Qos is IPV6 is for multimedia stuff I believe VoIP VoD and Hopefully BT. I'm not sure if it could be used to favour one site or IP over others?? anyone?
When I looked into IPv6 at Uni it seemed like an ideal solution enough IPs so that everything could have an IP making IPs dirt cheap. I want my Kettle on the net... I need to be able to through the switch ready for my arrival :) - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IPv6 makes classification easier to some degree, but IPv4 already has DSCP bits in the TOS byte which are plenty granular at this stage of Internet prioritization. NAT is also annoying to vendors as they have to either process it or accelerate it with a hardware NAT path. Less NAT makes things easier :). The problem is that everyone has been dealing with it so long, it's 2nd nature and not that big of a hassle anymore. It all boils down to how easy and cheap it will be to switch.
- koniosis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe they said the same thing with IPv4, who would need more than 32bits for an address?
More seriously, there are lots of uses for the 128bits, one being that you can map MAC addresses directly to the lower 64bits to generate local addresses automatically. Lots are used for Multicast which is compulsory in IPv6. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are a freaking moron that apparently has no clue to what an IP address actually does. It has nothing to do with the way traffic flows, it only identifies where the traffic is flowing to, as in the actual destination PC and the origin PC. It has absolutely nothing to do with bandwidth.
- evilseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh joy! i can't wait till we have to subnet IPv6!
/sarcasm
ugh - PayneX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm glad someone else mentioned this.
I thought it was an omen, seeing all the 6's. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1IPv4 are 32 bit ip addresses, and IPv6 are 128 bit IP addresses. if you do 128 to the power of 2 (power of 2 because there are only 2 possible value of each bit, either 1 or 0) It gives you a whole hell of a lot more addresses than 32 to the power of 2.
- arobar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This isn't a misleading title. The 6Bone network IS shutting down. If someone didn't know what the 6Bone network was, they wouldn't panic that it was shutting down. If they were a part of it, they got a memo weeks ago that everything was being migrated.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Has anyone gotten 6to4 to work on OS X Tiger? I've got it up an running, at least it looks like it. However, I cannot ping any IPV6 addresses, and IPV6 host resolution is not working. The list of hosts I found was like 2 years old though, but ipv6.research.microsoft.com is still up, and I couldn't resolve or ping it with ipv6.
- TiMMY8765, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2isn't that mandatory switchover just for federal agencies though?
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is news to me.
If we do have a June 2008 deadline, I'm sure it will be pushed back, just like the cut-off date for HDTV has been time and time again.
As was stated above, the pressure for IPv6 has been relieved by NAT. Now it's probably more an annoyance than a Savior. - hansmast, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5A friend of mine writes DNS manipulation software for several national ISPs. He says that IPv6 will never be adopted. The limited address space of v4 is no longer a problem with massive NATing. Plus, v6 deliberately never had a backwards compatible migration path. Migration would be extremely painful.
- hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I knew it! Its the Apocolypse!
The *6* bone is shutting down support for ipv*6* on 6/6/06! run for your liiiiives!
Wiiiiii! - sigmaman2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Hmmm...
I was reading about IPv6, and learned about its built-in QoS (Quality of Service) bandwidth allocation. The way I read it, this is a way of giving more bandwidth to specific services (supposedly multimedia and other high-bandwidth apps)
But, even though QoS in IPv6 is supposed to be for multimedia, I'm sure it will be applied to other services. Maybe network providers will adjust QoS to favor A particular customer? A particular company? A particular ideology? Is this what the telcos are preparing for with their "Hands off the net" stuff? I wonder... - popfilter, on 10/12/2007, -18/+0werd
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is