 |
 | |
| Iceman4u2
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rochester, NY
1 edit | 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
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: OS and Routers 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.) | |
|
| | | Iceman4u2
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Rochester, NY
2 edits | 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. | |
|
| | | |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: OS and Routers 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. | |
|
| 
aelfwyne
join:2004-01-28
Beaumont, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | 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
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: OS and Routers 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. | |
|
| | | 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: OS and Routers said by Matt : 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. Actually nobody needs it on their home network behind a NAT box, the problem is internet and ISP adoption, that's where the address shortages will be. | |
|
| |
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 | |
|
| NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: .... said by Tzale :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.... How do I demonstrate demand for IPv6 to my ISP? Will they sell multiple IPv6 addresses so I can network all of my devices?
They think that they PERSONALLY don't need to do anything... That others will take care of it....
Others will have to take care of it. There is little that I, as an end user, can do to drive it.
The problem is that until big companies (and governments too!) start implementing the changes, we're never going to break away from IPv4.
Bingo!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
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 | Re: 2011 now, 2015 tomorrow. 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. | |
|
| | bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX | Re: 2011 now, 2015 tomorrow. First segments were assigned willy nilly, as there was no reason for concern at that time  | |
|
| | | |
| 
IPv6buddy
@snapbs.com
| 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. | |
|
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
| |
|
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
| Re: does IPv6 support NAT? 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. | |
|
| | 
bear73
Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly Skies
Premium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND
·Midcontinent Commu..
| Re: does IPv6 support NAT? its all well and good to give each consumer and business a block of addresses, but what about your firewalls? what about your local networks? Granted I haven't read up on all the technical bullitens on IP6 but everyone out there has all their machines behind firewalls for defense. I don't care how good a job my internet provider does in implementing a good firewall that doesn't limit my internet use (gee, isn't those 2 things at odd with eachother? I know it is at work) but I will always have my network behind a wall.
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
|
| tiger9
join:2005-08-01
Ont,Canada | Highly unlikely. People (including me) have gotten a whole /48 subnet - for free. | |
|
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 | Re: There are plenty of Class A addresses to reclaim.. 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 | |
|
|
xyzzy420
@cgocable.net | We should not only reclaim Haliburton's IP space: We should also shoot the bastards in the dark. | |
|
| Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| > Heck most companies don't wan't their workstations
> directly visable on the Net anyway.
That may be more important than reclaiming class A space. I work for a Canadian government agency. The building I'm in has several hundred people, pushing 1,000. If I deliberately ran a server on PC on my desk, I'd be risking getting fired. Yet, just about every single PC in the building has a public address. Our building has an external FTP server and a web server, and a couple of others. Exchange routes over the WAN to a *nix server at national HQ that faces the outside world.
There is no bleeping way we need more than a /28 (16 IP addresses), yet we use a big chunk of space. I can also see ISPs NAT'ing new customers. Given the anti-server clauses in most residential ISP AUPs, you might as well use an RFC1918 address. And a side benefit is that it'll kill P2P. | |
|
| Cubytus
join:2007-08-24
 ·Skype
·Vonage
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Radioactif
| Well, it probably won't kill P2P, and that's good for the society as a whole. If you don't like P2P, then don't disgust other of it. P2P is the future of video, music and file distribution, being it legal or not.
Well, if you're only one employee in several hundreds, your opinion won't matter much, but having a public IP for all workstation is pretty much wasting IP ranges, and it's simple being a very bad neighbour when you do. IP adresses are a limited ressource and should be treated as such. Its as wasting resources as having a water tap running in each cubicle, just in case someone may want to drink or wash his hands. | |
|
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs:  | I'm for the move Like others have mentioned, the move relies on the big guys, ISPs. I have a router capable of IPv6, but there is no advantage to using it when my ISP is using IPv4. As soon as IPv6 is doled out, I will gladly make the switch. | |
|
mpteach
join:2003-11-22
Manchester, CT | MIT MIT should sell their class A to a lazy ISP and use the money to upgrade to Ipv6 | |
|
whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
| Need Those AAAA Content Providers IPv6 isn't going to take off until the content providers hurry up and add those quad A records. In fact I'm sitting on a native dual stack network right now and the only IPv6 sites I hit are my own server/forum, our internal servers, and ipv6.google.com.
Come on DSLR, add a tunnel (assuming NAC.net isn't dual stack yet) and jump on the IPv6 bandwagon! | |
|
| 
Dan
Hamilton Tigers?
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Eh? | Re: Need Those AAAA Content Providers Agreed! | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | other then many many more addresses is there a performance benefit to IPv6?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
whfsdude
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
| Re: Need Those AAAA Content Providers said by Kearnstd :other then many many more addresses is there a performance benefit to IPv6? Yup. There are even new features like stateless config.
Routing tables are also optimized as the addresses are not so segmented. | |
|
i286
join:2008-01-16
Toronto, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Legacy devices... It's easier said than done. Can you imagine how many routers/modems, legacy OS' and other devices are out there that don't support IPv6? It's a lot of money to throw to the garbage.
I think it should be more democratic, say if you want you can use IPv6, if not, ISP can somehow NAT your internal IPv4 to external IPv6 - so people on internet see IP6 but from ISP to the router it is still IP4. | |
|
|
|
|
IPv6 Migration Not Happening
OS and Routers
·