IPV6 Conference June 24-27

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Monday May 26, 2003 @05:50AM from the ip-numbers-as-door-prizes dept.

John Sokol writes "IPv6 is the 'next-generation' protocol designed by the IETF to replace the current version Internet Protocol, IP Version 4 ('IPv4'). This years big conference on it will be in San Diego from June 24-27. See the North American Global IPV6 Summit site. I hear rumor DARPA will be making a big announcement there."

19 of 28 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

DARPA Announcement by GigsVT · 2003-05-26 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny

What did you hear they would announce?

That there is no need for IPv6? That the so-called IP shortage was mostly fabricated?

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
1. Re:DARPA Announcement by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-26 07:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  Other possibilities...
  
  That they have IP rights on IP and are going to charging per-packet royalties?
  
  That TIA is functioning perfectly and has identified 100% of internet users as potential terrorists?
  
  That withdrawing the funding of OpenBSD was because only terrorists use anything other than windows?
  
  I can hardly wait.
2. Re:DARPA announcement by axxackall · 2003-05-27 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the version: IP Hurd E17 v6 - the excelent projects that would never happen to real life :(
  
  --
  
  Less is more !
June 24-27 by suss · 2003-05-26 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

As a coincidence, the year 2427 is also when IPV6 will be finally implemented.
1. Re:June 24-27 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-05-26 07:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  As a coincidence, the year 2427 is also when IPV6 will be finally implemented.
  Thats not all, the total estimated cost = $24^27
2. Re:June 24-27 by QuMa · 2003-05-26 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hmm? It's already been implemented, and I'm already using it for a lot of things. There isn't going to be a switchover day, whatever those spring clean emails might have claimed :-).
Ipv6 deployment by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-26 17:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

The only thing holding me back from a wider deployment is the need to tunnel ipv6 through my ISP, who doesn't route it. Due the braindead pricing of broadband services in Australia, where we get byte-charged heavily, there are local free-traffic "internet exchanges" (http://www.waia.asn.au/) to get around the problem.

If I have to make a tunnel outside my ISP, I get bytecharged even for traffic between work & home, for example, despite both being on WAIX.

As a result, the practical utility of ipv6 for me is quite limited until the ISPs here grow brains.

Craig Ringer
'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by oliverthered · 2003-05-26 22:32 · Score: 1

You should be using a comercial, not a private connection.

I beleive that comercial traffic make up most of the day time load of ISP's and puts more strain on the network than P2P traffic.

Wander why your being bytecharged?

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
1. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-27 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  > Wonder why you're being bytecharged
  That's the way its done here in Australia, alas, due to the successful marketing campaign of our main telco. They managed to convince people that "bytes cost money" and its been all downhill from there.
  As for using a "commercial" connection - we are, at work. There's actually bugger all difference in australia - the commercial ones charge you per megabyte and the home ones cut you off or rate limit you once you reach x mb downloaded instead. I don't really see what point you're trying to make, since they're all as bad as each other.
  What I really need is native ISP ipv6 support so I can route across WAIX (my local internet exchange) w/o hitting the byte-charged upstream links at all.
2. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by axxackall · 2003-05-27 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  In Canada we, broadband users, are GB-charged: most of ISP set the cap and you pay a fixed price for traffic bellow the cap. But if you exceed the limit the price goes up exponentially. The cap is in average (among providers) 20GB download, 10GB upload. Sometimes it's combined to 25GB altogether (upload and download).
  While I hate the fact that I am limited in traffic, I understand that if we all would be constantly exceeding the cap that would require ISP to install the equipment with more bandwidth and thus with more cost of their facilities. Also, they (ISPs) would have to have a better connections to their backbone providers. So, the concept "bytes cost money" seems reasonable, although, the tariffs should not punish regular people (those who don't download tons of mps and dozens of iso images).
  
  --
  
  Less is more !
3. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-27 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Australia the usual dl limit is 3 gig! You can now get better services for 6 or 9 but anything above that tends to be on a pay-per-mb basis. The problem is that "per mb" is what it sounds like - about 10c/megabyte, which is insane.
  
  Bytes (in terms of ISP infrastructure upgrade requirements) sure as hell don't cost 10c/mb.
  
  The scary thing is that I have one of the better connections available.
4. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by seb+bean · 2003-05-27 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  mwahaha, here in America we pay a static price and no limmits, at least where i am...and i've never heard it being different anywhere else....although they have been messin with our services lately, so you never know what they'll do next.
5. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-27 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Essentially, yes. We have many ISPs who do ADSL, but unfortunately the LINES are controlled by Telstra, as are the exchanges. Telstra refuse to allow other ISPs to install network hardware in the exchanges, so the legal requirement to make the lines available to others doesn't really make a difference.
  
  Essentially, if you want ADSL, you have to use Telstra's DSLAMs. There are a few exceptions, ISPs who managed to force Telstra to budge and let them install DSLAMs in capital CBDs, but they're expensive business-only services - their selling point is that they guarantee uptime.
  
  Telstra also refuse to provide any QoS guarantee - they can be down for a month, and it doesn't really matter. They recently announced "voluntary compensation" for downtime, but its partial and they don't /have/ to do it.
  
  What this all comes down to is that it doesn't matter who you sign up with, you go through Telstra's network services.
  
  *sigh*
6. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-27 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, for more info have a look at
  http://www.whirlpool.net.au/
  Its a broadband news site, and has some real doozies in the archives.
7. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by axxackall · 2003-05-27 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like Soviet Russia...
  Today Internet is essential for small and mid businesses. For example, If i have a tiny company in my basement, I'd like to host my "corporate" server there. But what you are saying makes it impossible. How do small businesses survive in Australia? Or it's a country of only big corps? Or small business doesn't have any internet? Or they have to pay tax to Telstra to host their online services?
  
  --
  
  Less is more !
8. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-28 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  How do they survive? Usually they'll sign up for web hosting or access to a co-lo. Unfortunately, co-los tend to follow similar traffic charging models, and can get very expensive very fast.
  
  Small businesses with high internet access demands have a really hard time.
9. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by axxackall · 2003-05-28 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  And what people do about it? Any protest actions? Any parlament discussions? Or most of Australians are fine of being screwd up? Or they don't know about the problem?
  
  --
  
  Less is more !
10. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by Craig+Ringer · 2003-05-28 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Senator Kate Lundy is trying to do something, but she's in opposition and the gov't telecoms senator is a drooling moron. You may have heard of him - senatator Alston, "the luddite".
  
  The Gov't has a 51% interest in Telstra and rather likes the profits it gets. People aren't fine with being screwed around, but there's honestly not much to be done. After all, when your "representitives" ignore you...
11. Re:'even for traffic between work & home' (OT) by axxackall · 2003-05-28 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  The Gov't has a 51% interest in Telstra and rather likes the profits it gets.
  The question is can Govt improve the situation (making Internet more attractive for small business in Australia) *AND* at the same time keep the profit (or even making more money on it)?
  Now the Govt get's a profit from squeezzing from Internet money, which is small for Govt and big for people. Is that the only way for Govt to get money? How about taxes? Increasing telco taxes will redistribute the picture: big boys (Telstra?) will pay more, smaller boys (local ISPs and subscribers) will pay less. That will increase the demand for ISP services and overall make more money for Govt. Of couse the Govt must demonopolize the Internet industry in order to let it happen.
  Oh man! I should move to Australia and make the Internet Revolution there! Just kidding :) In fact, it's sad to see that stupidy is still ruling our life. And not only in North America :(
  
  --
  
  Less is more !