Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
|  OS and Routers
Interestingly enough, my Trendnet TEW-633GR supported IPv6 out of the box. I was surprised when it started giving out IPv6 addresses on my network. What I was not surprised about however, is there is no way to turn it off. Guess that's what I get for buying Trendnet. |
|
Cubytus
join:2007-08-24
 ·Skype
·Vonage
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
| Well, thank you for saying that, basically, one shouldn't buy Trendnet. Many systems still in place now don't support IPv6, and most power-users de-activate it because 1- it causes significant overhead 2- isn't widely supported.
In a local network with a consumer-level router, having IPv6 is likely to slow down the whole network, since IPv6 needs to be transleted back to standard, IPv4 networks, since the vast majority of ISPs still don't support it. |
|
Iceman4u2
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rochester, NY
1 edit | reply to Matt
Dude are you sure.....I do ALOT of device testing for work and played with that router a month ago. I did not see it did that, considering the management address out the box is 192.168.0.1. By doing that I mean handing out IP6 addresses by default. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by Iceman4u2  :Dude are you sure.....I do ALOT of device testing for work and played with that router a month ago. I did not see it did that, considering the management address out the box is 192.168.0.1. By doing that I mean handing out IP6 addresses by default. The Mgmt Address out of the box is 10.1, not 0.1.
And yes, I'm pretty sure. Vista popped up a notification saying "New IPv6 device detected" when I replaced my old Buffalo with this one.
(For further confirmation: »www.xbitlabs.com/articles/networ···r_4.html)
The TEW-633GR employs a VSC7385 Gigabit Ethernet switch made by VITESSE. This SparX series chip is recommended for use in high-performance SOHO solutions. The chip offers 5 ports, has a 112KB frame buffer, supports IPv4 and IPv6 networks (with Jumbo Frames and features integrated tools for QoS and other services.) |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| ....
You know what it is? The mass mentality of the world's internet users who don't believe that they will be personally affected by a lack of IPv4 addresses.... They think that they PERSONALLY don't need to do anything... That others will take care of it.... The problem is that until big companies (and governments too!) start implementing the changes, we're never going to break away from IPv4.
This is really monumental..... The year 2011 is not that far away and to think that we're just going to sit by idly and not have to face the music is a little naive IMHO.
If I had the choice of switching to IPv6 or staying with IPv4, I'd rather stay with IPv4, but since we don't really have a CHOICE..... Of course IPv4 is what we're all used to, and it is easier to remember an IPv4 address... But still.... It is time to face the music.
Thanks for listening to my ramblings,
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11
| And God said let there be NAT routers!
He looked around as saw no shortage of IPs for peoples computers, game consoles, refrigerators, microwaves, home theaters, toasters, blenders, coffee machines of all types, vibrators, toilets , etc, etc. and he was pleased!
Remember hearing about "the shortage" back in the mid 90's and by the millenium we'd be out. Pfft.
Besides if the Myan calendar turns out to be right and if we run out in 2011, that's not much time before the world ends anyway in 2012.  |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| 2011 now, 2015 tomorrow.
Remember when it was going to be 2007 a few years back? There are a whole host of ways to mitigate (but not eliminate) the IPv4 "shortage." Reclaiming unused class A's from early Internet presences would be a good start and push it back another 5-10.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
dandin1
join:2008-05-27 | And exponentially increase the size of routing tables? There's a reason why IP address space is assigned in segments and not just willy nilly. |
|
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Like any other shortage....
And 15 years ago we weren't concerned about any kind of oil shortage because it cost $17 a barrel.
Thing is that until folks are actually affected by this supposed IP shortage, most of them won't switch.
Besides if you only use "real" IPs for systems that really need to be outside, and use NAT routers, it is't nearly as much of a problem.
--
TheGlobalMind.com | Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? | Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
Iceman4u2
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rochester, NY
2 edits | reply to Matt
Re: OS and Routers
That is your basis cause Vista said so????? It supports IP6, but it does not hand out IP6 address by default, as you stated. Yes you are right about the management address I did forget the 1 in front of the 0. Vista did that when I added my content media server to my home network as well, but it just means a IP6 capable device. |
|
aelfwyne
join:2004-01-28
Beaumont, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Matt
And your desire to "turn it off" is indicative of the overall problem - people see IPV6 as something they don't want, god knows why. My router supports it, unfortunately my cablemodem does not.
You'd think the RIAA and MPAA would be paying off ISP's to push IPV6, as it would make linking user & machine a bit easier.
--
If it ain't broke..... You didn't overclock it enough. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by aelfwyne :And your desire to "turn it off" is indicative of the overall problem - people see IPV6 as something they don't want, god knows why. My router supports it, unfortunately my cablemodem does not. I don't need it on my home network. Once my provider supports it I'll happily turn it on and run it. Right now it's unnecessary overhead. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to Iceman4u2
said by Iceman4u2 : That is your basis cause Vista said so????? It supports IP6, but it does not hand out IP6 address by default, as you stated. Yes you are right about the management address I did forget the 1 in front of the 0. Vista did that when I added my content media server to my home network as well, but it just means a IP6 capable device. I apologize for my poor choice of words. It's sending out IPv6 routing advertisements, but it does not have a built-in DHCPv6 server. |
|
bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX | reply to dandin1
Re: 2011 now, 2015 tomorrow.
First segments were assigned willy nilly, as there was no reason for concern at that time  |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| does IPv6 support NAT?
i think this is the major hitch if it doesnt or doesnt have a NAT like solution, simply because unless we can have home routers we will have to buy additional IPs from our ISPs, even though IP6 in theory gives trillions of addresses i doubt ISPs will give out IPs like candy even under IPv6.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
AvatarZero
join:2008-07-15
| said by Kearnstd :i think this is the major hitch if it doesnt or doesnt have a NAT like solution, simply because unless we can have home routers we will have to buy additional IPs from our ISPs, even though IP6 in theory gives trillions of addresses i doubt ISPs will give out IPs like candy even under IPv6. One of the theories behind IPv6 is that end users would be able to be allocated a block of addresses for their local networks (including those running a simple home network), effectively giving every individual internet-capable machine its own unique IP address. The idea is more or less to make NAT obsolete.
My problems with IPv6, on the other hand, are different, stemming mostly from the fact that it carries unnecessary overhead (even when finally separated from an IPv4 wrapper header - 128 bits per address is SERIOUSLY unneccesary) and that its deployment and block allocation scheming is "ill-defined" at best. |
|
IPv6buddy
@snapbs.com
| reply to Cabal
Re: 2011 now, 2015 tomorrow.
It would be nice if this was true and I know you aren't the only one who believes this but they have already reclaimed a couple of these at a substantial cost in money and time and this isn't a good solution.
At the current rate we are consuming a class A space every 25 days or so. If they reclaimed all 42 of the original class A networks (which could only be done under government fiat or extreme public pressure) it would give us almost 3 years of extra time.
If we use the 240.0.0.0 class E space it would give us another year and a half but since Windows and other TCP/IP stacks don't support this we'd have to patch everything to make this an option.
We may pursue one or both of these options and gain up to 5 years but what exactly is the point if we run out in 5 years or 3 years - shouldn't we be working on rolling out IPv6 instead of wasting time on temporary fixes doesn't it make sense to just add IPv6 to every device that can support it?
When the general technical public really grasps the reality of the situation two things are going to happen. First people are going to try to grab as many IPv4 addresses as they can to protect themselves - this will increase the rate of depletion. Second - people will roll out IPv6 - this rollout is probably going to take 3-5 years to see widespread adoption.
We are certainly probably already too late to avoid a lot of pain - the question now is how much pain is there going to be?
The biggest issue is the carriers. AT&T, Verizon, and those guys have dragged their feet on consumer and small business IPv6. If they had been ready to go in 2006 this whole transition would have been much further along by now.
I've never seen a technical issue where even geeks were afraid to lead like IPv6. It's like everybody has gotten so attached to IPv4 they have forgotten that we are supposed to be leading the way towards the next thing. |
|
yaplej
CCNA
Premium
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to bugabuga
Seriously! Look at the list I mean why would some of these corps need a class A block of freaking IP addresses? What a waste!
»www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
--
Open Source WAN Accelerator
»trafficsqueezer.sourceforge.net/ |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL
·Speakeasy
| There are plenty of Class A addresses to reclaim..
Most of these organizations don't need anythng more than a couple of Class B assignments. Heck most companies don't wan't their workstations directly visable on the Net anyway.
So they run NAT's and firewalls.
003/8 General Electric Company 1994-05 LEGACY
004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY
006/8 Army Information Systems Center 1994-02 LEGACY
008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY
009/8 IBM 1992-08 LEGACY
011/8 DoD Intel Information Systems 1993-05 LEGACY
012/8 AT&T Bell Laboratories 1995-06 LEGACY
013/8 Xerox Corporation 1991-09 LEGACY
015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY
016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY
017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 1992-07 LEGACY
018/8 MIT 1994-01 LEGACY
019/8 Ford Motor Company 1995-05 LEGACY
020/8 Computer Sciences Corporation 1994-10 LEGACY
021/8 DDN-RVN 1991-07 LEGACY
022/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 1993-05 LEGACY
024/8 ARIN 2001-05 whois.arin.net ALLOCATED
025/8 UK Ministry of Defence 1995-01 LEGACY
026/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 1995-05 LEGACY
028/8 DSI-North 1992-07 LEGACY
029/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 1991-07 LEGACY
030/8 Defense Information Systems Agency 1991-07 LEGACY
032/8 AT&T Global Network Services 1994-06 LEGACY
033/8 DLA Systems Automation Center 1991-01 LEGACY
034/8 Halliburton Company 1993-03 LEGACY
035/8 MERIT Computer Network 1994-04 LEGACY
038/8 Performance Systems International 1994-09 LEGACY
040/8 Eli Lily & Company 1994-06 LEGACY
045/8 Interop Show Network 1995-01 LEGACY
047/8 Bell-Northern Research 1991-01 LEGACY
048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 1995-05 LEGACY
051/8 Deparment of Social Security of UK 1994-08 LEGACY
052/8 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 1991-12 LEGACY
053/8 Cap Debis CCS 1993-10 LEGACY
054/8 Merck and Co., Inc. 1992-03 LEGACY
055/8 DoD Network Information Center 1995-04 LEGACY
056/8 US Postal Service 1994-06 LEGACY |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | dont some of these firms have millions of unused address space? ive heard rumors that MIT for example has over a 3 million IPs not even being used.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
