Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. DoD Commits To IPv6

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the leading-the-way dept.

babaloo writes "According to this article the U.S. Defense Department wants to move it's entire network to IPv6 by the year 2008. Will this be what pushes at least U.S. based companies and providers to actually convert over?" It's definitely a shot in the arm that IPv6 needs. This seemed to be more of a priority back when NAT was much less prevalent, but it seems we'll eventually find ourselves on IPv6, even if we drag our feet there.

4 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh... by Andorion · · Score: 3, Redundant

    A simple search for "ipv6" before posting the article would have been nice =)

    Karma-seekers, just go to the original post and repost all insightful comments! :)

    ~Berj

  2. Redundant? by dnoyeb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Exactly.

  3. Re:Um? by 0verdun · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I believe the poster is trying to say that IPv6 was _less_ of a priority before we had NAT. This is incorrect but not offtopic.

    One of the most immediately clear downfalls of IPv4 is the (relatively) small address space. If every IP-addressable machine had to have a world-unique IP address, then IPv4 would have fallen well short, and so IPv6 would have been necessary. However, with the advent of NAT, we are able to have m addresses for n nodes on a network, where m < n. As a matter of fact, m is usually 1.

    This is why most machines you'll run into on a private network are 192.168.x.x, or one of the other IP ranges set aside for private network use (see RFC 1918). (For extra credit, a show of hands of everyone using address 192.168.0.101 right now).

    For more NAT fun, see RFC 1631.

  4. Re:Excellent example! by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The next dupe will be posted soon, but subscribers can see it early!

    Ha!

    --

    --
    Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again