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."
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.
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.
It is pathetic that even poor people in South Korea have lines for 20 bucks a month at 25 mbps. America the leader in tech? I beg to differ.
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.
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.
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.
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.