one day the internet will be like space, full of space junk and limiting our abilities

 

I hate IPv6 formatting with a passion, can't we just add two more octets to IPv4, it solves the lack of IP addresses and makes it not a nightmare to use. Example below...

IPv4 Example Address: 10.0.0.1
IPv6 Example Address: FE80:0000:0000:0000:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329
Proposed Solution Example: 10.0.0.0.0.1

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEW21689

I hate IPv6 formatting with a passion, can't we just add two more octets to IPv4, it solves the lack of IP addresses and makes it not a nightmare to use. Example below...

IPv4 Example Address: 10.0.0.1
IPv6 Example Address: FE80:0000:0000:0000:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329
Proposed Solution Example: 10.0.0.0.0.1

999:999:999:999:999 would work too.

 

"Long live the creator, IPV4" she will be hailed as monumental in history of communications.

Also known for distributing the most pron to the masses.

And thus the push for IPV6 which the government has had a huge push to get all secure communications on back in 2007 approximately or slightly earlier.

Make no mistake all of the usual "Agencies" had their hand in the final spec of IPV6 for secure networking. However they did have a concern with "Firewall Vendors" and how to bring them inline with their wishes.

Quote: GCN.com article from 2007 Source

'Network protection devices are a bit tricky to specify because there is a fair amount of variance in how these devices function,' said NIST's Montgomery. 'We had to find a way to specify that [they] provide the same level of capabilities agencies have come to know and expect with v4.'

IE Backdoors lol.

I'm all for a newer Internet backbone of sorts. The current system is a diseased mutt. IPV6 will change things however it's adoption has been slow up to this point. I don't however expect other countries that do not trust our "US Agencies" to once again blindly follow along with IPV6, so expect some turbulence in International standards down the road. That's my own opinion of course.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by orlfman

and i just learned ipv4 subnetting these last few months. guess its time to start learning ipv6 and starting over... again

Bah, same concepts, larger address pool

 

My precious..........................

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEW21689

I hate IPv6 formatting with a passion, can't we just add two more octets to IPv4, it solves the lack of IP addresses and makes it not a nightmare to use. Example below...

IPv4 Example Address: 10.0.0.1
IPv6 Example Address: FE80:0000:0000:0000:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329
Proposed Solution Example: 10.0.0.0.0.1

Imagine in 5 years, they invent something to replace Internet

And ipv6 addresses were only up to %1 barely

Oh well

 

I fully expect the government and corporations to start seizing IPV4 addresses from others.

 

Im not very informed...but can't they purge the probably millions of addresses wich aren't being used?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoLDii3

Im not very informed...but can't they purge the probably millions of addresses wich aren't being used?

Addresses come in blocks. So while there are a lot of addresses out there not in use, they are contained within the blocks of addresses held by the various providers.

 

There a numerous benefits with IPv6. There's no sub netting, so there's no need for NAT.

 

Well it looks like I need to make my router IPv6 ready

 

And MIT has a good chunk of them just chilling.

18.0.0.0/8

Entire Class A subnet owned by MIT, every student gets their own public IP address.

 

RIPE still have plenty of space left comparatively so I wouldn't be worrying just yet.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drop0ut

There a numerous benefits with IPv6. There's no sub netting, so there's no need for NAT.

Wrong wrong wrong.

IPv6 is subnetted from the beginning by the IP allocation organisations.

The need for NAT isn't just an influence towards address conservation but also for a degree of privacy/security.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drop0ut

There a numerous benefits with IPv6. There's no sub netting, so there's no need for NAT.

What? Any IPv6 network you see is a subnet..

The 'no need for nat' in IPv6 has always been a one dimensional, short-sighted argument. There are plenty of other reasons to NAT than just address conservation..

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoLDii3

Im not very informed...but can't they purge the probably millions of addresses wich aren't being used?

This. It seems most logical to do this since hundreds of millions are probably not in use.

 

Okay so silly question for the network gurus out there. Can an ISP not run like a home LAN and have each IP assigned to say 200 machines and then route the responses down like a home router? Sorry network moron here.

 

I sometimes get nightmares about ipv6 implementation.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drop0ut

There a numerous benefits with IPv6. There's no sub netting, so there's no need for NAT.

Will it make home networks harder to setup?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopar63

Okay so silly question for the network gurus out there. Can an ISP not run like a home LAN and have each IP assigned to say 200 machines and then route the responses down like a home router? Sorry network moron here.

They already do this (allow 200 machines to share a single public IP), it's called NAT. A single public IP is assigned to the outside of a home router then the router performs PAT to allow multiple inside machines to communicate to the outside world via using the public as a source.

Simply, when a PC on your home network connects to a public resource i.e. bbc.co.uk - 212.58.244.20

It's communication looks a little like this;

Source IP: 94.24.56.72 (Assigned by your IP to outside of your router):7634 (Randomised port number to correlate initiating inside machine, hence the P in PAT)
Destination: 212.58.244.20:80, port 80 being http

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by aweir

Will it make home networks harder to setup?

Nope, just the addresses will be longer- infact it'll probably be easier depending how home router manufactures decide to package the software.

Seriously go read the RFC for IPv6, there are multiple benefits- it's also a good read

Some of the best ones below,

IPSec security built in
Address auto-configuration (IPv6 protocol can assign hosts IP addresses without the need for a dedicated DHCP server)
Theoretically more efficient packet processing for ISPs and routing devices in general. By using multicast as a forwarding method it'll massively cut down on the amount of spurious unneeded broadcast traffic on network segments.

The most contentious for me is the fact that we will be able to re-establish the end-to-end principle, I'm not so sure this is a good idea however computer science theorists/purists will argue otherwise.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, but the exhaustion of IPv4 space is still massively overhyped.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEW21689

I hate IPv6 formatting with a passion, can't we just add two more octets to IPv4, it solves the lack of IP addresses and makes it not a nightmare to use. Example below...

IPv4 Example Address: 10.0.0.1
IPv6 Example Address: FE80:0000:0000:0000:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329
Proposed Solution Example: 10.0.0.0.0.1

Everyone says that until they learn it. Its easier than it looks. For example, You don't have to type out those starting zeroes.

FE80:0000:0000:0000:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329

AND

FE80:0:0:0:0202:B3FF:FE1E:8329

AND

FE80::202:B3FF:FE1E:8329

Are the same.

You can get rid of leading zeroes but not trailing zeroes. Also, only one set of double colons per address or its invalid.

ARIN has an interactive graphic of the address anatomy. Just roll over the bold IPv6 number.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by assaulth3ro911

This. It seems most logical to do this since hundreds of millions are probably not in use.

How can you reliably determine what's in use or not for organizations? Just because someone isn't actively using one of their paid-for IPs 'right now' doesn't really make a case to delete people's allocation at random..

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beers

How can you reliably determine what's in use or not for organizations? Just because someone isn't actively using one of their paid-for IPs 'right now' doesn't really make a case to delete people's allocation at random..

Yup.

What IPs I have active or not on my network changes on a damn near daily basis. If they just started yanking allocation because someone was unused for awhile, it would cause so much damage to the infrastructure.