Well, all you have to do is memorize the prefix. Then you can get creative..
4021:d0ce:5221:dead::beef
I do agree though. Working in tech support telling a customer to ping dead beef would be a little.. awkward. Especially if your customer is PETA.
Right, but multi-billion dollar Company X doing tons of business with multi-billion dollar Company Y through Backbone Provider probably wouldn't have a hard time telling multi-million dollar Backbone Provider to stick with this IPv4 thing.. or else.
My point is, besides the above (end-to-end IPsec, address roaming, etc.., which most people who need these things have them implemented *somehow* in v4) there's no real business incentive that you can take up the corporate chain to say "*THIS* is why we need IPv6". Seriously, I kinda doubt they care about the expanded address space or any of the other benefits, and they probably care even less once they see that there's a dollar amount attached to this IPv6 thing.
No problem non-resident Slashdot reader Anonymous Coward. Surely I haven't studied the technical complexity involved in IPv6 enablement, and have no idea about issues such as running legacy equipment in an IPv6 environment (heavens no, I wouldn't have tried things like converting IPv4 to IPv6 -- that's FAR too advanced for a home user!!).
And heaven forbid I tried anything beyond checking that "turn IPv6 on!" box. That would be INSANE! Yes, I am sorry Anonymous Coward, I have no idea of the issues facing corporations who are running their servers in many datacenters which offer native IPv6 connectivity.
Truth be told, though, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of corporations aren't motivated to migrate. I don't think it's as much a technical feasibility issue (as my favorite AC has implied) as it is a lack of need. At this point, what's the business incentive to migrate to IPv6?
My home network is already running IPv6 alongside v4. It's not that incredibly hard to set up.. only problem will be the hundreds of thousands of end-users who have non-v6 compatible routers.
AT&T TOTALLY NEEDS THIS SPECTRUM, because they're obviously really good at rolling out low-cost consumer-oriented wireless broadband with their existing airspace!
That's Speakeasy. We don't have Speakeasy here, though I wish we did.
I can get a reasonably similar performance DSL package from a local company for $20/mo extra, but latency is much higher (which typically seems to be the case with DSL).
The only thing that would make me consider ditching Comcast is FiOS. But that's not here yet either (it's in the neighboring neighborhood, so fingers crossed for someday soon!)
"The physical topology is altered by introducing a whopping great single-point-of-failure and potential bottleneck."
Duh, that's why you have to buy THREE of them!
Slashdot Mirror
that stuff like this is the "glue" behind the universe, and someday, some scientist in a lab is going to have an experiment go horribly wrong?
.. know anybody in Hollywood?
Well, all you have to do is memorize the prefix. Then you can get creative.. 4021:d0ce:5221:dead::beef I do agree though. Working in tech support telling a customer to ping dead beef would be a little.. awkward. Especially if your customer is PETA.
Right, but multi-billion dollar Company X doing tons of business with multi-billion dollar Company Y through Backbone Provider probably wouldn't have a hard time telling multi-million dollar Backbone Provider to stick with this IPv4 thing.. or else.
My point is, besides the above (end-to-end IPsec, address roaming, etc.., which most people who need these things have them implemented *somehow* in v4) there's no real business incentive that you can take up the corporate chain to say "*THIS* is why we need IPv6". Seriously, I kinda doubt they care about the expanded address space or any of the other benefits, and they probably care even less once they see that there's a dollar amount attached to this IPv6 thing.
Comcast has supposedly been rolling out IPv6 "soon(TM)" for the past few years..
No problem non-resident Slashdot reader Anonymous Coward. Surely I haven't studied the technical complexity involved in IPv6 enablement, and have no idea about issues such as running legacy equipment in an IPv6 environment (heavens no, I wouldn't have tried things like converting IPv4 to IPv6 -- that's FAR too advanced for a home user!!).
And heaven forbid I tried anything beyond checking that "turn IPv6 on!" box. That would be INSANE! Yes, I am sorry Anonymous Coward, I have no idea of the issues facing corporations who are running their servers in many datacenters which offer native IPv6 connectivity.
Truth be told, though, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of corporations aren't motivated to migrate. I don't think it's as much a technical feasibility issue (as my favorite AC has implied) as it is a lack of need. At this point, what's the business incentive to migrate to IPv6?
My home network is already running IPv6 alongside v4. It's not that incredibly hard to set up.. only problem will be the hundreds of thousands of end-users who have non-v6 compatible routers.
What's Al Gore got to do with this besides inventing the Internet, and how can I get him to filter my RSS feeds?!
AT&T TOTALLY NEEDS THIS SPECTRUM, because they're obviously really good at rolling out low-cost consumer-oriented wireless broadband with their existing airspace!
Oh wait...
I guess electricity is unbelievably cheap here. I paid $43 last month for my electric bill, which (same as the GP) is less than my Comcast bill.
That's Speakeasy. We don't have Speakeasy here, though I wish we did. I can get a reasonably similar performance DSL package from a local company for $20/mo extra, but latency is much higher (which typically seems to be the case with DSL). The only thing that would make me consider ditching Comcast is FiOS. But that's not here yet either (it's in the neighboring neighborhood, so fingers crossed for someday soon!)
"I wonder what the guys at NASA would figure out to get it out of something like that"
$1.2bn.
"The physical topology is altered by introducing a whopping great single-point-of-failure and potential bottleneck." Duh, that's why you have to buy THREE of them!