The majority of people have never typed an IP address. Computers use them quadrillions of times a day. I don't think we should cripple the scalability of our communication system just so it's slightly easier for people to look at its inner workings.
In any case, memorizing common IPv6 addresses isn't that hard. [2001:4860:b006::68], for example.
And what happens when you have broadcasts coming in from multiple directions? Sure, you can get a rotating antenna, but what if you're recording to a DVR when you're not home?
Are the people at the top *really* motivated by greed? Practically speaking, what can you do with $100 billion that you can't do with $1 billion? I think they're just in it for the fun.
Link local addresses are local to the local network segment. They can't traverse a router at all. Site-local addresses are considered deprecated, replaced by unique local addresses: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
Neither site-local nor unique-local addresses should *ever* be routed to the outside world. They're only for use within private networks, like RFC1918 for IPv4.
Although, if you were going to set up an IPv6 NAT (most people would consider this a bad idea), then you would most likely use unique- or site-local addresses on the private side.
Running out of ports isn't a very significant problem.
The OS tracks a connection as a tuple of (local ip, local port, remote ip, remote port). You'll only run into problems if you try to create a lot of connections to the *same host*. A typical server makes a small number of connections to any given client, so the port numbers can be reused.
If you really do want to create tons of connections between a pair of hosts, you could just add more IPv6 addresses to one of the endpoints to get virtually unlimited port space.
Speaking of NAT, how many wireless routers out there support ipv6?
Not many, but that doesn't really matter. In the future, people who just want to surf the web can keep their old equipment and put up with their ISP's NAT. Anyone who has a use for end-to-end will upgrade to IPv6-compatible equipment. Businesses who want to stay in business will p to be dual stack.
Personally, I don't have enough computers at home to need ipv6.
It's not just about your computers at home. Your home is connected to the Internet. The Internet is growing at an exponential rate. It only has 4 billion addresses. Thus, IPv6 is useful if you plan to continue connecting to things as we approach the not-so-distant future.
"Almost 200 million gigawatts of solar energy is beamed towards the Earth every second, which is more energy than our civilization has used since the dawn of the electrical age."
Let's see. 200 million gigawatts * 1 second = 0.2 exajoules. Worldwide energy consumption is on the order of hundreds of exajoules per year.
This article must be using the wrong units somewhere, but I guess that's just the status quo nowadays.
- ISPs add the option of using IPv6, as long as the user buys hardware that understands it.
- We run out of IPv4 space, and the ISPs start piling on NAT to keep IPv4 running. People who don't care about end-to-end connectivity keep using their old equipment, going through multiple NATs for as long as they can.
- Advanced users who want to run servers, P2P, etc. will pay to upgrade their hardware to be IPv6 compliant so they can get around the NATs.
Exactly. You're the only person in this thread to mention smart antennas so far. They'll likely be the one component which makes DTV not suck, but nobody seems to care! I'm just waiting for some decent hardware to become available.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, my computer can play that song easily, and it doesn't even need a guitar.
I think this is what you mean by "microwave lighting":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_lamp
Are you sure about that? Why shouldn't AES-256 be expected to require 2^256 operations to brute force?
The majority of people have never typed an IP address. Computers use them quadrillions of times a day. I don't think we should cripple the scalability of our communication system just so it's slightly easier for people to look at its inner workings.
In any case, memorizing common IPv6 addresses isn't that hard. [2001:4860:b006::68], for example.
If your ISP only gives you a /64, you'll only be able to run one subnet. IANA suggests giving everyone a /48:
http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02 (section 2.7)
But I think some ISPs are planning to do something in between.
Everything I've heard points to Comcast assigning every house a /56 (that's 256 /64s).
One /64 would be very limiting, because you'd only be able to have one subnet.
And what happens when you have broadcasts coming in from multiple directions? Sure, you can get a rotating antenna, but what if you're recording to a DVR when you're not home?
Are the people at the top *really* motivated by greed? Practically speaking, what can you do with $100 billion that you can't do with $1 billion? I think they're just in it for the fun.
You forgot nano.
and on the flights they provide at least peanuts and soda for free
Not true. I've been on a US Airways flight where they didn't provide *any* free food at all, not even water.
That, and they read off some advertisements over the intercom before the flight, and had ads printed on your fold-down tray.
Also, for the near future at least, most IPv6 addresses will have "2001" as their first 16 bit prefix
False. Off the top of my head, I've seen at least 2001, 2a01, and 2620.
For reference:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
We know *exactly* how much unallocated IPv4 space there is. Every day, that number decreases.
It's not like oil, where we can cling to the hope that we'll discover bigger reserves someday.
I have 6 IPs just for personal use.
In 20 years, when everyone uses IPv6, this comment will be analogous to "640k ought to be enough for anybody."
You have six IPs, whoop-de-doo. I have 2^80 of them, and the address space is so expansive that nobody even cares.
Your claims are a bit inaccurate.
Link local addresses are local to the local network segment. They can't traverse a router at all. Site-local addresses are considered deprecated, replaced by unique local addresses: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
Neither site-local nor unique-local addresses should *ever* be routed to the outside world. They're only for use within private networks, like RFC1918 for IPv4.
Although, if you were going to set up an IPv6 NAT (most people would consider this a bad idea), then you would most likely use unique- or site-local addresses on the private side.
Running out of ports isn't a very significant problem.
The OS tracks a connection as a tuple of (local ip, local port, remote ip, remote port). You'll only run into problems if you try to create a lot of connections to the *same host*. A typical server makes a small number of connections to any given client, so the port numbers can be reused.
If you really do want to create tons of connections between a pair of hosts, you could just add more IPv6 addresses to one of the endpoints to get virtually unlimited port space.
That project has been vaporware for years. And more importantly, the site has been offline for the last couple months.
What is it with people and nuking Japan? Isn't twice more than enough?
Last I checked, the official builds of DD-WRT don't even support IPv6 anymore. It's always the first thing to go when flash space gets tight.
Speaking of NAT, how many wireless routers out there support ipv6?
Not many, but that doesn't really matter. In the future, people who just want to surf the web can keep their old equipment and put up with their ISP's NAT. Anyone who has a use for end-to-end will upgrade to IPv6-compatible equipment. Businesses who want to stay in business will p to be dual stack.
Personally, I don't have enough computers at home to need ipv6.
It's not just about your computers at home. Your home is connected to the Internet. The Internet is growing at an exponential rate. It only has 4 billion addresses. Thus, IPv6 is useful if you plan to continue connecting to things as we approach the not-so-distant future.
"Almost 200 million gigawatts of solar energy is beamed towards the Earth every second, which is more energy than our civilization has used since the dawn of the electrical age."
Let's see. 200 million gigawatts * 1 second = 0.2 exajoules. Worldwide energy consumption is on the order of hundreds of exajoules per year.
This article must be using the wrong units somewhere, but I guess that's just the status quo nowadays.
Just make sure not to fly it over the boat.
From what I've heard, Transmeta was creating some pretty remarkable CPU technology; they just made a series of awful business decisions.
The IPv6 transition is simple, in principle:
- ISPs add the option of using IPv6, as long as the user buys hardware that understands it.
- We run out of IPv4 space, and the ISPs start piling on NAT to keep IPv4 running. People who don't care about end-to-end connectivity keep using their old equipment, going through multiple NATs for as long as they can.
- Advanced users who want to run servers, P2P, etc. will pay to upgrade their hardware to be IPv6 compliant so they can get around the NATs.
Exactly. You're the only person in this thread to mention smart antennas so far. They'll likely be the one component which makes DTV not suck, but nobody seems to care! I'm just waiting for some decent hardware to become available.