What is Digg?113 Comments
- uncle_dad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+562012 is also the end of the Mayan calendar. Coincidence??? I think not!
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Yeah right, all three of my national representatives can't seem to grasp the idea of putting DVDs I own on my iPod, what makes you think they will grasp this without a gigantic campaign contribution?
- megabytehl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Can't wait till someone tries to explain subnetting to congress. The looks on their faces...
- DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24It was time to migrate five years ago. But it isn't going to happen unless government mandates it, Soho routers come with properly preconfigured firewalls, and end users learn that there's more to the Internet than web and e-mail.
- RstyShackleford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Am I the only the only person who gets annoyed when journalists eqate the "web" with the internet? I mean, there's a lot more to it than just the WWW.
- Lazybones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20"Support for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), a new suite of standard protocols for the network layer of the Internet, is built into the latest versions of Microsoft Windows, which include Windows Server 2003, Windows XP with Service Pack 1, Windows XP with Service Pack 2, Windows XP Embedded SP1, Windows CE .NET, Windows Vista (now in beta testing), and Windows Server “Longhorn” (now in beta testing)."
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/itsolutions/network/ipv6/default.mspx - chad78, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Oh Noes! We only have 6 more years of IP addresses left! OMG! We'll *never* be able to do anything about this in only 6 years! I mean, the Internet has been around for over 10 years! How could we possibly hope to add IP addresses in only 6?
*Starts preparing for the Y2K12-IP4 bug by stockpiling bottled water and generators* - silkworm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Pile:
NAT is not a very good solution. You can't have unlimited number of IPs, only unlimited number of connected computers. Try making direct connection when both users are behind NAT. I certainly wouldn't want to have my computer behind a NAT imposed by my ISP. VPN is not a solution. And I don't see how is IPv4 better against spammers. IPv6 has a hierarchy, so you can simply ban whole block. - r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Am I the only one that realises that this guy Pile doesn't have a CLUE what he's talking about? Sure, he has a basic understanding of the purpose of a NAT server, but his overall knowledge of networks, the Internet and remote client/server issues is pretty shoddy and it shows.
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Your logic is flawless.
- supergwiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That's right. IP addresses & the internet predate the web.
- SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The above post (by Pile) is right in the sense that we will not run out of IPs due to NAT (not VPNs), but the reason he is right is a bit more detailed.
The ISPs will begin putting more people behind their own NATs. This has already begun with some ISPs, and as we near full capacity for the IPv4 address space we will only see more of this. Having a WAN IP directly accessible will soon become a premium service.
We /need/ to do what we can to move towards IPv6 while we have this transitional backward compatibility period. - Lounger540, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10NAT sucks for all things requiring incoming connections. Espicially when you can't admin the router you're behind.
- djjuice, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17does XP or even the Vista beta's give out IPv6 addresses yet? I know my mac does.. I think linux does.. just a wonderment.. not being a fanboy...
besides probably a simple update could include it.. - Cthalupa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Pile, bull.
Putting everyone behind a NAT will completely cripple the ability for consumers to do anything remotely serverlike. - blanski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yes, but when an address need an external ip you can only subnet so much.
- tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They should really try overhauling IPv6 on 06/06/06.
But the government DOES care about IPv6. Search Google for "ipv6 site:irs.gov". - evetsleep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A quick google returns lots of good info on WinXPWin2003...yes there is support for IPv6. Here is a good writeup:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/IPv6-Support-Microsoft-Windows.html - trejrco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The truth is somewhere between "the sky is falling" and "IPv6 is magic" ... in reality, the web will not run out ouf addresses as allocation policies will simply get tighter / more restrictive, ISPs will use NAT, etc. etc. None of which are good reasons for not going to IPv6, it *will* happen and the sooner the better!
Also, the largest expense involved will be in training - teaching technical people how it does what it does, and how to make it do what you want. Hardware vendors (Cisco, et al) and most OSes now have *atleast* rudimentary IPv6 support (WinXP - 2003 - Vista and most modern Linux kernels). Admittedly, the application space is really lagging here, especially on the "infrastructre/management" side - network monitoring, IDS/IPS, client-side firewalls, etc.
PS - the (US) govt *has* mandated a migration to IPv6 by OMB mandate (Google "IPv6 M-05-22").
/TJ - blanski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6May be? The preparation for IPv6 has been going on for years.
- tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Pile:
You don't really work for an ISP, do you? If you did, you'd know there's support for IPv6 in the DNS blacklist software. As far as I can tell, you made an argument for using NAT, then when people started ganging up on you you pretended to be a professional trying to explain what "his ISP" knows. Unfortunately for you, your arguments are falling apart, and to answer your next question, a high-school elective course on computer networking doesn't count toward your work experience.
If you work for an ISP, post their web site. And stop spamming your fake news site. - ax0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Meh. We were having this same conversation in 1997. Supposedly we were going to run out of IP addresses by 2001 or something.
We're still here, aren't we?
IPv6 is great, but it's still a black art of sorts. There are plenty of tech savvy people out there that simply don't know how IPv6 works. Worldwide adoption of IPv6 will take a great deal of time and money. - tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Pile:
There's a finite number of addresses that can be put behind a NAT device. While it's theoretically possible for a NAT device to track all 65,536 ports, most will only track up to about 16,384, and it's more likely that it will only track 4,096 connections at one time. Computers on the Internet can make as many as 32 connections just from browsing the Web. That means that, at any one time, only 128 computers can be on the Internet behind a NAT device... and that's assuming they don't use persistent connections by connecting to AOL Instant Messenger or IRC.
That doesn't sound like a solution to me. That sounds like another problem. The network topology that works for your little home network isn't really considered industrial-strength in the real world. - jakeg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The "Web" doesn't have IP addresses, the Internet does.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15The 'net is falling! Turkey Lurkey, the 'net is falling! Foxey Loxey, the 'net is falling!
- alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To piles and all others! Superstitions!
"You can't have unlimited number of IPs, only unlimited number of connected computers."
If you are using the 10.x network, you can have 254 * 254 * 254 = more then 16 million IP address.
"That means that, at any one time, only 128 computers can be on the Internet behind a NAT device"
Really? Then why this company is all surfing on this one external IP address with near 10000 PCs? I am in the team who configure the thing, so I know.
"Pile, if we're talking about website addresses, nat servers don't help. Websites need to have a REAL ip address, not a fake internal one."
That, I am not sure, but don't share hosting use DNS for this? On some servers there are a lot of website addresses. They even have some techniques to split loads with internal addresses. - recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5rootuser: my domain is hosted on a server with one ip that is hosting hundreds of other domains.
Virtual hosting. - demortes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IPv6 is designed to coexist with IPv4. It's one of the goals that it does allow. This time should allow the migration, which is really seemless in theory. We'll have to see.
- DoctorWhohaa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5r00tus3r: You're not the only one. Pile is living up to his handle. Let him have his ISP-wide natted IP address. Then lets see what happens when he wants to play the latest video game online, when everyone else wants to. Let's see his net-neighbour piss off a botnet and ground the entire community to a halt. NAT is a stop-gap solution, and the gap is widening.
The only thing that I don't like about IPv6 is the MAC as part of an IP address scheme. But I believe that they have that taken care of anyway. - zblackeagle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah. "Web" had me thinking of the excessive numbers of .biz scam sites and link farms. They're doing to "the web" what spam has done to email
- hourigan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If you would like to try IPv6 internet access without needing your ISP to upgrade, use SixXS
http://digg.com/technology/Free_service_to_access_the_net_over_IPv6 - localzuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I always love these articles that state things like 'it won't be done in time'. They seem to always base this on the misguided premise that the changes will continue at the same pace as they were at the time of research/writing. They have never heard of snowball effect...
- kortiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I dont know why the hell Piles comment was buried, hes right.
- allanak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7They've predicted running out of IP space for years...they just keep changing the figures. You can find so many articles on this issue. I've seen sites that predict we run out in 2022. Which one is correct?
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"I will not move to IPv6 until the spam problem has been addressed. We use relay blacklists to primarily stop spam."
If your blacklist scheme can only handle 4 byte addresses, then just blacklist entire IPv6 subnets based on the first 4 bytes of the address. - blanski, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Yes Windows is IPv6 compatible. Fanboy. lol.
- pyrolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We already ran out of addresses already.
- xerox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i'll get to updating to IPv6... one of these days...
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6We won't run out. The prices will just go up. Just like with oil. We'll never run out of oil.
- Nick_Circosta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Bring On IPv6 :)
- ibjhb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Promise?
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think ipv6 has been around since 1994.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It'll be a firmware upgrade. The nicest thing about this move, and what the doomsday theorists don't seem to get, is the simplicity of the move from IPv4 to IPv6. Yeah, it'll take a little bit of coding, but really not that much. 95% of people won't even know the move happened, and the 5% who do will know because they're interested in that sort of thing. It's a non-issue.
- Rmplstltskn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did anyone else notice this quote:
"Between 15 and 20 years isn't exaggerating."
Now allow me to do a bit of higher math:
2006 + 15 to 20 years = 2021-2026
Soooo, does this mean that he is admitting that the 2012 projection is his own exaggeration? - nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2IPv4 is over-allocated. We bought a company which had 126 class C allocations when they only needed 3 to cover their network with enough to spare for future growth. Making allocation holders justify their need and reclaiming unused IPv4 space would slow the problem greatly.
Until they freely allocate replacement IPv6 address space to everyone who currently holds (and pays for) IPv4 address space, nobody will move. I should already have my IPv6 addresses and have several years to upgrade any equipment which doesn't support IPv6. As it is, it would cost me money to even start playing with IPv6 and that's BS. Additionally, I should be able to keep a certain fraction of my current IPv4 address space AFTER the mandated IPv6 cut-over to ensure I don't loose those customers who refuse to update their ancient (at that time) equipment which doesn't support IPv6.
Do this and you'll see Administrators migrate on their own. Do not, and you'll need a mandate to get it done. - dykesat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Department of Defense has an ipv6 compliance mandate with a deadline of January 1, 2008. All HAIPE devices (high assurance internet protocol encryptor) the DoD uses in it's global information grid support ipv6 right out of the box. I'm not too concerned about the 2008 date because in 2000 the ipv6 mandate was slated for 2004, and then 2006...
And, yes, you can NAT 64,000 private IPs to one public IP, but it comes with a cost: cpu. You don't get NAT for free. :) - wilsonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Best way is to run it dual stack, if you have one of those linksys wrtg54 or something like that. I have a cisco router, and i use http://www.tunnelbroker.net/ as my ipv6 gateway, you can use any router or even just your computer with tunneling to test it out. There's not too much ipv6 content to see out there, because only the asian countries have really been pushing ipv6 functionality to homes. NTT provides ipv6 to the home dual via dual-stack in Japan.
Wikipedia keeps an up to date list of ipv6 tunnel brokers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_Broker
But do remember, make sure that you have a firewall that supports ipv6 filtering before playing on ipv6 - lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A good first step for the transition would be for ISPs to support it. We talk about businesses and individuals not switching, but how can they if their provider doesn't even offer it?
- radixus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We should be on IPv6 now, rather then sitting on IPv4! I wouldn't be surprised if the big ISP's are putting some heavy push back. We move to IPv6 everybody and their insect could have a public IP address. Meaning that many more people could support their own web, email, ftp, etc... hosting! Loss of money for ISP's like Comcast.
- recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Domain squatting does not require an ip address so I doubt it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 112 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is