Q: Everyone knows? just trying to think ahead a bit.
Re:I've considered switching my lan over the ipv6, but I've been lazy.
Re:ok guy im going to yield to you on the semantics of my statement. You are right, ill admit.
i was more asking if that was mainstream enough for you(all). I don't think it is mainstream either.
In the IT business, whenever I hear people tell me something WILL be the future, I get very skeptical. Most of the time I hear that, they're wrong.
ok ok, you are right. but in this case I am nto touting IPv6 as THE answer, just mearly suggesting a change from current form. I think you will agree that this will almost certainly be the case, barring new unexpected changes(which makes the future the futer 
)
=====
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.
–MiB
=====
Re:guy,
>IP as we know will eventually be replaced, whether it is with IPv6 or another new standard.
This is a better statement. Though definite statements about the future are always no-nos in any argument. I've gotten torn up more than once in my life by English professors over this, but it's not just a pedantic comment, there's wisdom in it. When you're definite and sure about something in the future, you blind yourself to factors that might change the outcome.
In the IT business, whenever I hear people tell me something WILL be the future, I get very skeptical. Most of the time I hear that, they're wrong. My experience is that the future is often the player you discount (and in turn often the cheapest).
>You can say it has hit mainstream due to the inclusion of it in OSs like Microsoft can't you?
There are many many protocols I can use to communicate with the box next to mine, but it's the protocols I can use to communicate with a lot of systems that are more interesting and that's how I define mainstream. When you can post in this forum over v6, that's a lot closer to mainstream.
guy,
>1) built in encryption and authentication
IPsec is mandatory-to-implement for IPv6. It's the same IPsec that's used for v4 which has not exactly been a success for anything other than in the VPN space. Oh, and most IPv6 implementations don't actually implement IPsec for IPv6.
>2) more and future proof QoS mechanisms than the basics we have now
The QoS mechanisms are exactly the same mechanisms as in IPv4 that have not exactly been a success, DiffServ, RSVP, etc. There was a "flow label" field in the header but nobody could define it in any useful way and so now it's gone.
>3) Fixed TCP/UDP/windowing problems and move to a more realistic flow control behavior
I don't know where you got this. TCP and UDP are completely unchanged.
guy, I think somebody gave you a marketing story. Unfortunately, there are people in the IPv6 community who are extremely liberal with the truth and thus there's a lot of misinformation.
The main thing IPv6 buys you is a larger address space AND the ability to assign out of it with a clean slate. Unfortunately, address space is not really a problem. Yes, you can't just go get a /16 because you feel like it. And yes, sites are being strongarmed into NAT. But there's a ton of address space available and current allocation policies and market trends have slowed the growth to a point where there's no need to worry about address space. What we DO need to worry about is routing and the address format plays into that heavily, and IPv6 does NOT fix that problem. You might imagine major ISPs reaction to being asked to spend billions of dollars in new equipment and man-time to deploy something that solves the problem they don't have and does not solve the problem they do have.
IPv6 does rejigger ARP into Neighbor Discovery, a protocol that fixes ARP's problems, but is just amazingly more complex than it needs to be.
Re:one last thing. You can say it has hit mainstream due to the inclusion of it in OSs like Microsoft can't you? Its not used, but its out there.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
guy,
>The reality is IPv6 is going to happen, it is a matter of when.
This is a definite statement of fact about the future. Please provide proof to back it up.
I thought my statements did back it up. Perhaps you would be more satisfied with this statement:
IP as we know will eventually be replaced, whether it is with IPv6 or another new standard. As far as the facts go look at the above statements. The Facts are out there, i do not feel like grabbing them myself.
Re:Gosh,
Its been so long since I've looked at IP6 here's what I remember about other benefits besides address space.
1) built in encryption and authentication
2) more and future proof QoS mechanisms than the basics we have now
3) Fixed TCP/UDP/windowing problems and move to a more realistic flow control behavior
So how long? I'm deeply involved in the network industry and a member of the Internet Advisory Board.
I haven't even heard a mention of it since 2000.
Re:guy,
>The reality is IPv6 is going to happen, it is a matter of when.
This is a definite statement of fact about the future. Please provide proof to back it up.
Re:It is actually the USAs fault IPv6 hasnt caught on. We simply havent run out of IP addresses yet. When we do you know it will be pushed through.
When they first divided up the Ip address, the US got significantly more than the rest of the countries. Combine that with the fact that other countries (i.e. Japan, parts of europe) are jumping on the bandwagon for devices that use ip addresses (i.e. cellphones) faster than the US, you seee these countries are quickly using up their supply of addresses.
In the US we still have enough IP addressess … for now.
The reality is IPv6 is going to happen, it is a matter of when. That when depends on when the US gets it act together and decides that the cost involved is justified by the need. Until then, we will ignore the complaints of other countries.
Also I believe Microsoft is ahead of the curve on this one. I believe they have IPv6 support in their newer OSs (win xp, maybe w2k?). Still, there is much that needs to e done to prepare for IPv6.
So do you need ot worry about it? Doubtful. For your linux kernel, go ahead and leave it out. I bet you have a new machine, by the time that is needed.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
guy,
>I'm personally tired of NATing all of my machines, I want IPv6
That's not a compelling business case for a worldwide conversion entailing tens of billions of dollars in expenses. Nor are any other of the arguments for v6. Which is why it ain't happenning.
I didn't think it was. Just a personal gripe 
EDIT: Wasn't there supposed to be some encryption built into ipv6? Personally, I think that would be reason enough. But I have blinders on most of the time.
Re:guy,
>I'm personally tired of NATing all of my machines, I want IPv6
That's not a compelling business case for a worldwide conversion entailing tens of billions of dollars in expenses. Nor are any other of the arguments for v6. Which is why it ain't happenning.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
guy, mobile phones should run in private address spaces. The idea of millions of cell phones running one of two or three smart-phone OSs with direct access to the public Internet should be very very scary if you consider the Windows virus problems we've had the past week.
Today, if you have a phone with IP service, it's frequently NATted and in practice you need an application level gateway for HTML<->WAP conversion, so it's not a stretch to just expect NAT.
You can still setup an HTML to WAP converting proxy or whatever. You can also firewall off those mobile devices. If NATing was the answer, ISPs would be doing that now.
I'm personally tired of NATing all of my machines, I want IPv6
Re:guy, mobile phones should run in private address spaces. The idea of millions of cell phones running one of two or three smart-phone OSs with direct access to the public Internet should be very very scary if you consider the Windows virus problems we've had the past week.
Today, if you have a phone with IP service, it's frequently NATted and in practice you need an application level gateway for HTML<->WAP conversion, so it's not a stretch to just expect NAT.
Re:Originally posted by: guy
guy,
What about the advent of mobile IP and cell products? Does ARIN still feel the address space can handle the growth?
my thoughts exactly…
Re:guy,
What about the advent of mobile IP and cell products? Does ARIN still feel the address space can handle the growth?
Its been so long since I've even though about IP6.:o
Re:guy, more then half of the IPv4 address space in existence is reserved and not even available to registries to use. There IS an artificial scarcity that has been intentionally created to make it harder to get address space, the point of this being that when address space was easy to get folks got a lot more than they needed, but now that it's hard to get they'll get only what they need and maybe a little more room to grow. This alone conserves space a lot.
Also, the exponential growth of the 'net is mostly over.
Re:so i take it there are plenty of IPv4 addresses left.
ok! i guess IPv6 support is getting compiled outta my kernel!
Re:As soon as it solves an actual problem.
0 Comments.