Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Next Net

Posted by Zonk on from the interweb-2.0 dept.

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. Interesting quote by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From part-way down TFA:

    "The top priority is to ensure that the standards that make the net work, are open and free for anyone to use and work with."

    Interesting for many here that the new guy at the head of the IETF seems to give this issue such emphasis.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. Re:An observation on IPv6 by jrcamp · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Please read about Transition Mechanisms for IPv6.

    This is not an all or nothing thing. We do not have to turn out the lights on IPv4 before we can start utilizing IPv6.

  3. Re:IPv6 Not Enough? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From what I can see, what's held up IPv6 adoption is the NAT router, and IPTables/Netfilter in particular. These IPTables guys have managed to come up with hacks for many of the difficult protocols, so that even cranky beasts like MSN Messenger are fully functional. NAT has its problems, of course, and at some point we're going to have to dump IP4, but I think it's longer off then some hope.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:2.1? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the billing problem? Encrypt the packets with a different private key every 5 seconds, and require each listener to get new copies of the public keys, by subscription in 10-packs, distributed randomly in time. The keybuffers are not multicast, but they're millions of times smaller than the encrypted media, so the smaller-scale unicast model works. If I can think of that in 30 seconds, why haven't the providers thought of it yet? And why do incumbent corporate providers have an advantage, if Internet2 is publicly funded?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  5. NAT has other purposes by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    NAT is the ISPs way of keeping its subscribers in line, and acting as consumers rather than citizens. Given the TOS of my ISP, it just doesn't matter whether I get NATted, or not. Anything I could do that I can't do behind NAT isn't allowed.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.