Yes. About 40,000, assuming each is allowed only one connection. Every connection must be assigned a port. There are a total of 2^16 but many are unavailable.
In practice the number of customers sharing an IP will be much smaller than that.
Every home router would have a static IPv6 prefix, just as it now has a DHCP-assigned (and logged, and traceable) IPv4 address. Every connection from inside the home would have one of 2^64 addresses selected at random (unless you choose to assign a static address).
> think I likes my IPv4+NAT+DHCP world of uncertainty and > pseudo-anonymity.
IP addresses are not arbitrary numbers. Unlike domain names, they must be routed. Distribute them randomly and you will soon have routing tables with billions of entries.
> MHO, if the IPv6 spec drops the Interface ID requirement,
As others have noted, there is (and never has been) any such requirement. Furthermore, since each prefix comes with 2^64 addresses and each IPv6 interfaces can have any number of addresses simultaneously you can assign a new random address to each connection.
> I don't think that anyone is particularly jumping for joy to > have their machine uniquely identified on the net.
Your public IPv4 address plus the port number on your NAT router uniquely identify you now.
How do you propose to look for something that we don't know how to look for because we have no idea what it looks like? We look for Earthlike life because we will know it when we see it. It may not be the most likely kind to exist but it is the most likely kind for us to detect.
The pigments are not very efficient: most of the light plants absorb ends up as heat. They have to reflect some of the light to avoid getting too hot and/or losing moisture too fast.
Give them another billion years and they'll have 90% efficient full-spectrum pigments plus a variable-reflectance surface that they can tune to control leaf temperature.
Many others probably do have the problem but haven't noticed due to lax monitoring. Their users just experience poor service (which they may have come to expect).
I regret not having put some money into an index fund in March 2008 but I feel no remorse about it. On the other hand I feel remorse for not having spent more time with my father in his last years. Do you see the difference? "Regret", in its narrowest meaning, is not to far from Google's definition. Their usage also comes directly from decision theory: they did not invent it.
Slashdot Mirror
> Most of their traffic is through their VoD service, not their
> website.
And that is why they are intensely interested in IPv6: multicasitng.
> If they really supported IPv6, they'd put the AAAA record on
> google.com.
thumper/~ dig google.com AAAA
; > DiG 9.7.3 > google.com AAAA ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 44637 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;google.com. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION:
google.com. 300 IN AAAA 2001:4860:b007::67
> I don't think that pinging will work unless you have a
> machine that answers the pings.
"Ping" doesn't have to mean ICMP echo request. It's easy enough for a site to induce your browser to connect to several different servers.
> There may be a theoretical limit...
Yes. About 40,000, assuming each is allowed only one connection. Every connection must be assigned a port. There are a total of 2^16 but many are unavailable.
In practice the number of customers sharing an IP will be much smaller than that.
You will be one of thousands of customers sharing a public IPv4 address via LSNAT. Do you think that your ISP is going to forward ports for you?
> That's the fun thing about ipv6. The addresses are fixed,
> because they're generated from the MAC address.
They can be. They can also be generated randomly as needed, distributed by DHCP, or stored in a hosts file. It's up to you.
> The whole IPv6 autoconfig may work, but it unnerves me
> that it takes away my control.
Then why use it? It isn't compulsory.
> ...every home device would have a static IP,
Every home router would have a static IPv6 prefix, just as it now has a DHCP-assigned (and logged, and traceable) IPv4 address. Every connection from inside the home would have one of 2^64 addresses selected at random (unless you choose to assign a static address).
> think I likes my IPv4+NAT+DHCP world of uncertainty and
> pseudo-anonymity.
"Pseudo" is right.
IP addresses are not arbitrary numbers. Unlike domain names, they must be routed. Distribute them randomly and you will soon have routing tables with billions of entries.
NAT adds nothing to privacy. Public IPv4 address + source port number is just as traceable as an IPv6 address.
In any case this has nothing to do with the rate of IPv6 adoption.
> MHO, if the IPv6 spec drops the Interface ID requirement,
As others have noted, there is (and never has been) any such requirement. Furthermore, since each prefix comes with 2^64 addresses and each IPv6 interfaces can have any number of addresses simultaneously you can assign a new random address to each connection.
> I don't think that anyone is particularly jumping for joy to
> have their machine uniquely identified on the net.
Your public IPv4 address plus the port number on your NAT router uniquely identify you now.
> I just don't see it happening.
And you won't. It'll hit you squarely in the back of the head (despite where you are keeping it).
How do you propose to look for something that we don't know how to look for because we have no idea what it looks like? We look for Earthlike life because we will know it when we see it. It may not be the most likely kind to exist but it is the most likely kind for us to detect.
If that were the case they would absorb green light. They don't. They reflect it while absorbing red and blue. That is why they are green.
> thought that's how TV shows were already made?
No. They're made from recipes. Math is too hard for producers.
n/t
> If that is true, why don't we have black plants here?
Probably because light is not the limiting resource.
> Obsess about AGW much?
Evidently you do, yes.
The pigments are not very efficient: most of the light plants absorb ends up as heat. They have to reflect some of the light to avoid getting too hot and/or losing moisture too fast.
Give them another billion years and they'll have 90% efficient full-spectrum pigments plus a variable-reflectance surface that they can tune to control leaf temperature.
Well, then as one of the copyright owners you are free to file suit on your own behalf.
Many others probably do have the problem but haven't noticed due to lax monitoring. Their users just experience poor service (which they may have come to expect).
> Install the ghostery add-on for firefox...
I have it.
> ...and watch as it reports each time you load a page from a
> "facebook partner"...
Never happens.
I regret not having put some money into an index fund in March 2008 but I feel no remorse about it. On the other hand I feel remorse for not having spent more time with my father in his last years. Do you see the difference? "Regret", in its narrowest meaning, is not to far from Google's definition. Their usage also comes directly from decision theory: they did not invent it.
> ...there's a big difference between regret and being sorry.
Yes. "Regret" is not a synonym for "remorse".
I'm not so sure of that (though perhaps I'm being overly optimistic).