How Things Will Change Under IPv6

Da Massive writes "IPv6 Forum leader Latif Ladid provides an insight into the workings of IPv6. He also talks about how peer-to-peer file serving as we know it today will be redundant with the newer protocol." From the article: "Q: What is the most significant benefit that IPv6 offers the world? A: Global connectivity. Currently we have less than 50 percent world-wide Internet penetration, and we have used most of the address space. If you look at the Western world, we have more than 50 percent penetration. In total we have close to a billion people connected to the Internet. So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration. We have six billion people on the planet. When the Internet protocol was designed back in 1980 there were 4.3 billion address spaces; it was already insufficient for the population. By 2050 we will be nearly 10 billion people. But there are not only people. There are things. Billions and billions of devices that will service these people."

Comments

untrue

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is a false perception that we have full Internet penetration.

This is completely untrue! There is lots of full penetration on the internet.

IPv6 Changes

[mrtroy]

What people dont seem to realize is that IPv6 is not only about adding more addresses.

They also improve the packet structure (by doing things like removing the fragmentation flag)

And we should be looking at making wireless roaming easier (consider forwarding mechanisms when changing WAP's)

But more addresses is a key benefit. And there is no real harm, just the cost of transition which can be minimized due to the backwards compatibility provided through tunneling, etc. So if everyone just starts installing IPv6 hardware, everything is happy. Why is this issue being rehashed?

Re:What About Private Address Space?

[kotj.mf]

Private address space, when used according to specification, will eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard.

Actually, it'll eliminate the need for costly conversions to a new standard for a period of time, after which we'll all need to upgrade anyway, when it'll be even more costly.

Ladid's main point seems to be that NAT-proponents take this kind of short-term, client/server-centric view. There's nothing wrong with client/server, but it's a significant hinderance for independent development of things like VoIP, where peer-to-peer makes far more sense.

Basically, it's not just that we're running out of address space; it's also that treating NAT like anything other than a (relatively) short-term fix ultimately hinders the development of new uses for the internets.

Re:Haha...

[NIN1385]

Awww... c'mon, that's classic family guy comedy!