ISPs Finally Shifting To IPv6

said by rawgerz:

What good is this for the end user? Harder to do tracerts, remember your own IP, and probably uniquely identify you?
No thank you.

said by nixen:

It means there's enough address space that you'll be able to telnet to your toaster from your island vacation spot.

said by tubbynet:

however, with this newfound flexibility comes the responsibility of the end user to secure all internet facing devices. granted - nat isn't much security, but it does provide a first layer to keep the script kiddies out. i can just see the port-scans going on scanning hunndreds of blocks per second and looking for openings and exploits. for the majority of embedded devices, there is no real way to "patch" the system without going through a bit of trouble. i can see a lot of pwnage happening.

q.

said by tubbynet:

however, with this newfound flexibility comes the responsibility of the end user to secure all internet facing devices. granted - nat isn't much security, but it does provide a first layer to keep the script kiddies out. i can just see the port-scans going on scanning hunndreds of blocks per second and looking for openings and exploits. for the majority of embedded devices, there is no real way to "patch" the system without going through a bit of trouble. i can see a lot of pwnage happening.

q.

said by battleop:

It's hard enough to get end users to ping 192.168.1.1. Just think of the fun in getting them to ping 2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7348.

said by battleop:

It's hard enough to get end users to ping 192.168.1.1. Just think of the fun in getting them to ping 2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7348.

said by battleop:

It's hard enough to get end users to ping 192.168.1.1. Just think of the fun in getting them to ping 2001:0db8:85a3:08d3:1319:8a2e:0370:7348.

said by rawgerz:

What good is this for the end user? Harder to do tracerts, remember your own IP, and probably uniquely identify you?
No thank you.

said by TSI Gabe:

I can say that TekSavvy has started to do the same but most ISPs will run into a lot of issues as IPv6 is not fully supported yet across hardware/software. Simple things such as IPv6 over PPP can become a major PITA under certain conditions. At this point we actually have it figured out but we had to involve our vendors for help. And as an FYI, the service still isn't offered to our customers, but we're getting there.

Anyway just a heads up :P

said by ground:

I am not excited about this at all. Routers offer very good security and control point. How are we going to control local networks then?
This IPv6 sounds like anarchy to me - everybody will have their own public IP and do whatever they want.

said by ground:

everybody will have their own public IP and do whatever they want.

said by TomS_:

What stops them doing whatever they want now?

said by ground:

What do you mean what stops them? My router does - I have half of Internet blocked here. They can't even get online without being properly authenticated on the router.

Now with IPv6 they will come with their laptops, get public IPs, download Gigs of pron/send spam/DDoS other sites. How you're going to control them without a router? NAT allows you to put them in a sandbox and set your own rules.

said by ground:

What do you mean what stops them? My router does - I have half of Internet blocked here. They can't even get online without being properly authenticated on the router.

Now with IPv6 they will come with their laptops, get public IPs, download Gigs of pron/send spam/DDoS other sites. How you're going to control them without a router? NAT allows you to put them in a sandbox and set your own rules.

said by matrix3D:

However, I took the math somebody did on Wikipedia and reposted it here:

"The very large IPv6 address space supports a total of 2128 (about 3.4×10^38) addresses—or approximately 5×10^28 (roughly 295) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5×109) people alive in 2006.[10] In a different perspective, this is 252 addresses for every observable star in the known universe."

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

said by matrix3D:

I'm assuming your post is meant to be sarcastic... but if it's not, why would a process or a thread even NEED an IP address? Only individual nodes or devices need an IP address.

said by patcat88:

We can eliminate port numbers by giving each process an IP address. With the future (jk) cloud computing/internet appliance/X Windows style dumb terminals, all programs will be RPC enabled, and have unique IPs. Handles and objects transparently work over the internet. GUIDs are history, we have IP ranges instead of GUIDs.

said by koitsu:

Please explain your logic here on a technical level, and verbosely at that. I'll save my flames for *after* you're given the chance to explain how this would work on a technical level.

said by patcat88:

We replace TCP and UDP and use a protocol without port numbers. Lets allocate 32 bits of the 128bit IP for all possible RPC/IPC objects an application might use (4 billion). Then we allocate 24 bits of the 128 bit IP address to label each protocol/application, 65000 (16 bits) wasn't enough with IPv4. The 32 RPC/IPC object bits and the 24 application bits combined remove the need for a loopback range. Let allocate 16 bits of the IP address for all the devices one person might own (65000). Now we are down to 56 bits left. In the next couple decades we are going to have atleast 40 billion people on earth since population growths exponentially. Lets allocate 44 bits of our remaining 56 to individual humans (a device might wind up with multiple IPs, one for each of its owners), that gives us the ability to give an IP range/address to 17592 billion humans, we might go intergalactic and spread all over the universe, IPv6 needs to follow us. The remaining 12 bits we give away to actual ISPs, thats gives us 4096 ISPs in the world. We just exhausted the IPv6 address space, time to hastily upgrade to IPv7.

Also there must be some external mechanism to replace broadcast addresses and multicast. Maybe we can allocate one of the 4096 ISPs to be a multicast range.

said by paul248:

But, once you've reached a process, you can multiplex at the application layer to call a specific function. Using IP addresses for that sort of high-level thing is just silly.

said by patcat88:

But we already gave half the address space away to MAC addresses.

said by TomS_:

i.e. 127 bits with the 128th (left hand most bit) being 0, and 127 bits with the 128th bit being 1. Those are the two halves of the address apce.

said by lordfly:

I am surprised they haven't setup a body to assign a block of IPv6 addresses to be assigned to each citizen. So each person born would be identified by their IPv6 address instead of their name.

The future is here!

said by uniden9:

My cable internet infastructure is stuck at docsis 2.0, doesn't support ipv6, and with charter still bankruptcy, docsis 3.0 seems way off.

said by jfmezei:

And in terms of address exhaustion, if every mosquito in Nunavut/NWT/Yukon (Canada) as well as every bush fly in central Australia were given their IP address, the address space would quickly be exhausted

said by jfmezei:

Do you serriously think that accountants at ISPs won't see revenue potential when customers want to connect their toaster to the internet ?

As long as ISPs charge more for multiple IPs than they do for a single IP, then NAT will continue to exist.

said by jfmezei:

And in terms of address exhaustion, if every mosquito in Nunavut/NWT/Yukon (Canada) as well as every bush fly in central Australia were given their IP address, the address space would quickly be exhausted