Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

IPv6 is Here 420

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-kinda-anyway dept.
shawn(at)fsu writes "Reuters is running a story that Vinton Cerf of the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) says that "IPv6 been added to its root server systems" I like how they said that it will run along side IPv4 for 20 years to get rid of the bugs. A few previous Slashdot stories out of many here, here and here"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPv6 is Here

Comments Filter:
  • by erick99 (743982) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:17AM (#9749352)
    Perhaps we will get to the point where static IP addresses are required. That might help track down spammers and other bad netizens. I'm sure they will find a way around it, but, still, an assigned IP for each user and each piece of hardware would be a good start. And, it would seem that there would be enough to 'round:

    Cerf said about two-thirds of the 4.3 billion Internet addresses currently available were used up, adding that IPv6 could magnify capacity by some "25,000 trillion trillion times."

    Of course, if v4 runs along side of v6 for 20 years that may mean that it would be harder to implement an IP-per-user scheme. I don't know. But, 20 years should be enough time to work out any bugs:

    He said the IPv6 system would run parallel to IPv4 for about 20 years to ensure that any bugs or system errors were weeded out.

    Cheers!

    Erick

    • by Anonymous Coward
      ...because no one should ever need more than 100,000 trillion trillion billion RA--err, IP addresses.
    • Static IP's for everyone? Dear god the administration nightmares there trying to document all the IPv6 assignments.

      Better still, bring back the old BOOTP protocol? Which if I'm not mistaken just simply keeps a database of MAC addresses to IP Addresses (manually entered), and if a broadcast from a MAC address requests an IP, it looks up the assigned IP for the MAC address. Then all you have to do is punch in MAC addresses for the administrator. Anyone still use BOOTP in their networks? Also I'm not f
      • Also I'm not familiar enough with DHCP, can it do the same thing?

        Yes, I have machines on my network that acquire static IPs through DHCP. It uses the MAC Address to determine when one of those machines requests an IP.

      • Sure, DHCP can do that. And lots of people use it that way. In fact, pretty much all of those Linksys/Dlink/whatever firewall/gateway/router boxes support it...
        • But aren't those for boxes on a local network? I think he's talking about the ip address given to say a household from their ISP.

          For example, our cable provider gives us an IP address which I believe changes every time we reconnect (it's one way cable >:0 ) but each computer on the lan gets what is essentially a static ip based on which ethernet jack it's plugged into. Like the computer on port 1 of the router gets 192.168.1.101. It makes it easy to network, however they are the computer looks gets t
          • Alternatively, the ISP could still dynamically assign IP addresses, but instead of internal addresses (192.168.x.x, 172.16.x.x, etc), externally routable addresses.

            This way, no NATing is necessary, but there isn't any administration of IP addresses assignments necessary. The ISP simply has to make sure that he has enough externally routable addresses available for the max number of customers who could ever be simultaneously connected.
      • by rsidd (6328) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:48AM (#9749817)
        Better still, bring back the old BOOTP protocol? Which if I'm not mistaken just simply keeps a database of MAC addresses to IP Addresses (manually entered),

        An IPv6 address includes the 64 bit MAC address. [luv.asn.au]

        • Sometimes, although your source doesn't list that as as requirement. From the page you linked:
          It is recommended that it be used as 16 bit internal network number and 48 bit MAC address, although sites can do what they liked.
          For example, I get a /64 netblock from my IPv6 provider, but I split that out locally to three /80 subnets (LAN, DMZ, and WLAN). Everything I've read indicates that using the MAC address to autoconfig prefixes longer than /64 is impossible, so I have to manually specify the last 48 bits of the IPv6 address on each machine. Fortunately, that means that one host on the LAN is ::2, another is ::3, and so on.
    • by tabdelgawad (590061) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:28AM (#9749539) Homepage
      Perhaps we will get to the point where static IP addresses are required. That might help track down spammers and other bad netizens.

      Let's add "good netizens who want to be anonymous". Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I don't see a way of making the net spammer-proof without ending the concept of internet anonymity.

      • Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but I don't see a way of making the net spammer-proof without ending the concept of internet anonymity.

        I don't see a way of making the sending of email spammer-proof without ending the concept of email-sender anonymity. But that is not the same thing as Internet anonymity. Such a scheme need have no effect whatsoever on all the other numerous Internet protocols, including the Web.

        • I don't see a way of making the sending of email spammer-proof without ending the concept of email-sender anonymity. But that is not the same thing as Internet anonymity. Such a scheme need have no effect whatsoever on all the other numerous Internet protocols, including the Web. You have no idea what you're talking about. John Doe is given static ip x.y. Free porn site logs incoming connection from x.y, immediately knows it's John Doe. So yes, forcing each user to uniquely identify their IP does affect
      • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @12:04PM (#9750027) Homepage
        After all, registration numbers ended the concept of motor car anonymity, and most people would agree that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
        • registration numbers ended the concept of motor car anonymity

          But the difference is that it's not an easy number to find.

          There aren't huge databases, with interfaces in every shopping mall parking lot, that are gathering your car's registration number, and correlating it to your shopping habits, the other sites you visit, etc.

          I'd be perfectly happy with a unique identifier etched inot my computer, but I don't want it being tatooed on my forehead, as IPs essentially are.

      • With postal mail, you can send mail anonymously (just don't include your address). When you want to receive mail anonymously, rent a mailbox (either at the post office or at a Mailboxes, etc, for example).

        If every IP device gets its own address, but you want to send or receive something anonymously, use a public terminal.

        For both snail mail and IP traffic, neither solution is convenient. However, the fact remains that it is still possible.
      • I disagree. Making the net spammer-proof would not neccessarily end anonymity. You can always upload your stuff somewhere, and hope people look at it.

        However, it would be the end of anonymous mailing. But I think that the receiver should be allowed to require people sending him mail to identify themselves. It's the classical debate of one's freedom ending where another one's begins.
    • by fishwallop (792972) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:30AM (#9749560)

      Having more IP addresses doesn't mean that they will be statically assigned, nor that they will be assigned on a "per-user" rather than on a "per-device" basis. Even if each individual were assigned a block of addresses for their devices (this packet comes from John's palm pilot, this from his cell phone, and that one from his refrigerator...) you'd still have the problem of multiple users with a single physical device (public library computers, internet cafes, office beer fridges...) so, unless each device includes biometric identification and logging, you'll never be able to attribute every internet communication to a human party, even when one exists. I won't even get into the privacy concerns there.

      The vast majority of bad netizenship occurs at protocol levels above IP -- spammers abuse SMTP, advertisers abuse DHTML, hackers abuse various services running on open ports. While some of this bad netizenship can be addressed at lower protocol levels (e.g. by blackholing certian IP ranges) the real solution is in fixing the higher-level protocols.

    • IPv6 is big enough to give a class C subnet to every living person on the planet...I don't think static addressing will be necessary. Man, I don't think I'll be albe to rewire my brain to rember ssh 100.100.100.100.100
      • by jerde (23294) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:44AM (#9749760) Journal
        IPv6 is big enough to give a class C subnet to every living person on the planet

        Um. IPv6 is big enough to give a Class A subnet to every living person on the planet.

        It's big enough to route an entire IPv4 numberspace to every living person on the planet, and to each of their pets, favorite invisible friends, and pieces of furniture.

        2^128 is a big, big number.

        The point is, they'll be able to "waste" huge swaths of the that numberspace as they build the routing hierarchy, making the network more scalable.

        I'm worried about remembering ssh 2031:0000:130F:0000:0000:09C0:876A:130B

        :)

        - Peter

    • Wow, for a second there I thought your post title read "vb6 could help solve some net problems".

      My head hurts.

      At any rate, I don't think this is the proper technology to enforce, er, lack-of-anonymity over the web. It would not be any more secure than the current system--less so, by providing an illusion of security. Internet Cafes, open wifi portals, etc., would still be there.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:37AM (#9749675)
      No static IP addr. for everyone. Think of this:

      If I move from CA to NY, the routers of the world would have to change their tables to be able to get information to me. That is just for one person. Now think of all the people who move or change ISPs.

      So static IPs for everyone is not a good idea.
      • That's NOT going to happen. IN IPv6 you are not allowed to take your address with you to another ISP. All address blocks assigned by almighty on high are only to be given to tier 1 and possibly tier 2 providers. These Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers then subnet the v6 address space to their customers.

        DNS becomes MUCH more important. Since that is the only thing you will be able to take with you if you move ISP's.

        This was done to keep the internet backbone routers clean of having to deal with huge routing tabl
    • What is the actual number "25,000 trillion trillion"? Seems an odd way to put it.

      ~S
    • Cerf said about two-thirds of the 4.3 billion Internet addresses currently available were used up, adding that IPv6 could magnify capacity by some "25,000 trillion trillion times."

      I think that the above is misleading. sure, there is much more capacity for ip addresses in ipv6, but the protocol is designed for sparse ip useage. there will be massive gaps in useage as each lan gets a /64 network for what, up to 200 computers max?

      however, I find ipv6 pretty interesting and I'm waiting to get ipv6 delivered
  • by Michael Dorfman (324722) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:17AM (#9749353)
    That's optimistic.
  • Perfect! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh (56) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:17AM (#9749362) Journal
    FTA: Cerf said about two-thirds of the 4.3 billion Internet addresses currently available were used up, adding that IPv6 could magnify capacity by some "25,000 trillion trillion times."

    Perfect for colonization of other planets. If each human being has their own IP, then we would need to pack a whole bunch of planets to require more than that! They aren't kidding when they say they'll run IPv4 with IPv6 for twenty years. In that time, we won't have used even a fraction of a couple percent of available IPs, even if we assign every human being on the planet with one, and every company with a giant block.
    • Re:Perfect! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ultrabot (200914) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:22AM (#9749431)
      If each human being has their own IP, then we would need to pack a whole bunch of planets to require more than that!

      Binding IP's to humans is arbitrary - it's more realistic to expect that every human with money is going to have several IP addresses (appliances, toasters, whatever), while most of the people in the world will have none.

      Also, for some reason, I don't really like the idea of persistent per-human IP addresses. The idea has an Orwellian feel to it.
      • Re:Perfect! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TykeClone (668449)
        Also, for some reason, I don't really like the idea of persistent per-human IP addresses. The idea has an Orwellian feel to it.

        You already have it (assuming your an American) - it's called your Social Security Number.

      • Re:Perfect! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DreadSpoon (653424) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:58AM (#9749943) Journal
        You don't have to worry about that, though, because it isn't possible. How would the routers handle those (theoretical) 6 billion addresses? The routing tables could never handle it.

        At best, you'd continue to have a dynamic address, and then have a static address that resolves to some sort of forwarding service. So some agency would own a big chunk of 6 billion addresses (and routers would only then need that one routing entry), and then that agency's network would reroute packets to those addresses to your current dynamic IP assigned by your ISP for whichever device you want the IP to relate to.

        Which is pretty pointless and stupid, because you'll have many different devices and thus many different IP addresses, so what purpose would there be in having a single static IP just to refer to you personally?

        (And no, conspiracy theorists, I'm not going to assume that we all have chips implanted in our heads; trust me, we'd have another Revolution before that happened.)
  • by Bold Marauder (673130) <boldmarauder@NospaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:18AM (#9749369) Homepage
    Really doesn't say much that slashdotters don't already know (it's a very

    short article). There is one descrepcy that I'm sure I won't be the first

    to notice it, either:

    Rapid growth in the use of the World Wide Web has in recent times

    prompted concerns about future scarcity of domain addresses, with

    demand threatening to overload the existing system, the IPv4.


    Now, I could be wrong; but my understanding was that the need for IPv6 comes from the scarcity of IP addresses (eg 12.34.56.78) not the scarcity of domain names (eg slashdot.org, slashdot.net, slashdot.jp).
  • I do wish (Score:5, Funny)

    by tekiegreg (674773) * <tekieg1-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:18AM (#9749370) Homepage Journal
    I could get something equivalent to my own Class A block of IPv6 addresses for my home. I'd give every object in my apartment an assigned IP Address. How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen, but at least on paper (heh) it would have an IP Address. And why not? So many IP addresses possible I could have my own class A block (or IPv6 equivalent) and hardly put a dent in the amount of available IPv6 addresses...but until an ISP offering DSL in my area supports IPv6 I'm outta luck...
    • Maybe there is a market in this... You have an ISP to sell you bandwidth and actual access, while another company either sells or leases you IP's... No, wait, that's a crap idea. But it already happens...
    • Re:I do wish (Score:5, Informative)

      by Vancorps (746090) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:27AM (#9749510)
      I would suggest you check this [freenet6.net] out.

      You can have a whole octet to yourself right now. That's a lot of IP addresses and you're ISP doesn't have to support IPv6, it can be encapsulated in IPv4. There are plenty of gateways out there that will translate the request for you so that only your router will need both IPv4 and IPv6.

      It's all up on FreeNet.
      • 6to4 is simpler and more efficient.
    • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:48AM (#9749809)
      How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen

      Easy, RFID chips implanted in every sheet. Then when you visit the store

      • Greetings Mr. Cornholio, your last sheet of toilet paper indicated that you ate too much cheese and not enough fiber, visit aisle 9 we are having a sale on Ex-Lax.

    • No doubt in 20 years, each roll of toilet paper will
      already have a pre-assigned IP address at the factory,
      and a little microchip inside the cardboard core, so
      it can track itself through the supply chain and the
      grocery store and your bathroom cabinets; so that when
      it finally sees it's been installed on the holder, it
      can start displaying targetted ads on the digital-ink
      layer of the exposed outer sheets.
    • Re:I do wish (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MacGod (320762)

      I wish I could get something equivalent to my own Class A block of IPv6 addresses for my home. I'd give every object in my apartment an assigned IP Address. How the pieces of toilet paper get access to the Internet would remain to be seen, but at least on paper (heh) it would have an IP Address. And why not? So many IP addresses possible I could have my own class A block (or IPv6 equivalent) and hardly put a dent in the amount of available IPv6 addresses...but until an ISP offering DSL in my area supports

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:20AM (#9749398)
    Sounds like an open source project to me. I'm surprised they didn't just rename it to IPv0.4 so they could use the fact that it's pre-1.0 as a safety net for bugs, etc.
  • Feeling Old (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:21AM (#9749419)
    It seems like just yesterday, I was surfing the Web, telnetting ports and Cracking warez with little old IPv1, strange - we are on v6 now and I dont even remember 5. guess I'm suffering from geezer syndrome.
  • IANA request (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmeranda (120061) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:24AM (#9749468) Homepage
    The IANA request that ICANN support IPv6 on its root servers is found here [iana.org]. And the timeline given then was:

    "...the first of the IPv6 glue records will be added to the root zone on 28 June [2004]."


    This is just the first step to real world-wide IPv6 deployment (replacing the mbone experimental setup). You still need to get all the intermediaries like ISPs up to speed.
  • policy problems (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Feyr (449684) * on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:25AM (#9749482) Journal
    an ip address for every human being... and they're non portable great!

    i've said it before, and i'll say it again: ipv6 looks good on paper, but their current policy of not assigning IPs to anyone but big isps who will in turn sub delegate them to others is hindering the usefulness to small and medium ISPs

    basicly you'll be locked into one isp, or face a major renumbering burden due to the non-portability of the addresses (and no it does NOT involve simply switching the network part)
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:26AM (#9749495) Homepage
    Excellent. My shoe polisher needs an IP address. So does my bottle of shampoo.
  • Is it just me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oO0OoO0Oo (548702) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:26AM (#9749499) Homepage
    or does "virtually unlimited" seem like a very silly and shortsighted estimate of the number of possible addresses? Especially because the uses/monopolization of these addresses will probably grow in unforeseeable ways.
    • 2^128 IS virtually unlimited. Even enough for every braincell in every human that has ever lived to get an IP.
    • I once heard IPv6 as being enough to give every atom on the planet its own address.

      25,000 trillion trillion times IPv4 -- we won't run out of IPv6 anytime soon.
    • Re:Is it just me (Score:2, Informative)

      by DAldredge (2353)
      128 bit addresses allow for 2^128=340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768, 211,456 total theoretically assignable addresses.

      THAT is a virtually unlimited number. ;->
  • This reminds me of the movie 'The President's Analyst' only now we're talking IP addresses instead of phone numbers, and ICANN has superseded TPC (The Phone Company) :-)

    Wonder who'll play Coburn's part in the new movie?
  • by awhelan (781773) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:27AM (#9749511) Homepage
    Sweet! All the bugs will be worked out just in time to play Duke Nukem Forever online!
  • like maybe microsoft builds a actually decent operating system and has it run along side 3.0 for twenty years
  • by aznxk3vi17 (465030) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:28AM (#9749540)
    I, personally, am looking forward to accessing the internet from the toilet paper I'm about to use to wipe my ass, while the toilet sends data about my fecal matter to the health department website, where they analyze to see if my poopy is healthy. Then, after the flush, the water pipes measure the amount of water going through them and access my water bill through the internet, telling me how much I've spent.

    What, can you think of better uses for a mole of IPs per square foot?

  • by novakane007 (154885) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:30AM (#9749555) Homepage Journal
    "I like how they said that it will run along side IPv4 for 20 years to get rid of the bugs"
    Fantatstic! This means it will only be another 20 years before we get a mass roll out of IPv6. *grin*
  • My IPv6 Rant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GeorgeH (5469) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:30AM (#9749561) Homepage Journal
    I posted How the Internet is broken, how to fix it, and why that's not going to happen [hotelling.net], a rant about IPv6 adoption, to my personal site.

    Basic idea - include IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling software in Linksys routers. This would allow people to run IPv6 networks in their houses and talk to IPv6 networks elsewhere. This would fix a lot of problems that NAT introduces, and would sidestep the wait for IPv6 ISPs. It would also provide enough of a user base to encourage application developers to include IPv6 support.

    Of course, this would kill Linksys' NAT router sales, so they have no incentive to do so, but I like to think it's a good idea.
    • Re:The bottom line (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Lord Bitman (95493)
      yeah, linksys sure would hate for that to happen to its router sales. No company would want to sell four personal firewalls to every home instead of one whole router.
      Try again.
    • Re:My IPv6 Rant (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pediddle (592795)
      Who cares about NAT if the router could tunnel IPv6? I'd gladly pay for that (assuming by that time there are other IPv6 networks worth talking to). What they would kill in NAT sales they'd more than gain in tunnel sales... except they'd be the same product anyway.
      • Re:My IPv6 Rant (Score:3, Interesting)

        by GeorgeH (5469)
        It would spur IPv6 adoption, which in turn would make NAT useless once ISPs started providing enough IPs for everyone, instead of their current 1 IP per customer (and sometimes less thanks to DHCP) allotment.

        Of course, since public companies are focused on short term sales they might see the IPv6 tunnel sales increase as worth cannibalizing IPv4 NAT router sales.
  • by rdspider (798561)
    of course, if we all have ip addresses and are directly on the internet, dont we loose the nat protection for all our windows os ! i depend on my linksys to save me from the internet!!
    • of course, if we all have ip addresses and are directly on the internet, dont we loose the nat protection for all our windows os ! i depend on my linksys to save me from the internet!!

      It just amazes me that so many people think that NAT provides some kind of protection. Your firewall provides protection. An egress-only firewall filter provides the same ``protection'' that people think they get from NAT, but makes it far easier to get all of your P2P type services working when you have more than one comp
    • by sploxx (622853)
      Ahh the common misconception about NAT.
      NAT is not meant as a security tool. It is there to extend your address space (virtually). You probably knew that already.
      One of the _side-effects_ of NAT (often unwanted) is that no connections from outside to your computers are possible.

      But you don't need NAT to do that. A decent firewall (i.e. one you could build/buy which uses BSD/linux netfilter) should be able to do that as well.

      Use the right tool for the job. A firewall. Put an end to the ugly fragmentation of
  • by redelm (54142) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:42AM (#9749729) Homepage
    With 128 bit addresses, even DHCP will contain personal identifiers (MAC?).

    The current IPv4 net has de-facto weak anonymity via DHCP, proxying, etc. It is effectively anonymous unless police authorities get very interested and are willing to wade through logs. And these logs get quickly lost/deleted.

    IPv6 is the end of the 'net as we know it. Whether it will be an improvement is hard to say. I'm sure it will have a chilling effect. This might be good at stopping some undesireable activities (spam, etc. if enforced) but will also inhibit free speech, particularly in less-free countries.

  • Great re-hash of the article and summary. Well done I say, well done!
  • HL2/DoomIII (Score:3, Funny)

    by wowbagger (69688) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:47AM (#9749801) Homepage Journal
    Yes, but do HalfLife 2 and DoomIII support IPv6?

    Until these two critical applications support it, I ain't agonna go!

  • by dgp (11045) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:51AM (#9749850) Journal
    I live in Portland Oregon and every once in a while I survey the local DSL ISPs about IPv6. The answer has been consistenly "We have no plans to deploy IPv6." and "No customers have been asking for it."

    Can someone point out ISPs that offer native IPv6 service to home users?
    • It's the classic chicken-and-egg problem. ISPs know that it will take quite a bit of up-front cash to convert their routers to IPv6. I don't even know to what extent v6 backbone routers exist, but I'd bet their pricey.

      Right now.. really the only people that can use v6 are the BSD/Linux folks, as well as (I think) OSX. That's like 5% of the entire Internet desktop users, according to Google's Zeitgeist.

      It's a scary thought.. but really, I think critical-mass v6 adoption rests solely on the shoulders
    • Move to Europe [ripe.net].

      The AMSix [ams-ix.net] is a major IPv6 peering point, where many of their clients [xs4all.nl] offer IPv6 to customers.

      Nerim [nerim.net] is a major provider in France. They offer IPv6 natively to all their home users, just enable it on your router/firewall.

      The UK has any number of IPv6 capable ISPs [btexact.com] (blech, puke), you just have to keep an eye on their internal support groups for help from those who have managed to make it work. Tunnels are always a way around broken providers, but are not an answer to your question.

      There are
  • ping6 slashdot.org (Score:4, Interesting)

    by caluml (551744) <slashdot&spamgoeshere,calum,org> on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @11:58AM (#9749947) Homepage
    When will Slashdot get an IPv6 address. Everything supports it - DNS, Apache, etc, nd all they need is to either get an IPv6 tunnel from a broker (the cheap option), or get their ISP to let them have it natively.
  • by BigGar' (411008) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @12:01PM (#9749995) Homepage
    ipv6 or ipv666

    Take the following:
    Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    With no ipv6 number you will not be able to buy or sell and it's long so you'll have to write it down somewhere where you'll always have it, say on the back of your hand. ipv6 is simply ipv666 shortended up a bit to hit the true meaning.

    There you have it, conclusive proof.
    We are in the end of day's.

    repent, Repent, REPENT!!!!
  • by operagost (62405) on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @12:02PM (#9750014) Homepage Journal
    What do you young'uns need with all those IP addresses? In my day, we only had eight, and they were big and bulky. We didn't have any fancy network address translation, you had to put your 80 pound IP address in your wheelbarrow and roll it across town so Joe Billy Bob Joe Bob could use it! And ol' Joe Bob sure would give you a sound whuppin' if you was late with his IP address!
  • nooo nooo noooooooo! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mabu (178417) * on Tuesday July 20, 2004 @01:26PM (#9750331)
    IPv6 needs to stay in the can until we can figure out a way to solve the spam problem. Right now, RBLs are the most effective method of stopping spam. If IPv6 rolls out, spammers will have exponentially more address space from which to operate and the ensuing spam problem will make what we have now look trivial.

    A prerequisite for the rollout of IPv6 must be law enforcement getting off their asses and demonstrating that spammers will get busted for their illegal activities. Otherwise it will take 20+ years to ID and block IPv6 rogue IP space.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...