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."
IPv6 is nothing, it was just created because we are running out of IP addresses quickly. The future as I see it is mass distribution of media. Instead of running out and buying movies you could download the whole dvd and watch that.
From part-way down TFA:
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.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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
www.eFax.com are spammers
I believe IPv6 has something like 50 addresses for every square foot of land on the earth.
That's amazing. Soon we'll be able to wire up our entire house and everything from the fridge to the alarmclock would be accessible from the internet.
I only hope if it gets to that, nobody can hack into my microwave when I'm cooking my dinner, or someone hacking into my alarm clock and messes with the settings.
If microsoft does good on their desire to control it all, they'd better finally have some reasonable measure of security. I wouldn't want to wake up to find out some low life got to my hot water heater and turned it off because of a buffer overflow vulnerability.
Wouldn't it just be easier to lower the population to millions rather than changing current infrastructure?
Seriously, mate, this joke is so old it's about time it was put out of its misery (as it's no longer funny) and bury it under three miles of solid rock (otherwise, the stench would be unbearable).
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
What that means to you, MBAs, is that it sounds like by i-deploying its cross-market and granular mix of best-of-breed technologies for today's e-enterprise, the interweb will finally be scalable!
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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.
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
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.
IANA hasn't been handing out class A blocks "like tap water" for a long time. Sure, some organizations have too many addresses, but these were mainly organizations that pioneered the IP network and were handed these netblocks very early on.
As an AC pointed out in an earlier response, NAT is the hack, not IPv6. It breaks end-to-end connectivity, and you have to jump through lots of hoops to get many protocols to work correctly. NAT was a measure that slowed the need for IPv6, but it didn't remove it.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
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.
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)