NationStates

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18338948

I think that 21DA:00D3:0000:2F3B:02AA:00FF:FE28:9C5A is a mouthful but I feel that it should be easy to be familiar with. However, there is no way that IPv4 can also survive at home because many people could soon be buying lots of internet-enabled devices from internet fridges to internet alarm clocks.

What is your view of the transition?

It's about damn time.

Ifreann wrote:It's about damn time.

This.

I saw an internet fridge already a decade ago. And IPv6 at least 5 years ago on various computers. IPv6 should be enough for the next two or three decades at the least (probably more, but i'm being very conservative here ).

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's about damn time.

This.

I saw an internet fridge already a decade ago. And IPv6 at least 5 years ago on various computers. IPv6 should be enough for the next two or three decades at the least (probably more, but i'm being very conservative here ).

I say we go hardcore and skip straight to IPv32.

yeah...problem is that IPv6 is going to be a huge pain in the ass to admin and there are vulnerabilities which have already been found and are being exploited.

https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/ ... 50117.html

Shame that coz originally one of the things that we wanted to see was a more robust security model in the protocol as well as more sophisticated supportability.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:What is your view of the transition?

Not yet. Let them fix this damn protocol first.

Edit: Ninja'd

I don't want someone hacking my fridge

Computer Land wrote:I don't want someone hacking my fridge

fridge.setTempC(100);
sysout("I'm melting! I'm meeeeelting! Oh what a world, what world!");

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:there is no way that IPv4 can also survive at home because many people could soon be buying lots of internet-enabled devices from internet fridges to internet alarm clocks.

Da fuck?
Does anyone plan to need more than 2¹⁶ net addresses in a SINGLE house? If not... 192.168.x.y is more than enough.

Also... what is the purpose of an "internet fridge"? Seems quite stupid.

About time. IPv4 needs to die. Bring on IPv6!

Risottia wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:there is no way that IPv4 can also survive at home because many people could soon be buying lots of internet-enabled devices from internet fridges to internet alarm clocks.

Da fuck?
Does anyone plan to need more than 2¹⁶ net addresses in a SINGLE house? If not... 192.168.x.y is more than enough.

Also... what is the purpose of an "internet fridge"? Seems quite stupid.

It's mostly to extract money from people with too much of it rather than any actual improvement on the fridge.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:yeah...problem is that IPv6 is going to be a huge pain in the ass to admin and there are vulnerabilities which have already been found and are being exploited.

https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/ ... 50117.html

Shame that coz originally one of the things that we wanted to see was a more robust security model in the protocol as well as more sophisticated supportability.

Has IPv4 been attacked before?

Ifreann wrote:

Risottia wrote:Da fuck?
Does anyone plan to need more than 2¹⁶ net addresses in a SINGLE house? If not... 192.168.x.y is more than enough.

Also... what is the purpose of an "internet fridge"? Seems quite stupid.

It's mostly to extract money from people with too much of it rather than any actual improvement on the fridge.

Oh I see.

I'm off to write one thousand times "I must not derail this thread into a rant about how much capitalism sucks".

Risottia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's mostly to extract money from people with too much of it rather than any actual improvement on the fridge.

Oh I see.

I'm off to write one thousand times "I must not derail this thread into a rant about how much capitalism sucks".

I suppose it would be convenient to be able to add to an online groceries order as soon as you notice something lacking from the fridge, but building a computer into it for the sake of not having to walk a few feet hardly seems worth it.

My problem is with the switch... why are we going for IP6? Surely, going for something which allows for larger number of addresses will avoid the issue in far future.

Risottia wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:there is no way that IPv4 can also survive at home because many people could soon be buying lots of internet-enabled devices from internet fridges to internet alarm clocks.

Da fuck?
Does anyone plan to need more than 2¹⁶ net addresses in a SINGLE house? If not... 192.168.x.y is more than enough.

Also... what is the purpose of an "internet fridge"? Seems quite stupid.

I think I'd be using IPv6 over things like MPLS...internal LAN I'll keep IPv4. Example why - by default IPv6 does not use a global interface but rather creates one for each service (gateways, printers, scanners, FAX machines, switches, routers, ect...even smartphones). Enjoy!

Ifreann wrote:

Computer Land wrote:I don't want someone hacking my fridge

fridge.setTempC(100);
sysout("I'm melting! I'm meeeeelting! Oh what a world, what world!");

Sigging! xD

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:yeah...problem is that IPv6 is going to be a huge pain in the ass to admin and there are vulnerabilities which have already been found and are being exploited.

https://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/ ... 50117.html

Shame that coz originally one of the things that we wanted to see was a more robust security model in the protocol as well as more sophisticated supportability.

Has IPv4 been attacked before?

very much so...which why we had hoped that the lessons learned would be taken to heart in IPv6...

Ifreann wrote:I suppose it would be convenient to be able to add to an online groceries order as soon as you notice something lacking from the fridge, but building a computer into it for the sake of not having to walk a few feet hardly seems worth it.

This... expecially because I'd have to pay extra for the "internet fridge" AND for the delivery.
Also, let's assume I'd have a fuckload of net peripherals at home... all I'd need is a router NATting from my IPv4 LAN to the IPv6 WAN. Which I already have, btw...

I'd be much more interested in having a GRANTED minimum 4/1 MB down/up bandwidth with 99% uptime, with a maximum 0.1 s latency...

Great Nepal wrote:My problem is with the switch... why are we going for IP6? Surely, going for something which allows for larger number of addresses will avoid the issue in far future.

You know what IPv6 does exactly, right?

Great Nepal wrote:My problem is with the switch... why are we going for IP6? Surely, going for something which allows for larger number of addresses will avoid the issue in far future.

IPv6 does allow for a larger number of addresses. Considerably. It's going from 4 billion to some 340 trillion.

---

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Has IPv4 been attacked before?

very much so...which why we had hoped that the lessons learned would be taken to heart in IPv6...

Learning lessons? Nonsense!

Ifreann wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:My problem is with the switch... why are we going for IP6? Surely, going for something which allows for larger number of addresses will avoid the issue in far future.

IPv6 does allow for a larger number of addresses. Considerably. It's going from 4 billion to some 340 trillion.

Yes, but that is going to run out too, especially with ever increasing internet usage. Demand isn't going down. So, wouldn't it be logical to go for something much much larger so that we wont be in same position for at least next few million years.

Ifreann wrote:

Computer Land wrote:I don't want someone hacking my fridge

fridge.setTempC(100);
sysout("I'm melting! I'm meeeeelting! Oh what a world, what world!");

Great Nepal wrote:

Ifreann wrote:IPv6 does allow for a larger number of addresses. Considerably. It's going from 4 billion to some 340 trillion.

Yes, but that is going to run out too, especially with ever increasing internet usage. Demand isn't going down. So, wouldn't it be logical to go for something much much larger so that we wont be in same position for at least next few million years.

A. 340 trillion will last us a long, long time.
B. We can't just magically develop something better. We need time and lots of resources.

Great Nepal wrote:

Ifreann wrote:IPv6 does allow for a larger number of addresses. Considerably. It's going from 4 billion to some 340 trillion.

Yes, but that is going to run out too, especially with ever increasing internet usage. Demand isn't going down. So, wouldn't it be logical to go for something much much larger so that we wont be in same position for at least next few million years.

The next few million years...?
Good god...As a species we won't be on this planet for that long! xD