What is Digg?57 Comments
- PacoBell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32What exactly made the Times suddenly think that IPv6 was "new" by any stretch of the imagination? Was there some recent government mandate that I missed?
- dcmax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31What this article does not say is something that puts IPv6 into perspective. IPv6 will actually provide enough IP addresses to cover every square inch on the face of the earth. Translation: One day the toaster in your kitchen will have an IP address.
- egrabosky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30your toaster doesn't have an IP ? you must not be using linux
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Umm, wow, welcome to 1998 guys!
- kriox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That's not being precise. Saying there will be 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses would be precise. What's wrong with just saying "more than 340 undecillion" (or 340 with a lot of zeroes)? If you want to wow people with the exact number, at least USE the exact number.
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. And I don't like reporters - jcidiotashram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11exactly my thought. this article is not a report about something new. may they just wanted to fill a space and write about something.
- PacoBell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Too bad they're only handing out IP addresses in the typical, non-portable, hierarchical IPv4 fashion."
As opposed to the chaotic, stepping-on-each-other's-toes approach? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Dugg for support of IPV6.
If only Digg was around 12 years ago. - shyampandit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8IPV6 does use a 128 bit address space, IPV4 uses a 32bit address space..
- roguedragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is nothing new. It's just talking about IPv6 which has already been discussed to death.
On a side note, you can check out a good beginners guide to IPv6 by going here -> http://www.raiden.net/?cat=2&aid=14 - johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Fools! I knew about IPv6 over a week ago thanks to a surprise e-mail I recieved one morning from a kind young man called Uman.
His nice company is giving me 20 undecillion of the new addresses, which he said I am allowed to use as I see fit. Apparently he owns a lot himself and it's one of the best investments that anyone can make right now, so I plumped up the £18,000 cash and posted it to him just yesterday.
He said he'd post them as soon he got the money. Printing and postage of addresses is quite a task, which I think came to £4,000 of that total. However he assured me it's a bargain and I trust a man with his word.
Don't worry though, I'm not going to horde all 20 undecillion IPv6 addresses for myself, Once I recieve them, I will happily let Digg users buy their very own address for just £2 each (normal people will have to pay £20). You'll be allowed to keep my address for a month and then I'll sell it to someone else - this is just a precaution to make sure I don't run out and that everyone gets a chance to use one.
I quit my job this morning, and can't wait for the delivery man to arrive tomorrow.
I have a good feeling about this. - analgesia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8one would need to have about 266 bit adresses for that.
The article by the way is incorrect. It says IPv6 uses 32bit adressen in stead of 128bit - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, greets, tlmac59! You have discovered the all-new IPv6 protocol!
No digg for obvious reasons. - hourigan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you would like to try IPv6 internet access without needing your ISP to upgrade, use SixXS. The free service gives you a tunnel over your IPv4 connection to an ISP which does support IPv6
http://digg.com/tech_news/Free_service_to_access_the_net_over_IPv6 - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4that struck my funny bone.
- Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This article is fraught with inaccuracies.
1) The "worldwide web" isn't filling up.
2) How does the number of people and the number of addresses have anyhting to do with each other? I had no idea there was a 1:1 or really 1:anything ratio between people and IP addresses used.
3) The space you get with IPv6 (the million-digit number) is pretty dumb on the surface. The host and network portions are fixed for VERY sparse networks (meaning fewer networks, though with a number that big, it's still probably larger than we'll ever need). Please stop putting that number out there like it's really meaningful.
4) All devices need an internet address, but not all devices need a unique one. How can you write an article about IPv6 rollout without mentioning NAT and how that's delayed it by about 8 years (if it ever gets rolled out)?
5) 32-bit numbers?! What?! That just doesn't make any sense, and is really confusing. An IPv6 address was considered to be either 2^64 or 2^128, and they chose the latter. that's where you get that huge number. 32-bit numbers? What?
6) It will appear seamless to the user? That's just wrong. There will be all kinds of network interruptions as your ISP tries to roll it out (eg Time Warner, who can't seem to ever get that right). Your applications probably won't speak IPv4. Some ISPs won't turn it on, meaning tunneling, meaning slower / higher latencies.
7) Vista doesn't contain ANY IPv6-only applications that anyone would want to use. Microsoft would never purposefully axe a valuable part of their market like that.
Folks, IPv6 hasn't been rolled out beacuse the standard is a moving target and also because no one needs it. With NAT, we can get around most of the crunch. When we finally do need it, we'll get it. But that sure won't be for awhile, and we won't ever "run out" like they describe. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Alernatively, your IP address could look like this
eat::beef::feeb:1e::0b0e
beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef:beef
1337::::::::
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_leet_speak - kriox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Jaymoon:
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPV6#Notation
It can look like these:
2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:1428:57ab
2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000::1428:57ab
2001:0db8:0:0:0:0:1428:57ab
2001:0db8:0::0:1428:57ab
2001:0db8::1428:57ab - Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Seriously? IPv6 makes news? WTF?!?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5> IPv6 will actually provide enough IP addresses to cover every square inch on the face of the earth
Too bad they're only handing out IP addresses in the typical, non-portable, hierarchical IPv4 fashion.
...and people wonder why IPv6 uptake hasn't accelerated more... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5> As opposed to the chaotic, stepping-on-each-other's-toes approach?
Yes well, the entire IPv4 address space fits comfortably in main memory now, but thanks for playing.
Hierarchical address space distribution needs to dismantled if IPv6 is going to amount to anything. - Garda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think people like to see zeros, so that's probably why they did that
but yes, putting zeros on the end is just kinda silly - TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Given the tech community that originally supported this site, it seems to me they could have just called the article IPv6 and everyone on Digg would have understood what you meant. Oh well times are changing at Digg....
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So what would the IP addresses look like in IPv6?
- messiah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the problem when Digg became popular...it attracts people who see old news as new news just because it has taken them several years to actually discover the new thing, which has then become old. Then they create a fuss and headlines about this old news which they think is new and well as you can see....digg just goes down the poopipe.
No Digg .... please give us our old digg back. - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your computer probablly already supports it.
Don't worry about it, the transition should be seamless and it won't affect you unless you already knew about it (or you're like, 11 and just learning about computers or something). - SuperSloth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IPv4 will not die until ARIN kills it.
- goggleBOX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just for presepective IPv4 doesn't even allow for one IP address per person. IPv6 supports 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion people alive today. Over 600,000,000,000,000,000 for every square mm on the surface of the earth. Or 500,000,000,000,000 for every cell in every person on the planet. Over 300,000,000 per mm cubed of matter in the earth. Or just over 3 IPs per meter cubed in the entire solar system.
- foobarra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since someone asked what it looks like - here is my current network config, which includes IPv4 and IPv6:
inet addr:192.168.1.211 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::206:25ff:fef1:adab/64 Scope:Link - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4" so we won't run out of space soon, then"
um...They needed 340,282,366,920,938,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 so that they we won't run out to soon. I hope they fun making more in few more.
I wonder what if they need to invent a new word like "diggobillongillon" to count that. - donRemo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1big companies / ips use it in production for many years already
- bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just wait untill we have to start subnetting the adresses think ipv4 was bad.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18 - The average age at which a child gets a mobile phone in Britain
Oh, ***** them - Computer_Kid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"88 per cent of e-mails are junk including about 1 per cent which are virus-infected"
For me, it more like 98%. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"When the internet was developed in the 1980s, programmers had no idea how big it would become. They gave each address a “16-bit” number, which meant that the total number of available addresses worked out at about four billion (2 to the power of 32).
But as use grew, it became clear that the old protocol, IPv4, wasn’t big enough, so a new one was written based on “32-bit numbers”. That increased the number of available addresses to 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion..."
AAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH!!!! - martyr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1same here. news? come on digg. i've been playing with ipv6 on my own personal lan for about four years (before xp sp2 came out, that was ugly)
- t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Old... as... hell. My network's using IPv6 now. I'm using IPv6 to write this.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13ffe:ffff:0100:f101:0210:a4ff:fee3:9566
- KenG6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your calculator is off. Kriox got it right above (barring any protocol-specific reserved addresses like the IPV4 broadcast, *.255.)
- NoodleGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The thing that's interesting about this article is that it's not in a typical technology rag. It's in an ordinary everyday newspaper. Sure IPv6 is old news, but how many times have you seen it covered outside of the industry.
The problem I see with this article is that it overstates the crisis, saying that we will run out of IPs by 2009. That was the panic in 1997, but NAT came along and did a lot to rectify that issue. - flowaus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh please. Mark this one down next to ENUM in the "soon, but never" developments.
Just like ENUM, it's so freakin far out. STILL. The only thing that has broke this model is IMS in the telco world which is actually starting to happen.
Also - why is a tech site directing people towards a broadsheet newspaper for a tech story? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1340 Undecillion is news to me. that's just freaking nuts
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I HATE it when people spread FUD like this. In response to bobothn's completely false statement about IPv5, there was really no such thing. The question gets asked frequently because of the jump from IPv4 to IPv6, so there is information on it out on the web.
IPv5 was a name 'assigned' to an experimental protocol that never even got far enough to have an official RFC. When the original protocol was re-examined so to speak, it was completely redesigned and dubbed ST and ST2, which the public never really saw or heard about.
Wikipedia has a quick writeup on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv5 - petepete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Written in hexadecimal (IPv4 was in decimal), 128 bits long
peter@bc1124:~$ ifconfig -a
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:11:24:33:CD:52
inet addr:192.168.11.2 Bcast:192.168.11.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::211:24ff:fe33:cd52/64 Scope:Link - bobothn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i agree unless we go out and replace all routers there is no way they would be able to work with a caotic adressing skem. most routers have between 4 and 8 meg of ram. they just arnt that good yet.
- fritzn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How else should it be done? The heirarchal method makes it possible to direct a packet without having to maintain a routing table for 34*10^37 individual addresses...
Sure, phone numbers are now portable, but the number of phone numbers is far more managable. - Poltras, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And how do you route your packets, sir?
"Thanks for playing". HA! - tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're right, this is not new at all. I read the other day that IPv6 officially dates back to 1995 or 1996 (can't remember which). 10 years and we're still not using it yet. Just goes to show that the only way to get users to change their habits is to a. force them (e.g. switching off analogue TV) or b. make it benefit them personally (e.g. if you upgrade you can use xyz). I don't see evidence of either at the moment so despite it spreading slowly (Ubuntu includes it by default), IPv6's widespread use is still a long way off. Get ready for many more 'hot-off-the-press' IPv6 stories on the front page in the meantime...
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When are we gonna swich over?
Or is it it just being delayed - stuntpope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This better not be news to anybody here.
Nuff said. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is