Slashdot Mirror


The Next Net

Qa32 wrote to give a heads up on a BBC article discussing the IETF's plans for the future, including information on VoIP, IPv6, and security concerns. From the article: "Given the net was designed for the whole community, it has done well to reach millions. If you want to reach the whole population, you have to make sure it can scale up."

5 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. An observation on IPv6 by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here's a little observation about IPv6 - very few major web sites have an IPv6 address.

    Try it yourselve with dig or nslookup - try looking up AAAA records for any of the sites you visit, and see how many would be accessible via IPv6.

    For example, try
    dig slashdot.org aaaa
  2. Re:Just make sure... by andreyw · · Score: 3, Informative

    RFC stands for "Requests for Comments," btw.

  3. Re:Wow! think of all them IP addresses. by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 4, Informative

    NAT is no substitute for real address space. The only reason so many people use it today is because real address space is too limited.

  4. Re:2.1? by BigPappa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh yeah, lots of it. One of the things is IPv6 and multicast. The Abilene backbone (one of the I2's biggest) is entirely v6. The knowledge there on how it works on a grander scale is helping to tune and shape the works that come out of places like Cisco and Nortel. Thier code gets production tested first on Abilene and then to the big networks. We also get the new big routers to test with usually before anybody else does. If you go look at Abilene's website, you can see from the network graphic that it's pretty busy.

    Interestingly enough there seems to be a moving away from expensive ATM connectors to cheaper 10GigE connections. Our state network has just converted the backbone to GigE, and I expect that our connection to Abilene will change to that soon as well. I think ATM for medium length hauls will die out, only to be used on extra long hauls like across contries and oceans. I can see the big networks doing this to to cut down on costs and brainpower. ATM is just too complicated.

  5. Re:no to flash! by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Informative

    don't be silly, anyway they're talking about the net, not the web, ie, the infrastructure, not format's of files that could be transfered over it.

    No. IETF spends more of their time on file content than byte-pushing "infrastructure". For example, the HTML format is IETF RFC 1866. Any file that's mainly viewed over the internet is potential IETF fodder.

    (Flash is too old and too intentionally openness-hostile to ever become an IETF standard, of course. But it'd be good if it could be replaced by something which is a standard, maybe SVG)