IPv6

[megatexel]

Do you guys think that when IPv6 starts to come about that we will be able to update device's to support this or new hardware? Also just post general stuff on this fun new protocol.

😀

 

[dszd0g]

Overall IPv6 kicks butt. I went to an IPv6 con 3 years ago and I haven't seen it catch on any since then. Until people are forced to make the switch I don't see it happening. Even most Internet programs written in the last 5 years don't take IPv6 into account. Although, developer support of IPv6 still seems rather poor. The only thing about IPv6 that really scares me is how it handles prioritizing of packets. I can see big companies where their internet presence is their business (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) paying the ISPs to keep their packets at high priority (It's up to the ISPs whether they listen to different peoples priorities or not.) It would be scary if faster sites were faster because they paid the ISPs off to prioritize their stuff higher than their competitors. IPv6 makes this easy to implement though.

 

[Eli]

Doesen't IPv6 like add another .3 digits to the deal, so we have like a trillion more possible IPs? hehe

 

[Mark R]

It uses 128 bit IP addresses doesn't it, so they'll end up looking like this:

148.16.39.0.14.43.231.141.31.5.8.13.222.1.97.65

 

[LouisXIX]

lol, MarkR, thats real funny.

No, it uses 8 sections of 16bit hexadecimal numbers, like so:

5F05:2000:80AD:5800:0058:0800:2023:1D71

IPv6 allows for 1000,000,000,000,000 addresses.

dszd0g: you're right it doesnt seem that it is catching on, but IBM, M$, Cisco, Nortel, etc. are working at it subtly in the background.

 

[zogg]

louis is right, it adds four more octets to the address. But I dont see how anything will change, except that there will be like 100,000 address's available for each person in the wolrd.
TCP/IP isnt going to change and it isnt going anywhere. It's here to stay for a long, long time.

 

[dszd0g]

This is somewhat interesting: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2600183,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01. The first steps in IPv6 are for the backbone providers to implement it, especially at the NAPs. Then the major DNS servers have to implement the AAAA records. I think bind should serve then IPv6 compatible IPv4 address as an AAAA record for any address that has an A record. Maybe it does, I haven't really been following it. With IPv6 tunneling over IPv4 there is no reason why the backbone providers can't start implementing IPv6. The 6-bone has been around for quite a while.

 

[megatexel]

hehe.. I read that and thats what made me post here 😉

IPv6 will probably be cool. That is kinda scary about the prioritizing. We will probably see DSL with different levels of priority 😉 i have a level 3 DSL 😀

i wish I could get DSL btw ;(

 

[LouisXIX]

You're misunderstanding what the IPv6 organisation mean by 'prioritizing'. Its specifically in place to prioritize voice packets when using voice-over-ip, preventing the breaks and pauses that are prevalent in current packet based voice communications (IPv4). For corporations to misuse the priority control in IPv6 would make the whole concept of VO-IP redundant.

 

[dszd0g]

I have no faith that companies will use it morally or in a fashion that benefits the general user. I thought it was approximately 2 x 10^28 IP addresses per person. I thought the idea was to create more IP addresses than they believe there are atoms in the universe so that it would be theoretically impossible to use them all. I personally think that 128-bits is just a nice round number. 🙂