Slashdot Mirror
US Has More IPv6 Eyeballs Than Asia, Because of Apple
An anonymous reader writes "Google has been checking to see who's using IPv6. According to the company's tracking, half of all IPv6-capable systems seen by Google are Macs, helping the US land in fifth place in percentage of IPv6 users world wide, ahead of China and Japan."
OK, so I have 7 computers in my house. They all run either Linux or Vista. (Some both as two are dual boot). They are all IPv6 capable. However, my Linksys NATing router is not. So unless my machines find an ISATAP server somewhere, there is going to be no information that Google gets showing that all my machines could do it if I just sprung for a new router. I would imagine there are a lot of people in the same situation. I guess if they are trying to find out how many homes are capable - then maybe this is the right way. But if they are trying to just see how many COMPUTERS - then it isn't going to be correct.
don't you need both? if you have a router that supports IPv6 but your OS isn't configured to use IPv6 then you're still not going to be able to access IPv6 hosts. Windows XP still doesn't have IPv6 enabled by default--you need to go to network connection properties and add the protocol "Microsoft TCP/IP version 6" in order to enable IPv6 support.
so it's not a matter of it being IPv6 pushed in the wrong place, but a matter of networking hardware manufacturers being too slow to adopt IPv6. that's not really up to OS developers.
most existing networking equipment can probably already support IPv6 with a firmware update. but a lot of consumer networking equipment vendors are probably waiting for IPv6 to gain more traction so that they can a separate line of "new and improved" IPv6-enabled routers/switches/etc. to cash in on unnecessary equipment upgrades.
You're kidding, but why do stories have to use lame 'industry insider' phrases when an ordinary one would do just as well ("actual users" might fit the bill)?
Read Pynchon.
NAT is causing fucked up problems that are serious but aren't given enough publicity, like making the big DNS vulnerability of the year still apply, even if the software side is fixed due to NAT's tendency to line up/reuse port numbers instead of randomizing them - even if the application side did randomize.
NAT is a horrible, horrible thing that shouldn't be used because it's causing subtle but ultimately very bad things to happen. Besides, home routers could just come with a default denial of all incoming packets unless they are related to an open connection rule to substitute the "firewalling" people enjoy with NAT.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Where's the fun in that?
Sure a virtual server somewhere might have more bandwidth than my home cable but at home I can experiment with different setups. Some people play video games. . .I like to play with new distros, or software. If running a http or ssh server from home is wrong then I don't want to be right :-)