What is Digg?82 Comments
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24"With propper subneting ipv6 is completely unessessary. I say we break up the class A ip holders, theres no reason a lot of thoes companies and universities need that many addresses."
That would only buy us a few more years. We are better off switching as soon as possible, and getting it over with. - numba1xclusive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Good grief. It always takes until the "China is going to take us over" point until someone in the bowels of the bureaucracy notices and starts to take some sort of action for anything. Hopefully they will do something after this.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Internet Dominance my ass. Look at the speeds they get in S. Korea.....
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12There is enough to give every person on earth 50 octillion addresses. That's enough to give every hair on every person on earth's head one hundred thousand billion billion addresses.
Yey for really big numbers! - rgov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11donatj: The fact remains that the human population of earth exceeds the number of possible IPv4 addresses. Even if we tried to re-organize, there's no way to have enough of them without making some servers inaccessible to certain people.
- igotdugout, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13It doesn't surprise me at all. Compared to the rest of the world, North Americans aren't being offered the lastest in technological advances. Big corporations like to rip every penny out of people by offering them outdated services, and years old devices and putting a nice red ribbon on it.
Look at the cells phones, medicines, basically most devices that the North Americans still using compared to those in Asia.
God I hate my cell phone after seeing how many asians got the touch screen cell phones. - adamthebastard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10you can still NAT IPv6, you can still run IPv6 proxies and you can still run IPv6 tunnelers.
How is this any differant to IPv4? - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No. It's 50 octillion per person on earth. 3.4×10^38 in all.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Internet Dominance has nothing to do with connection speeds.. it's about control.
China wants to gain control of the internet away from the US. - ebrandsberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9As a network engineer by trade, the idea that "every server needs a public IP" and that "we should get rid of NAT" boggle my mind. None of my customers have public IP's assigned to their servers, nor do customers that even HAVE the IP space to assign IP's to their desktop clients want to do so. The reason: Security. Let's say every computer on earth today had a public IP, and no NAT was occurring, and IP's were used optimally. Would the Internet still be running? No, because every windows 98 box left on the Internet would be spewing spam, every hole in Windows would cause the Internet to crash until it was patched in some way, etc. NAT has been the single savior of the Internet as it is hiding most machines that don't NEED to be servers from being on the public Internet space to be vulnerable to such attacks, at least not directly. In the case of server farms, any of significant size make use of load balancing devices that obscure the real IP's of the servers, and balance traffic from a single front-end IP or "VIP" as the industry has called it. One other comment was about how IPv6 support muticast--but we have that today on IPv4 as well, it is just that nobody uses it for end-user traffic anyway. There just aren't many ISP's that care about the Mbone to attach to it.
Because of the cost of changing out IPv4 infrastructure in server environments, many systems are now being setup to provide VIP's for IPv6 customers that simply load balance traffic onto IPv4 private IP's. This helps resolve the large scale content provider changes that would have to be made, and potentially increases the security of the existing infrastructure, as who knows what bugs are in IPv6 stacks on OS's until hackers really start tearing them apart. I would rather trust an IPv4 stack on my servers for now. - sleepyness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Really shrimpcrackers? Are you sure...sources?
- chadu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9very poignant. wondering when verizon, att etc will catch on.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Who wouldn't want an IP address for their coffee maker?
- TiMMY8765, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10but why should we even need subnetting? with IPv6 it will be unnecessary. it would be extremely convenient for each of my comps to have its own external ip so that I wouldn't have to use different SSH ports for each one.
- KMartSheriff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wish it would lose it's dominance. The US Telcos need to get a nice big ***** put in them
- Acebo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Uh.. I believe there are enough IPV6 addresses for every square inch on the EARTH to have an address. So.. even with Google's deep pockets and the addresses being dirt cheap, I highly doubt Google is "buying up all of America's IPV6 addresses"..
..but I digress. - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Mirag3~
NAT is a broken, ugly hack. It only works passingly in the simplest of cases. And it just plain breaks several protocols. It needs to go away. And IPv6 is the best way to get rid of NAT. Sure you could still use NAT under IPv6, but it would be pointless. - molecool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I've said it before and I say it again: the U.S. has turned 2nd rank and is now playing catch up with nations that were underdeveloped ony a decade ago. Need yet another proof of how corporate greed is destroying our country? It's the slow decline that seems to evade everyone...
- TiMMY8765, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6the point of IPv6 isn't to get rid of NAT and proxies, all of that stuff is still possible. It is so that you will not have to have nat if you don't want to. Imagine not having to ask your admin to forward ports. Everyone would have way more IP's than they would ever need so it wouldn't be necessary to NAT a large network (campus for example). IPv6 also allows for better data encryption than IPv4, so your data would be more secure (IPSec improvements).
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You misunderstand the shear number of addresses. You could probably give every coffee ground that has gone through every coffee machine on the planet an address for hundreds of years.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5To put that into perspective, thats an IP address for every 300 g of matter in the universe.
- CypherXero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7IPv4 allows for up to 4.3 billion addresses, while IPv6 allows for up to 50 octillion. Yes, octillion is a real number.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5IPv6 can't stop tor.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17Yes! Go China! Im glad that they are forcing the Americas to upgrade :)
- baseball31464, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6How is that exactly? I fail to see the relation.... can't they basically track us based on internet usage now? Am I missing something? Where does the protocol say anything about being tied to a physical location?
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually in this case it is good to take things slow. All of the IPv6 code out there hasn't been tested thoroughly in real world environments and is prone to all kinds of fun hacks. It'd really suck to have a whole nation switch over, and then have everyone's computers pwned because the nation was in a pissing contest to see who could switch faster. I certainly back moving to IPv6, but one should proceed with caution.
- DeadLikeMe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6But would you rather be told you are being watched and know it (China) or be told that the US govt. will keep the evil corporations from spying on you, but not know the US govt. is spying on you.
The devil you know? - yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The person that wrote this article has no idea what IPv6 is. Changing from IPv4 to IPv6 does not make your Internets faster, increase the speed of light, or do any other insane thing they think it should do. It's an addressing scheme that allows 2^128 unique addresses.
- Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7LanEvo, who do you consider being the dominant internet player, then? Or is this just another I-hate-the-US-just-cuz remark that seem popular on Digg?
- jvicinanza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4errr China? Yes one country but 4 - 5 times the population of your fading nation.
- dakelv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Shrimpcrackers: US controls 70% of the world's IP addresses and the number of IP addresses available to China is the same number as those availabe to University of California. Got the picture?
Here is my source: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/39233.html - kokuei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A move to IPv6 wouldn't make firewalls and proxies obsolete. This assumption that your NAT router provides you with an anonymous presence on the Internet is complete and utter *****. With IPv6 you'll still plug your modem into a router, still use your firewall, and you'll still be able to connect to anonymous proxies.
What's the problem? - DiScDuCe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I didn't realize that the United States ruled all things "information technology"!
- kawai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5One of the reasons why the US doesn't need to upgrade to IPv6 soon when compare to countries such as China is because US owns majority of the IPv4 blocks.
China and other countries NEED to upgrade to IPv6 soon because of scarcity of IP addresses available to them. - Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To those people who think the U.S. are being a bunch of luddites being passed by, I call it the leapfrog effect. The reason why underdeveloped countries are leaping past the U.S. is that they are building new infrastructure where there were none, which is easier and cheaper to do than upgrading an existing infrastructure.
When the equipment and technology in the U.S. get to the point that they really need replacing, then expect the U.S. to leapfrog the current forerunners in speed and access as the infrastructure is replaced. Then, after awhile, other countries will leapfrog past the U.S. again.
The alternative would be to sink an untold amount of monies into continual infrastructure expansion and upgrades where no business could make a profit due to such a large overhead and the taxpayers would be raped even harder by the government to pay for municipal infrastructure. - Clockw0rk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lain, anyone?
- lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Considering digg.com doesn't have an AAAA record I'm guessing you used IPv4 to make that post. 0wn3d.
- Salmonized, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Boy...look at how many series of tubes we can have......
- tobiasly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9What a load of FUD. How exactly is not being first with IPv6 going to make the US "lose the internet dominance it currently enjoys"? This article makes it sound like IPv6 is the "new internet" and will give it capabilities it didn't have before or somehow make it faster.
The US has plenty of IPv4 addresses left. Most hardware sold today can already support it. Most major operating systems already support it, and Windows Vista will try to use IPv6 by default. And why is it that when news came out that Vista will default to IPv6, it was going to bring the internet to a halt by overloading DNS, but when the Chinese government does it it's somehow "leapfrogging" the US?
And let's not forget the "Great Firewall of China". What incredibly selective memory the OP has to say the US is too busy "spying on its users" to be able to keep up with the Chinese. Hey OBKenobi, try doing a Google search on "Falun Gong" or even "democracy" from China and see how many results you get. How exactly does a government that attempts to censor everything their citizens say, do, and read, gain any "internet dominance" just by increasing their IP address space? - walugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just look at Asia... In a few years it will completely overwhelme with the sheer numbers online. Waaaay more than America will by then.
- ASoggyWaffle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4only the infidel uses ipv4!
- kagelump, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think its more of a matter of competency
where, people in charge of the internet don't think its made out of tubes - au071, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sad that U.S. is lagging behind on internet technologies...
- MeneerR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Frightning but true. All though kapitalism works nice for bottom-up development, they also allow for companies to be in each other's way at the expense of the customers. It is very tricky for a large part of any free market to co-operate and make some decisions. Sometimes its even better if the gov' just makes them. You wouldn't want the car manufactors to create how wide the roads are, now would you?
I hope in the end, every one will realize, we will benefit the most from a mixed form economy. Where there are non-profit organisations that regulate certain markets by setting rules. Within the rules free market style development should work.
THe only thing holding this back is _large_ corporations. Which contain all the downsides of communism withouth the upsides. Small companies making money. Independent Organisation controlling markets (like the internet).
And the organisation of the internet itself is actually a good example of how this can and should work. - septicmadman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Well the Chinese internet exists almost soley as a seperate being from the US and European internet and due to the VAST amount of censorship done in China (of course this will eventually go away but untill then...) they can have their network we can keep ours great and noncensored (and our porn is probably better).
We have been using IPv4 for a long time and sure IPv6 offers improved address space, quality of service and data security over IPv4, but we have been able to deal with these problems and not suffer exponential problems in scalability, but then again those are just my 2 cents =P - phir0002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Irrelevant story - who cares? What good is IPv6 going to do for the Chinese people, they are still going to have their internet censored by the government.
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2donatj - IPv6 is more than the address space, it handles multicast and neighbor discovery differently. It is coming, don't fight it.
- kolobcreek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This announcement coincided with Chinese president Jiang Zemin promise to his people that there will be a mobile device in every rice patty.
- Pilgrim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I believe octillion = sextillion
- electronicmaji, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7IPV6 will only allow the goverment to easily find out where someone is based on their IP Adress. It will cut out any form on annonymity. Imagine what the RIAA could do if every ip adress had a physical adress connected to it. That is what IPV6 will do! The chinese are doing this to be able to further control and restrict their populace not because of the technological advantage! Do not let the wool be pulled over your eyes!
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is