by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:13 am
by The Blaatschapen » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:39 am
Ifreann wrote:It's about damn time.
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:51 am
by Miasto Lodz » Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:53 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:What is your view of the transition?
by Ifreann » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:02 am
Computer Land wrote:I don't want someone hacking my fridge
by Risottia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:03 am
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.
by Ifreann » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:06 am
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.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:11 am
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.
by Risottia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:11 am
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.
by Ifreann » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:13 am
by Great Nepal » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:14 am
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:14 am
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.
by Jagalonia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:15 am
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
by Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:16 am
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?
by Risottia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:17 am
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.
by Divair » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 am
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.
by Ifreann » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 am
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.
by Great Nepal » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:21 am
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.
by Computer Land » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:21 am
by Divair » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:22 am
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.
by Jagalonia » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:22 am
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.
Tokyoni wrote:Hitler's mustache looks weird. Adam Smith was a drunken fatass. There, I've just pwned fascism and capitalism by such "logic".
Edlichbury wrote:OOC: If Knootoss can claim alcohol is a biological weapon, I can claim sentient Milk-People.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Barinive, Dazchan, Diarcesia, ImSaLiA, Insaanistan, Kaumudeen, Keltionialang, Kostane, Likhinia, Maximum Imperium Rex, Soul Reapers, Yasuragi, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement