NationStates

Great Nepal wrote: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.

Technology changes. Computing in a million years will be so different that this kind of networking will be obsolete. In fact chances are that no one except some exceptional nerd types would have heard of IPv6...

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.

Like how much larger?

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...

In my opinion, I think they are nothing more than just a (hexdecimal) number. I do not think it will significantly change anything as far as security is concerned.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
very much so...which why we had hoped that the lessons learned would be taken to heart in IPv6...

In my opinion, I think they are nothing more than just a (hexdecimal) number. I do not think it will significantly change anything as far as security is concerned.

Heh, we all wish it was as simple as you say

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
very much so...which why we had hoped that the lessons learned would be taken to heart in IPv6...

In my opinion, I think they are nothing more than just a (hexdecimal) number. I do not think it will significantly change anything as far as security is concerned.

nope...its been pretty much reworked...but it seems some vendors are not implementing some features (https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2081049)...

It won't change anything re security because it seems that they decided to concentrate on other areas...which is really frustrating.

Ipv4 is easy, ipv6 is a pain in the ass. There were a lot better ways to add address space than what they came up with.

Ethel mermania wrote:Ipv4 is easy, ipv6 is a pain in the ass. There were a lot better ways to add address space than what they came up with.

Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

Divair wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Ipv4 is easy, ipv6 is a pain in the ass. There were a lot better ways to add address space than what they came up with.

Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

One example is that you cannot predict a IPv6 address due to Cryptographically Generated Addresses...basically (overall) it means its a bitch to administer and monitor/scan.

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Divair wrote:Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

One example is that you cannot predict a IPv6 address due to Cryptographically Generated Addresses...basically (overall) it means its a bitch to administer and monitor/scan.

But there's no better solution, is there?

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

Just be sure to encrypt your beer and you'll be fine.

Divair wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Ipv4 is easy, ipv6 is a pain in the ass. There were a lot better ways to add address space than what they came up with.

Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

if i ask you to fix something on the 192.168.10.10/29 network. Its a farily understandable task. You should be able to figure out where you physcially need to be quickly, and the tools are easy for a human being to read and understand. It is easy find gateway and route setups, and look in routing tables and quickly see what is going on. You know .8 is the network ID and you know .15 is broadcast. Finding mismatches is easy.

IPv6 simply is not comprehensible at that level. THere are things in v6 like Multicast that has a better implementation than in v4, but i think the easy of use is much better in v4.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Divair wrote:Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

if i ask you to fix something on the 192.168.10.10/29. Its a farily understandable task. You should be able to figure out where you physcially need to be quickly, and the tools are easy for a human being to read and understand. It is easy find gateway and route setups, and look in routing tables and quickly see what is going on. You know .8 is the network ID and you know .15 is broadcast. Finding mismatches is easy.

IPv6 simply is not comprehensible at that level. THere are things in v6 like Multicast that has a better implementation than in v4, but i think the easy of use is much better in v4.

But is there a simpler solution?

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.

Think of it, a fridge that sees that you are out of milk so that it will message your phone. Your phone will pop up the message when you are in/near the supermarket with "hey, you are out of milk". Or the fridge even orders the milk for you and gets it delivered to your home at an appropiate time that you are actually at home. Or at the cashier when scanning your discount card, the cashier will see that you are out of milk and suggest it for you. That is, if you are even still using a cashier...

And yes, there are various issues with the protocol, but the fact is that soon we'll run out of available IPv4 addresses outside the safety of your own LAN (where usually 192.168.x.y is and will be more than enough I guess).

Divair wrote:

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:
One example is that you cannot predict a IPv6 address due to Cryptographically Generated Addresses...basically (overall) it means its a bitch to administer and monitor/scan.

But there's no better solution, is there?

I wish I could answer that but I am not a network expert to that level really. The thing is that its not just a case of building a super duper protocol but also how it will be picked up by vendors of networking kit...

Ethel mermania wrote:

Divair wrote:Such as?

And why is it a pain in the ass?

if i ask you to fix something on the 192.168.10.10/29 network. Its a farily understandable task. You should be able to figure out where you physcially need to be quickly, and the tools are easy for a human being to read and understand. It is easy find gateway and route setups, and look in routing tables and quickly see what is going on. You know .8 is the network ID and you know .15 is broadcast. Finding mismatches is easy.

IPv6 simply is not comprehensible at that level. THere are things in v6 like Multicast that has a better implementation than in v4, but i think the easy of use is much better in v4.

Virualisation with IPv6....that'll be fun right?

Long live the cloud!

The Blaatschapen 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.

Think of it, a fridge that sees that you are out of milk so that it will message your phone. Your phone will pop up the message when you are in/near the supermarket with "hey, you are out of milk". Or the fridge even orders the milk for you and gets it delivered to your home at an appropiate time that you are actually at home. Or at the cashier when scanning your discount card, the cashier will see that you are out of milk and suggest it for you. That is, if you are even still using a cashier...

Basically turning me from a customer who can choose where and when and whether to buy milk... into a subscriber of a fixed "milk" providing service. And if I don't want milk delivered anymore... I have to remember to notify the supermarket...
So much for choice and privacy, I guess... Really, I understand why supermarkets might want people to have an "internet fridge", but I don't understand why customers would - or even less, why they would pay for it.

The Blaatschapen 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.

Think of it, a fridge that sees that you are out of milk so that it will message your phone. Your phone will pop up the message when you are in/near the supermarket with "hey, you are out of milk". Or the fridge even orders the milk for you and gets it delivered to your home at an appropiate time that you are actually at home. Or at the cashier when scanning your discount card, the cashier will see that you are out of milk and suggest it for you. That is, if you are even still using a cashier...

And yes, there are various issues with the protocol, but the fact is that soon we'll run out of available IPv4 addresses outside the safety of your own LAN (where usually 192.168.x.y is and will be more than enough I guess).

Actually I think the address already ran out....in that they have all been assigned at one point or another. Bearing in mind that of course not all IP address are static...

Divair wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
if i ask you to fix something on the 192.168.10.10/29. Its a farily understandable task. You should be able to figure out where you physcially need to be quickly, and the tools are easy for a human being to read and understand. It is easy find gateway and route setups, and look in routing tables and quickly see what is going on. You know .8 is the network ID and you know .15 is broadcast. Finding mismatches is easy.

IPv6 simply is not comprehensible at that level. THere are things in v6 like Multicast that has a better implementation than in v4, but i think the easy of use is much better in v4.

But is there a simpler solution?

sure, use NSAP (telephony addressing) or change the IP address space to 64 or 1028 bits instead of the 32 bits it is now. Going to say a 1024 instead of 256 as the space in each, octet (well octet is the wrong word, but the idea is the same). The denotation scheme is the same, and the routing will look sorta the same, the subnet masks would look similar.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Divair wrote:But is there a simpler solution?

sure, use NSAP (telephony addressing) or change the IP address space to 64 or 1028 bits instead of the 32 bits it is now. Going to say a 1024 instead of 256 as the space in each, octet (well octet is the wrong word, but the idea is the same). The denotation scheme is the same, and the routing will look sorta the same, the subnet masks would look similar.

I think that like IPv4, a range would be reserved for private use as well.

Risottia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Think of it, a fridge that sees that you are out of milk so that it will message your phone. Your phone will pop up the message when you are in/near the supermarket with "hey, you are out of milk". Or the fridge even orders the milk for you and gets it delivered to your home at an appropiate time that you are actually at home. Or at the cashier when scanning your discount card, the cashier will see that you are out of milk and suggest it for you. That is, if you are even still using a cashier...

Basically turning me from a customer who can choose where and when and whether to buy milk... into a subscriber of a fixed "milk" providing service. And if I don't want milk delivered anymore... I have to remember to notify the supermarket...
So much for choice and privacy, I guess... Really, I understand why supermarkets might want people to have an "internet fridge", but I don't understand why customers would - or even less, why they would pay for it.

Ah yes, because the consumer would not be able to turn this off at the fridge itself rather than at the supermarket

Risottia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Think of it, a fridge that sees that you are out of milk so that it will message your phone. Your phone will pop up the message when you are in/near the supermarket with "hey, you are out of milk". Or the fridge even orders the milk for you and gets it delivered to your home at an appropiate time that you are actually at home. Or at the cashier when scanning your discount card, the cashier will see that you are out of milk and suggest it for you. That is, if you are even still using a cashier...

Basically turning me from a customer who can choose where and when and whether to buy milk... into a subscriber of a fixed "milk" providing service. And if I don't want milk delivered anymore... I have to remember to notify the supermarket...
So much for choice and privacy, I guess... Really, I understand why supermarkets might want people to have an "internet fridge", but I don't understand why customers would - or even less, why they would pay for it.

Why would a customer want it? So the customer would never be out of fresh milk. WHen you scan the milk when you put it in your fridge it could also pick up the experation date.

it would be a free service provided by the supermarket, that way they guarentee your business, and can even arrange a delivery for you, at a conveninet time.

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
sure, use NSAP (telephony addressing) or change the IP address space to 64 or 1028 bits instead of the 32 bits it is now. Going to say a 1024 instead of 256 as the space in each, octet (well octet is the wrong word, but the idea is the same). The denotation scheme is the same, and the routing will look sorta the same, the subnet masks would look similar.

I think that like IPv4, a range would be reserved for private use as well.

yeah..its called Unique Local Addressing (rfc 4193)

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4193.txt

Ethel mermania wrote:Why would a customer want it? So the customer would never be out of fresh milk.

Do I need never to be out of fresh milk? Can I survive the 12 hours until the shops open again without it? I guess I can.
(btw, incidentally, I don't use fresh milk... )

WHen you scan the milk when you put it in your fridge it could also pick up the experation date.

So, I'll have to scan my milk instead of just chucking it into the fridge. AND I'd have to program my fridge not to take into account the items I don't buy regularily. More wasted time.
Plus, some items DON'T go into the fridge... more optical scanners => more money to buy them and more money for power consumption and more money for maintenance. WHY?

I'll tell you what: I don't plan to manage a hotel. I can perfectly read the expiration dates myself and write a shopping list. With a bloody pencil and a bit of old paper.

it would be a free service provided by the supermarket, that way they guarentee your business, and can even arrange a delivery for you, at a conveninet time.

Delivery services don't come for free: the supermarket will make you pay for it, either directly or indirectly (that is, through higher prices). Why? Because TANSTAAFL.
Also, why clutter a perfectly functional machine with superfluous items? It only leads to a shorter MTBF and overall operational life.

Risottia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Why would a customer want it? So the customer would never be out of fresh milk.

Do I need never to be out of fresh milk? Can I survive the 12 hours until the shops open again without it? I guess I can.
(btw, incidentally, I don't use fresh milk... )

WHen you scan the milk when you put it in your fridge it could also pick up the experation date.

So, I'll have to scan my milk instead of just chucking it into the fridge. AND I'd have to program my fridge not to take into account the items I don't buy regularily. More wasted time.
Plus, some items DON'T go into the fridge... more optical scanners => more money to buy them and more money for power consumption and more money for maintenance. WHY?

I'll tell you what: I don't plan to manage a hotel. I can perfectly read the expiration dates myself and write a shopping list. With a bloody pencil and a bit of old paper.

it would be a free service provided by the supermarket, that way they guarentee your business, and can even arrange a delivery for you, at a conveninet time.

Delivery services don't come for free: the supermarket will make you pay for it, either directly or indirectly (that is, through higher prices). Why? Because TANSTAAFL.
Also, why clutter a perfectly functional machine with superfluous items? It only leads to a shorter MTBF and overall operational life.

it could also drive the marginal cost of shopping down as an internet based market does not require the floor space a traditional super market does.

THat said, you dont like it dont buy the product, you asked why a customer would want a service, i gave you a reason, and you said you did not want it. you are not the only customer in the market.

Fridge manufacturers, supermarkets and internet providers only have to find enough customers to justify their investments, your not one of those customers, dont bitch casue there are people who would be.
(full disclosure: i would not be a customer of the service either).

Ethel mermania wrote:it could also drive the marginal cost of shopping down as an internet based market does not require the floor space a traditional super market does.

An ENTIRELY internet-based market would... but traditional shopping isn't disappearing. People don't just want the item, they want to go shopping, touch and smell items, chat with other people, and stay a bit of time out of their homes.

THat said, you dont like it dont buy the product, you asked why a customer would want a service, i gave you a reason, and you said you did not want it. you are not the only customer in the market.

I'm just guessing an extremly large fraction of customers would follow my reasoning. Thus making the whole thing a lousy investment. I'm not "bitching" about other people choices... hey, I don't even buy milk, you know.

Fridge manufacturers, supermarkets and internet providers only have to find enough customers to justify their investments, your not one of those customers, dont bitch casue there are people who would be.(full disclosure: i would not be a customer of the service either).

See what I meant?