Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

(Almost) All You Need To Know About IPv6

Posted by kdawson on from the billions-and-billions dept.

Butterspoon tips us to an article in Ars Technica titled "Everything you need to know about IPv6." Perhaps not quite "everything"; the article doesn't try to explain the reasons behind IPv6's meager adoption since its introduction 12 years ago. But it should be regarded as essential reading for anyone overly comfortable with their IPv4 addresses. Quoting: "As of January 1, 2007, 2.4 billion of those [IPv4 addresses] were in (some kind of) use. 1.3 billion were still available and about 170 million new addresses are given out each year. So at this rate, 7.5 years from now, we'll be clean out of IP addresses; faster if the number of addresses used per year goes up. Are you ready for IPv6?"

17 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Web 2.0 by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do I need to upgrade to IPv6 to use web 2.0?

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:Web 2.0 by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do I need to upgrade to IPv6 to use web 2.0?

      I think that's why it's called Web 2.0. Because it's two more than IPv4.

      --
      Best Windows Freeware
    2. Re:Web 2.0 by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Even better, I love how the article really heads off about 50 comments worth of Slashdot discussion:

      This is usually when someone brings up NAT. Home routers (and a lot of enterprise equipment) use a technique called "network address translation" so that a single IP address can be shared by a larger number of hosts. The discussion usually goes like this:

              "Use NAT, n00b. All 1337 of my Linux boxes share a single IP and it's safer, too!"

              "NAT is not a firewall."

              "NAT sucks."

              "You suck."
      Talk about knowing your audience.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:Web 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Talk about knowing your audience. You saw that the "goes like this" actually linked to this old Slashdot discussion, right?

    4. Re:Web 2.0 by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 2, Funny

      More like Web O.o

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
  2. All you need to know... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    All you need to know about IPv6. It wont run on your current network hardware, and you wont get the budget approved to upgrade.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:All you need to know... by uriber · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's easy: One for Bolt, one for Beranek, and one for Newman.

  3. Forget IPv6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want IPv8 engine...

  4. Is it stable? Can old systems use it? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear that we are only supposed to use the even versions, but I also heard that they kept messing around with version 6. Is it stable?

    I am running a i386. Should I just stick with IPv2?

    --
    testing out my trending skills
  5. Peak Internets! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > So at this rate, 7.5 years from now, we'll be clean out of IP addresses; faster if the number of addresses used per year goes up.

    Ted Stevens (R-Pork): As my colleagues from across the aisle are pointing out, we're facing Peak Internets. Clearly what we need is to open up drilling in IPNAR (Internet Protocol National Address Reserve) and start drilling in those unused /8s. We need more tubes!

    Ted Kennedy (D-Ham): Sure, how about 34.0.0.0/8, Halliburton?

    Dick Cheney (R-Oil): Suck it, Ted. Your union buddies in 19.0.0.0/8, Ford Motor Company, ain't long for this world anyways.

    Senator BOFH (I-Maginary): Umm, dudes? I didn't know DEC was still around, let alone still owned (16.0.0.0/8), and do enough people still go to Interop (45.0.0.0/8) that it deserves a whole frickin' /8 to itself?

    FCC: All of y'all, shaddap. The telcos paid us good money to put us in charge of this little exercise, so we'll take it from here. Everybody switches to IPv6 on our timetable. It shouldn't take us much longer than it took to phase out analog TV.

  6. Applying the gates response... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    3.7 billion unique IP's ought to be enough for anybody.

    --
    stuff |
  7. May i be the first person to say by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Funny

    "There's no place like 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1"

    You heard it here first. iThankyou.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:May i be the first person to say by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Certainly; for the common-folk perhaps.

      Kindest Regards,

      Dr Toreo Asesino, BSc, MSc, GeneralLikerOfComplexAndGeekyThings (From the 'longer-is-better' department)

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:May i be the first person to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's no place like loopback?

      There's no place like localhost?

      I don't get it. I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN IT. The quote is "There's no place like HOME."

      "There's no place like ~", maybe. 127.0.0.1 / 0:0:0:0:0:0:...(however freaking many 0s there are in stupid ipv6):1 is not, nor has it ever been, called "home", by anyone.

      Please stop with the nonsensical jokes.

  8. Re:Maybe IPv4 is the solution to spam. by xsarpedonx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, good suggestion. Let's try out IPv4 and see if we still get spam.

  9. Re:Meager adoption by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your machine has tens of thousands of open unprivileged ports.

    Thanks to the magic of port forwarding, you can take advantage of all of them! Squee!

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  10. Re:Running out of IPv4 by computational+super · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ah, relax, Chicken Little. Once we run out of IPv4 addresses for our NATs, we'll just stick all those NAT's behind other NAT's. Pretty soon we'll just have one IP address tied to one NAT that everybody shares and the problem will be solved.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.