Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Wants IPv6 by 2008
anzha writes "The constant question for 'when' for IPv6 keeps wandering across good ole /. It seems that the Pentagon has decided to put a foot down and put a deadline on their dark and dangerous portion of the net."
In Asia, the situation is pretty bad, and has been for a while. It's extremely difficult to get more than a handful of IP addresses from your ISP, and NAT is more common than in the US. This is one of the reasons why folks in Japan are further ahead with IPv6.
IIJ has been offering IPv6 service (not tunnelled over IPv4) for a while, and some vendors in the US (such as Panix in NYC, I believe) are also starting to offer this.
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
For those not in the know, here is a brief article Explaining the benefits of IPV6.
I'm not Seth.
Won't we need IPv7 by then?
Didn't the government want us to be totally metric by now also?
You do realize that IPv6 offers something like an IP address for every square centremetre of ground on the planet, right?
I'm not Seth.
Maybe the white house could push this through.
BTW does Bush even know what IPv6?
I called up one of my customers ISP's for support and asked if they support IPv4 and they said no.
Governments have set deadlines for turning off analogue TV, but it doesn't mean that will happen either.
... and then the rest of the world..
Hate to break it to ya, sonny, but the rest of the world is the reason that the US is finally getting their ball in the game. It ain't America that's hurting because of IPv4, it's China, Japan, Russia, and the world at large: demand for IPv6 in the US is low because Americans have better than 80% of all the IPv4 addresses.
--porsche_lover@hotmail.com
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
IPv6 addresses are printed in groups of 16 bits in hex, separated by colons. 3ffe:1200:301b:1:a00:20ff:fec0:ffee, for example. Notice that the '1' is really '0001' - leading 0s within a group can be left out. There are more little tricks, but you can go look at the various IPv6 RFCs if you're really curious.
I think this is a good idea. After all, they created the internet, so I'd be inclined to trust the DoD on this. Moreover, the milirary is moving to be a more and more integrated organization. The battlefield is quite rapidly becoming wired, or unwired.
Recently in one of our training excercise out in the California desert, every soldier, truck, helicopter, etc. was connected in a very integrated and dynamic network which allowed the commanding officers to witness the mock battle in real time, seeing which forces were where, and how to adapt to a changing situation extremely quickly.
In military theory, and well in any competitive environment, the goal is to gather information, assess the situation, decide on a course of action, and execute that decision. Whoever can complete this loop or cycle first has the clear advantage. By connecting everyone on the battlefield so that they can gather and pass on information as fast as possible is clearly a necessary step for this to work.
So, if all our soldiers need to be connected to the information infrastructure, it is clear that this will be accomplished with information technology. And how else to do this? Well, over cheap, abundant, and "easy" to configure systems. And what do these systems use as an underlying framework?
IP addressed based systems. (right? im a soldier, not a network architect, so my appologies if i am wrong)
So, from the military's standpoint, it would be a good idea to have as many IP addresses as possible. They will sure need them when there are hundreds of thousands/millions/billions of information nodes dispersed across the battlefield of the not too distant future.
IPv6 by 2008 or else. What are they going to do? Cancel the internet?
All I've heard is that Duke Nukem: Forever is supposed to have built in support for it...
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Come one, this is stupid. Trust the army to screw up and fight the last battle. 128 bits was what we needed in the 1990's, now we need, at minimum, 1024 bits.
0 32 95103906144016539038225792870901895835390320107657 44457305542673419082369699669734880889275496329484 96303482538270489266497896614602800178013445636154 70744071510983402152604892326878198758722011817673 7621501526369471177135320848354245186405050904232
Proof:
numOfPeople = 7000000000
def uniqueIP(n):
return 2**n
def ipPerPerson(numOfIP, people):
return numOfIP / people
>>> ipPerPerson(uniqueIP(1024), numOfPeople)
25681330498033084396132931296986067623113956842
By my calculations, that is the minimum number needed per person. With all the nano-devices we will have by 2008, that number will go quickly, trust me.
Even if there are production delays and the nano-devices are not here by 2008, they will still be coming soon, so we may as well be prepared.
Also, for those who are going to complain, having 1024 bit IP addresses will not be much overhead.