What is Digg?91 Comments
- swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -5/+36and not once did he mention the size of the address space but then while impressive, IPv6 fixes way more than the size of the address space.
340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
Addresses. In English that is
Three Hundred Forty Undecillion Two Hundred Eighty Two Decillion Three Hundred Sixty Six Nonillion Nine Hundred Twenty Octillion Nine Hundred Thirty Eight Septillion Four Hundred Sixty Three Sextillion Four Hundred Sixty Three Quintillion Three Hundred Seventy Four Quadrillion Six Hundred Seven Trillion Four Hundred Thirty One Billion Seven Hundred Sixty Eight Million Two Hundred Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Six - usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26Can you imagine trying to remember IPv6 IP's?
Trying to remember my ISP's DNS servers IP addresses is bad enough with only a max of 12 numbers.
Think about subnetting IPv6!!!!
/wrists - ps3udov3ctor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19hardly anyone is here today, should I change all the computers at work to ipv6?
- wiggles, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19As much as I agree that we need to move to IPV6, it's not going to happen any time soon, because there's no urgent need to do so. Everything works under IPv4 + NAT, and IPv6 has a hefty learning curve. Nobody's going to do it as long as they don't have to.
Barring an act of Congress, non-geek-friendly ISPs will not support it. - FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17"We've secrety switched their regular IPV4 for new Folger's IPV6 Crystals..let's see if they notice"
- nihility, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I was going to paste the wording of it here 10 times to be cute but I don't think anyone would appreciate that much text in a useless comment.
- griz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17I call dibs on 09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0
- nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15IPv4s aren't going to be "used up" anytime soon if we simply re delegate.
They used to give away A blocks like candy.
ie: USPS, Halliburton, HP, Ford Motors, General Electric, Prudential Insurance, Merck, etc have over 16 million IPs EACH.
With the use of NAT, these blocks are more than excessive. - Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Yeah...and the chance that these guys give up IP addresses are somewhere between Turkey giving up the east to Kurdistan and a fat kid letting go of that ice cream cone. Shin kick!
- Zachiatrist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Not going to happen. There is no incentive for any corporation to move to IPv6, these companies make decisions based off of ROI. Moving to IPv6 will costs millions of dollars, add mangitudes of complexity, require retraining all exisiting IT employees, rewriting all existing custom internal applications and provides no added value. Corporations are not running out of IP addresses, NAT allows them to segretate their addressing from the outside world and gives them far more addresses than they need.
If countries want to legislate its use then go for it, but don't expect any companies to voluntarily go through the massive headache. - xero9, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13That's the lamest thing I've heard to date
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Ah, enough addresses to give every strand of hair on every human being trillions upon trillions of addresses. THAT'S the way it should have been done in the first place.
NAT is a ***** solution. - bobasaurus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11IPv6 is long overdue. NAT is just a hack invented to temporarily get around the limited number of IPv4 addresses, which is rapidly depleting. It breaks the traditional protocol stack model by using port numbers for addressing packets to computers within the NAT network. Ports should only be used to communicate with processes on end systems. When the piddly IPv4 32-bit address becomes 128-bit in IPv6, every grain of sand on the planet could have it's own unique IP address.
- NerdyNinja, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Say that ten times fast!
- Rethcir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Wait, so even if it's the worst system upgrade in history, it will be the greatest system upgrade in history?
- tybris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It's going to be long, troubling and boring.
- Wyzard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7"Greatest" in the sense of "largest", not "best".
- Arctirus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Personally I like not having every device on my network not having a real internet ip.
- consonance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6How would you like it if EVERYONE had 16 million IPs each? With IPv6, that's possible. There are (if I've done my notation right) 3.4 x 10^37 addresses available. By comparison, 16 million IPs for 5 billion people is 8.0 x 10^16 addresses. You could register 4 IP addresses a day every single day of your life, and there would still be enough for everyone else on Earth to do the same.
- Tarnum, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10There is a secret way to transfer those long strings of digits, known to the select few. It's called Copy/Paste.
Another Miracle of Technology is the DHCP protocol, that helps the OS acquire network configuration automatically, no typing required. - MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6There are so many IPv6 addresses that a lot of them will have 00's in them, which can just be replaced by ::
- gclef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6On the contrary, ISPs need to be the *first* to switch. The worst thing a content site can do is publish an AAAA dns record, but then not have connectivity to hosts that try to reach them over IPv6. No business in their right mind is going to sign up to knowingly kill some of their potential customer connections.
- Otto, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7ISPs will be the last to switch, granted. The problem is that many businesses have not started transitioning to IPv6, because there's no immediate benefit to doing so.
In about 5 years, the switch will start to happen all at once. IPv6 migration hardware will start coming out, businesses will start making plans to switch over, etc, etc. But this is not for at least 5 years... There's no sane reason to start switching over now. It's harder because there's not enough people doing it. There's little hardware out there to support easy transitions. A lot of stuff you have to roll your own on. It just doesn't make sense to do it for a business to really do it right now. - HonestAbe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9How to speed up Firefox by disabling IPv6:
1. Enter about:config in the address bar
2. In the filter box, type "ipv6"
3. "network.dns.disableIPv6" will be displayed. Double click it. - nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Classless subnetting IPv4 is a pain-in-the-ass enough (without a calculator).
Try doing hex IPv6 subnetting in your head. You'll re-consider your CCNA real quick when they require that. - fyre2012, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5We will certainly NOT run out of IPv4 addresses by 2010. Seriously...
- fanclerks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4IPv6 doesn't really require DHCP. It has built in auto-configuration of addresses. The thing about IPv6 though is that you won't ever have to remember an address. As long as the address is mapped to a name somewhere, you'll never need to remember a number. IPv6 was designed from the get-go to be as transparent to the end user as possible.
- Chyeld, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm bald you insensitive clod.
- AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4the most efficient way to stop spam is to stop retards getting infected with viruses by teach the retards how to use the internet
And I only get 9 spam messages / day on an e-mail address I've used for 10 years, running on a mail server that has no blacklisting - go figure. - chudgoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Errr... you can still use IPv4-over-IPv6. It just encapsulate v4 in IPv6 packets.
IPv6 has been supported -in hardware- for years on the routers in the 'core' of "the" internet.
There are several mechanisms in place to aid the transition. - ttfkam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Just because it has a potentially routable IP doesn't mean you actually have to make it routable. Even with NAT every computer in your network has its own IP address. The difference is that with IPv4 all of the unroutable addresses are hard-coded. With IPv6, you decide which hosts and subnetworks are routable and unroutable.
- wiggles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3only if you want a nice unpaid, indefinite vacation from the company when everyone comes back and finds they can't get to their pr0n anymore...
- PhirePhly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We're not talking about DHCP, we're talking about DNS. No DNS means nothing resolves to a name, that's the problem.
FYI: I need to have about 5 IP addresses memorized to access my servers and recover when an ISP DNS server craps out. - dlsspy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Not everything works under IPv4 and NAT. A firewall policy can stop just about any type of traffic you might want to stop, but a NAT can prevent you from doing things you really want to do -- like have people connect to you arbitrarily. Lots and lots of work has been put into trying to come up with things (like UPNP, SIP and similar protocols) to make NAT traversal easier, but it's just a burden for application developers, OS developers, router developers, and doesn't work universally.
Before NAT, one would just listen on a port, open a firewall hole, and people could connect to it. After NAT, things will be this simple again.
There is a set of dependencies, of course. The business owners can't support it before the ISPs and the ISPs can't support it before the OSes. The OSes are done, the servers are done, all we need is new numbers. - AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Most major current corporate hardware has v6 support in it, and if a switch was likely then the likes of Cisco and HP could within days have the new firmware's out with 100% support.
And why does everything have to be driven by "need"? Why can't and upgrade occur simply because it is a new better system? - gclef, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2argeaux:
There's nothing in IPv6 that says you shouldn't have a firewall at all (if you read anyone proposing that, they're an idiot, and you can safely ignore them)...it's just that the IPv6 folks would like you to not use a NAT-ing firewall when setting up IPv6.
Personally, I think the whole NAT thing is silly, but lack of a firewall is not a problem for IPv6...there will still be firewalls, but the IPv6 believers want you to not use NAT on them. - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2it is possible to poll 4 billion addresses in a short amount of time. Polling 2^128th is impossible. Fewer infected machines to find and zombify. Spam will go DOWN.
- dlsspy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What value do you perceive by not having a ``real internet ip?'' It certainly provides no security benefits unless you have an actual air gap.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just because the machine is addressable, it doesn't mean that your router has to allow connections to it.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Indeed. Just because every computer has its own IP doesn't mean your router needs to actually forward requests. Servers do this all the time with ipv4, picking real world addresses from a pool, but not necissarily making them routable from outside.
- gclef, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No, it really won't be that simple. Regardless of whether you're doing NAT or not, things like H323, FTP or SIP will still require that your border firewall understand enough of layer-7 to allow the callbacks to work.
No one is going to put in place firewall rules that say "let the world reach all of my desktops on some set of ports." They're instead going to have rules that say "allow the callbacks for a call I initiate, and deny everything else." To do that, your firewall has to understand the protocol that is being passed.
In other words, IPv6 is not going to solve the new application developer problem with firewalls. IPv6 *might* get rid of NAT, but it won't do anything to make new protocols easy to deploy. - PhirePhly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm in your office, changing your IPs
- nevesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yes, it does. Cisco is going to start requiring it (done in your head, no calculator) for CCNA exams.
They've been talking about this for years. - AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why can't people use a port rule based firewall instead of a NAT firewall exactly?
And if you want to illiminate spam, teach your moronic customers how to use the internet - chudgoo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Running out" by a given date was never the issue... They always will exist, but too many people/orgs/corps have -too many-. Where I work every last computer (25,000) and networkable printer have PUBLIC routable IPs. A total waste? sure... and this is exactly the problem. I think we actually have 5 class A blocks...
What we need if we are really going to reject IPv6 for another decade is a thorough AUDIT of IPs that have been inactive for "X-time-period". "Use them or lose them" might encourage lameness such as giving an IP to any POS device that can take one...just to 'use' them, but giving out millions of IPs for people to sit on, 'reserved for future use', is inane and the wrongs need to be made right. OR we can just take a deep breath and TRANSITION like the rest of the world is doing (or seems eager to do).
At home, it seems that acquiring a real publically routable IP can be a major chore and unreasonable expense. We're talking about a software change that could make these charges totally go away forever. (Earthlink wanted $15/mo IF they had some for your area left...thank goodness I found Speakeasy who gave me FOUR) - gclef, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2fantasticjon:
Not true. Subnetting still exists, but the netmask sizes have changed. ISPs will be giving out /48s to customer sites (eg an office would get its own /48), and will be getting /32 allocations from organizations like ARIN. /64s are given to individual host networks, but there will still be subnetting used all over the place. (it's assumed that the office /48 will be subnetted internally by the office, for example.) - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2cell carriers will lead the way, why? Cause they have to sqeeze all their phones in only 24 million addresses. They nature of the cell network means they must use one Class A private IP network for all their phones and 24 million is the size of a class A address. As a result, Cell phones are constantly being polled to see of their IP address is free. When an IPv4 stack was replace with an IPv6 stack on a phone, the battery life DOUBLED. Cell carriers need IPv6.
- llllloooooo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Totally agree. It's going to take some kind of act of government to force people to switch.
Either that or someone creates a "must have" application that can only work over IPv6. I can't see how that's possible though.
The other alternative would be google telling the world that they'll only work over IPv6 after 2010 or something...but then their stock price would probably go to about 50 cents. - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If you don't use WPA, NO. WEP can be cracked faster then you can enter the password, even if it is a cut and paste job.
- lally, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You may have to start writing things down.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
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