IPv6 Rolls On

May all the headaches clear out before we get there..

I look forward at IPv6 myself, and have been reading the forum..

I'm not really looking forward to it but it's a given that it MUST be done so I'll sit back and learn what I can about it I guess.

Edit: Split

Are Linksys routers IPv6 ready? (BEFSR41, BEFSX41)

Think it's time to stroll on over to the IPv6 forum and read some FAQ's.

It's a failure already.

is there any technology, or standard that does not have it's own kinks??

I mean when DSL came out 4+ years ago, modems were bulky things that could break your foot if not careful. DSLAMS were expensive, and the world knew DHCP, PPPoE and static..

Today... Modems are smaller, DSL seems to be turned up rather faster than 4+ years ago..

So give IPv6 time... I think it will prove itself rather well.
--
If you have a topic I have not responded to in the direct forum please be sure to reply to me... I get an e-mail when you do that so I know you updated your thread... Thanks David..

it's a failure already because why? Any specific reason? I actually was just going to reply to a post of yours in the v6 forum but I noticed there is no activity there. From what you said in »[ipv6] Whole new Internet, or just an upgrade I can't help but assume you are slightly off base. You do realize that, excluding NAT nastiness, some places need more than routable ip address? You assume that because we have enough ips for one per household roughly that we don't need to migrate? And everyone should get a free block? Why? Everyone is not offered a free block of v4 as it is, so .. I dunno, maybe I'm reading into that single post too much with reflection on your flop claim. I've used a bit of v6 for the past few years, mostly just setting up bind and a tunnel for it. I fail to see the floppyness/failure of it at all, other than requiring a bit of polishing and hardware support nothing's wrong?

I think I'm not off base.

One guy who answered that post, asked if I ever used a payphone. Apples and oranges. Which is exactly what the argument is for monopolizing blocks of IP Addresses.

The point is, why even both with IPv6 if it's not going to be in the public interest?

And it is not.

It is in the corporate interest.

I don't believe the public will want a sloppier, much more complicated system of IP, while getting absolutely noting more in return, rather, only paying still more for a faerie tale about scarce IP Addressing space.

One guy argued that 64-bit was really only 48-bit. Really? So is 32-bit really only 24-bit? Then how do they get the octets out of it?

These people can't even see the fallacy in their own arguments, and they are always the pro-IPv6 people.

What is the beef about providing at least one Static IP Address when a domain is registered? Could it be that the people getting what amounts to basically IP welfare benefits be the ones posturing for fees for IP? I think so.

This, in return, disenfranchises any and all countries where they can't afford the exhorbitant an unreasonable prices per Static IP Address along with the cost of a domain. And it's no longer an open Internet, but one closed to all but the rich, which, of course, shuts off the voice the rest of the world.

It is a basic flaw. The ideaology behind IPv6 is false.
--
Dontcha Know When Its Wrong?

How is all the addresses you want, probably for free, not in the public interest? Right now people have to know what NAT and DHCP and all the other IPv4 hacks are just to get online, and then once they are online they realize that they can't connect to anything because they're hidden behind a NAT router. It's pretty ridiculous.

wiggles, thanks for the absolutely best description of IPv6.

Exactly right, they still want to stick the average user out of reach of the Internet.

I tried IPv6, it really screwed my system up. It created a LAN 2 Connection, stole everything from my real connection, reset my real connection, and then would not connect. It was so bad that I had to reset everything just to get my connection back, including all the routers, etc..

An honest IPv6 it seems is not forthcoming. One you can configure. It reminds me of XP's Network Wizard so much that I begin to wonder. With XP's Network Connection Wizard, you get one connection. If you try to create another, it just overwrites the old one no matter how you try to tell it not to. And the Wizard and Setup a New Connection are one and the same.

I know I won't be using it until it straightens out its bad behavior. I can't afford to rebuild and reinstall servers everytime IPv6 burps, or intentionally screws my server, DNS, etc..

What a piece of trash; I've said it again.
--
Dontcha Know When Its Wrong?

I'm not looking forward to IPv6 only due to the fact it will be covered (starting in 2005) on the CCIE written exam

My god, thats a subnetting nightmare! 32 bit is bad enough, 128 bit will probably be rather difficult....

I can't believe there are people who think that IPv6 is only about more addresses. And that this is somehow a way to have corporations hoard more of them. There is a TON more going on than that. Being in IT Security there are a lot of things I find very interesting about it. I am not saying it is more secure currently, just that it holds some promise of its capabilities. And of course it holds the chance for change and new ways of doing things which I look forward to.