What is Digg?58 Comments
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39IPv6: 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
IPv4: 4,294,967,296
Large enough to have 155 billion IPv4 Internets on every square millimeter of the Earth's surface, including the oceans.
Or
A hundred trillion IPv4 Internets per square inch.
Or
50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 / unique IP addresses per person.
If the utilization of address space doubled every five years, IPv6 address space would last until the year 2485. - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36The transition to IPv6 should have happened years ago like originally planned.
Now it will probably cost 10x as much as it would have just 3-4 years ago. - MoneyShot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35@Anpheus:
"dynamic-size IP addresses?" You obviously haven't a clue how IP routing works.
IPv6 provides a large enough address space to give each gram of matter on the planet it's own address. I think it's safe to say that we're set until either a) quantum computing makes all this silicon stuff obsolete or b) we kill ourselves via global warming or nuclear weapons (take your pick). - Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31My fridge needs an IP. IPv6 is a necessity.
- breakaway, on 10/12/2007, -18/+46All the ***** comments on this page at this point in time are so god damn retarded. Jesus.
- bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27***** my toilet wont flush, must be some kind of network congestion.
- rootdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16frickin sweet, should i start crazy glueing wireless network cards to every thing?
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17more work = more money for the computer industry
yesssssssss - JoVoCop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Currently IPv4 uses 32 bits and is represented by decimal numbers, IPv6 uses hexadecimal numbers to represent the 128 bits. IPv6 provides 640 sextrillion addresses.
Yes, that's sextrillion ;) - JoVoCop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11No, the IPv6 addressing scheme couldn't halt online piracy.
All IPv6 is another way of providing logical addresses to devices that operate on a network. Currently, the world is running on IPv4 which is comprised of 32 binary digits (bits). We are running out of these addresses very quickly (because everything that's connected to the internet has an IP address), we have slowed down this rapid consumption of addresses a small amount with the introduction of subnetting, NAT and private IP addresses but we are still going to run out of IP addresses in the not too distant future. For a long time we've known this would happen and some very bright people (Steve Deering and Craig Mudge at Xerox PARC) came up with IPv6 which provides a very large amount of logical addresses (640 sextrillion addresses). IPv6 contains 128 bits (4x more bits than IPv4). With this new numbering scheme, it should be a very very long time until we run out of IP addresses. The reason why this costs so much is because all the equiptment that makes up the internet has been designed for IPv4 and it will cost a very large sum of money to transition between v4 and v6 (apparently $200 billion). - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"My fridge needs an IP. IPv6 is a necessity."
The fridge prefix is
FEED:BEEF:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX - DeathJux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What a turn-around this thread has been. Bravo.
- mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10i don't know what they could have eaten for lunch, but i find it hard to believe it was worth all $200 billion.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13They ate the internets. It's a series of tubes, like spaghetti.
Thank you, I'll be here all week. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15hockey: Your brain, however, remains unproven.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@ Pile
The current anti-spam measures aren't working anyways. IPv6 would allow more authentication of email sources which would make it easier to trace the SPAM source. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+82038 is when it's all going to hell.
- Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8IPv6 reminds me of global warming, but for the Internet.
Except the Internet won't turn into a fireball or a snowball...
-.- - docjeff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9IPv6 is still some way off I think. It'll be a royal pain to get everyone upgraded and situated. The word nightmare comes to mind. I'm not looking forward to it at all.
- bioskope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6why wud u want NAT to take over especially when it has issues with p2p apps connectivity(problems associated with UDP), the increase in processing overhead because of the NAT router poking its nose into the IP header. Moreover deploying NAT also means provding more 'single points of failure'. Dont even get me started on how encryption and key exchange are problematic on it. Make no mistake NAT was a stopgap solution that has become so rampant that people actually think it is an alternative to IPv6 when it really is not.
- supaflystud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The transition to IPv6 is inevitable. As stated in the article, IPv4 is beyond it's limits, and NAT can only do so much. Some people don't realize how much of our everyday life is going to revolve around logical addressing....kitchen appliances, cars, electronics, etc. NAT is getting it done for the time being, but it's going to get so bloated that it's going to become impractical.
Disagreeing with the implementation of IPv6 is understandable, because people have always underestimated what the future holds (computers used everyday, the evolution of the internet, etc). - Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14I am. Every device I own can have it's own IP. My pets could have a unique IP for each of their hairs. And I could have a unique IP for every hour of my life.
And everyone on earth could do that, and we'd still have room for more.
Unfortunately, IPv6 is (amusingly) a stopgap solution. Eventually, and by that I mean, a very, very long time from now, we may need a larger address space. Why doesn't IPv6 feature dynamic-size IP addresses? Is it really that hard for policy makers to look ahead, and think, "Oh, well. We're going to come up with a new standard because the last one was too narrowly defined. So to solve that narrow standard, we'll come up with another narrow standard that has larger values for all the variables." I suspect that they do it because if they came up with the right solution the first time, we wouldn't be having this problem. - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They mention the military's desire to network *everything*, including flashlights and walkie talkies? They're screwed if the Cylons show up.
- lpmusix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3NAT works fine? wtf are you smoking? IPv6 FTW
- Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8the toilets a series of tubes, its not a dump truck. You cant just dump everything in it and expect it to not get clogged :p
couldnt resist - afx1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, you'd use a firewall. A NAT is not necessarily a firewall.
- tuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3IPv6 has non-routable IP blocks. But since IPv6 will have enough addresses to give each of the computers on your home network a real IP address, you won't have to run all of them through NAT and "piggyback" on a single address like most people do now. You'll still want to firewall them at the router, of course, but that's no big deal.
- coztopia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2His paragraph on ATM is wrong. ATM cells have a 5 byte header (including cell address) and 48 byte payload. IP packets are chopped up as part of the payload, including the IP address, you dont repeat the IP in every cell. So IPv6 will require more cells, but it wont reduce payload size to 16 bytes.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We recently moved our IT unit from a basement where the servers were located in a closet to a facility above ground, with 500 sq ft of server room, 2,000 square feet of IT space, etc.
The other thing we did was upgrade all our networking gear. All of it is IPv6 capable so we've already spent the money on infrastructure. Granted, there are things that will need to be changed, like upgrading our ancient PDC. But that's already in the works. - boofar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Also see: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
- noBananas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why does IPv6 imply the demise of NAT? Does adoption of IPv6 imply that the convention of non-routable IP address blocks will be abandoned?
- crashie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually IPv6 "only" uses the first 80 bits for routing (the remaining 48 bits contain the MAC address of the network card). So actually IPv6 has 1.2 * 10^24 of IP addresses "only". Now that's 280 * 10^12 times more than IPv4, so it's a LOT of addresses anyway...
- ouorama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's absolutely amazing what people on digg would believe.
Let's try and get some facts.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=362 - Darkness123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whether IPv6 is going to good or bad for spam,ATMs etc, it doesn't matter because we are running out of IPv4. We need to upgrade to IPv6
- UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Even with IPV6 wouldnt you still use NAT to protect your internal network?
- BrokenBeta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5NAT is a pain in the neck. If you have been on BitTorrent recently and some peers just won't connect to you (possibly quite a few!) it's because BOTH of you have a reachability problem.
I tried to port-forward, but I never got anywhere. I gave up in the end. Roll on IPv6! - stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Y2K 2.0?
- Craz1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2at least not until the Y3K bug hits.
- fl00d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The word "kludge" is used no less that three times in that one article.
- hypercube33, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yours really keeps it on topic too, *****.
- Pile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4My ISP will not switch to IPv6 until the spam problem is controlled. If the net moves to IPv6 before spammers are stopped, the spam problem will get exponentially worse. This is a fact.. do not let anyone tell you otherwise - they don't understand how the major networks filter spam - a huge chunk of that relies on IP-based filtering and IPv6 throws out tens years worth of data collected to limit spamming.
- ellisgl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My whole thing about IPv6 while it might in our own view suit us for a while. But!!!! What happens if we end up finding other worlds with life that have a network and stuff. IPv4 who thought "Oh this should be enough addresses becuase it's not going to get that big."
IPv8 hell IPv12 =)
Think bigger than you can for this. - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12i think we'll convert to the metric system first.
- Craz1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6NAT works fine, just learn wtf you are doing.
- BrokenBeta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0That's right, call me an idiot. I've been all over portforward.com and I don't know why what I'm doing doesn't work. But it doesn't.
- Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2And? People thought it was inconceivable that we would run out of IPv4 spaces in the beginning too. I can imagine their comments now:
"Everyone on earth could have their own!"
"Every school in the world could have one!"
We've just replaced the nouns again, but again, you have to think _bigger_. And yes, I know how routing works. Believe it or not, it's possible to create things that are known as 'bignum' integers, that is, integers that can be of any length. Python supports them intrinsically. There are several libraries for C and C++ that support them. I'm unsure about other languages, but I think you'll find that bignum libraries are easy to come by, and easy to code. Routing tables could be designed to support bignum addresses, with progressively increasing length limits. For example, if we had gone with any-length integers in the first place, when we hit 1 billion IPs, we could have stepped it up to 40 bits instead of 32 (adding a byte would be most efficient.) And then we could keep going with a 40-bit address space until we approached around 38 bits used, and expand it again, and keep going.
This would work indefinately. - IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Could something like this halt online piracy? =(
I have no knowledge on IPv6 and everything seems to be all plain German to me (and I don't speak German) whenever I try to find out. Anyone care to summarize? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I've been hearing the argument of the imminent demise of addresses now for 10 years.
It's *****. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4There is no reason to switch to IPv6. The old reasons have been mitigated largely by non routable addresses and NAT.
Only Asia cares about IPv6 because they had no existing infrastructure. - sarabas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0noone is adding much to the discussion - go to sleep
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 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