A Humorous Introduction To IPv6 288
zollman writes "Jonathan Richards, in the London times, explains how the introduction of IPv6 will change the Internet. From the article: 'As use [of the Internet] grew, it became clear that the old protocol, IPv4, wasn't big enough, so a new one was created using 32-bit numbers. That increased the number of available addresses to 340 undecillion, 282 decillion, 366 nonillion, 920 octillion, 938 septillion -- enough for the foreseeable future.'"
Fuzzy Math (Score:2, Insightful)
Quotation Fingers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quotation Fingers (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Quotation Fingers (Score:5, Interesting)
This really pisses me off. I'm so sick of reading newspaper articles that read something like this:
...where all of the quoted terms are legitimate technical terms. If I turned the tables, and wrote a letter to the editor, saying:
...you know that they would be annoyed, because the quotes and the "so-called" make it sound like the term is not really what it's called, and that it's not really true. If writers are concerned that a reader doesn't know a term, there's no point in putting it in quotes to reassure the dumb reader that they're not dumb. It's much more helpful to write something like this:
Sure, it's a little choppier, but good writers can weave things together better (I could if I weren't lazy and I wasn't posting on Slashdot), and this form provides much more knowledge. Frankly, reporters shouldn't be writing about stuff they really have no clue about. I think if someone's going to be writing about internet addresses, it isn't much to ask that someone explain the rudiments of bits and bytes and binary numbers to them before they run off and misinform the public.
Better yet, since it's a WEB PAGE... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some day, I'll be able to make an entire sentence of a single word:
Then I'll know I'm good.Re:Better yet, since it's a WEB PAGE... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quotation Fingers (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, the fact remains that copy editors are also often fact-checkers. They should know better.
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
*note: I didn't check the actual value of 2^128 but 4 billion is about right for 2^32
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Funny)
you should remove 2 from that figure as i recieved 2 internets from my mother earlier today
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Funny)
- sm
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
also, the values are notated in hexidecimal, so they don't need to be processed in 128-bit chunks unless your processor is 128-bit
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope.
Not even close.
2 to the power of 128 is approximately 10 to the power of 38.
There are, however, over 10 to the power of a hundred atoms in the universe.
A 1 followed by 38 zeros is, iirc, approximately the same order of magnitude as the number of molecules in the earth's crust.
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
But yeah, it's probably good enough for now.
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
Re:Fuzzy Math (Score:2)
IPv6 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IPv6 (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the same thing at first. After re-reading the summary I concluded that when they said 32 bit numbers they meant 32bit.32bit.32bit.32bit (128 bits) for ipv6 to help explain it to the laymen who is used to the 8bit.8bit.8bit.8bit representation of ipv4.
Of course, those of us familiar with ipv6 addresses realize they aren't represented that way but as
Funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is humorous? (Score:2, Funny)
Cracks me up every time that one.
Re:This is humorous? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is humorous? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:This is humorous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is humorous? (Score:2)
No, but I wouldn't submit into a comedy writing contest either. Recall this thread is arguing whether or not the article is "humorous." I'm not saying let him off, I'm saying get a new sense of humor.
Re:This is humorous? (Score:2)
That is not funny. Laughing at non-technical people for making technical mistakes is intellectually elitist, pompous and displays a bad sense of humor.
Sorry for being so harsh, but I hate it when nerds belittle non-nerds to make themselves feel better. Yes, this guy is a bad journalist - should it really be on the front page of slashdot though?
If you really dislike this then perhaps you shouldn't be on slashdot since it's a foru
Re:This is humorous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is humorous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is humorous? (Score:3, Informative)
-The original poster said "this isn't funny, why is the slashdot headline and summary calling it funny?"
-Someone replied "it's funny because the article is so bad and the guy is stupid"
-I replied "it's elitist to derive humor from those who are more igorant or stupider than you."
-10 people replied who clearly hadn't read the conversation up to this point
32-bit numbers vs. Tubes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:32-bit numbers vs. Tubes (Score:2)
Re:32-bit numbers vs. Tubes (Score:2, Funny)
Re:32-bit numbers vs. Tubes (Score:2)
with today's fiber optic backbones the size difference of 128 bit packets over the legacy 16-bit packets in insignifigant. you do run into some issues with 'going overseas' where the undersea pipes can clog up sometimes, still... largeer packets are more an issue with legacy hardware than anything. modern hardware has the bandwith to handle it
Re:32-bit numbers vs. Tubes (Score:2)
But I'm worried when someone (or their office staff) are crazy enough to send a whole Internet through, since it always takes forever and it will clog up the tubes for everyone else too.
We should keep the Senate away from the Internets or make them pay their due for those tubes.
This abuse of sending Internets for free around has to stop, specially the big ones. I sent an email yesterday that has not arrived, and I bet it was because someone sent one
Does IPv6... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does IPv6... (Score:2)
32-bits? Uhhh... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:32-bits? Uhhh... (Score:3, Funny)
And here I went and looked and tried to do research, and all it did was screw with my head. I knew they were 128, and went and looked at my network config and somehow figured 256.
Re:32-bits? Uhhh... (Score:2)
If you check, I think you'll find that IPV6 uses 128-bit addresses, and 16-bit "chunks".
Next thing you know, this guy will be telling us they're building more tubes.
Considering that your understanding of IPV6 is about as accurate as his of IPV4, I was going to write some snarky comment. But I think I'll just leave this as is.
Re:32-bits? Uhhh... (Score:2)
rfc4291 thinks it are 128bit...
Re:32-bits? Uhhh... (Score:2)
uhh (Score:2, Funny)
humor (Score:5, Funny)
Why did it take Microsoft ten years... (Score:2, Interesting)
From the kernel.org FTP:
linux-2.1.8.tar.gz 6032 KB 11/09/1996 12:00:00 AM
Re:Why did it take Microsoft ten years... (Score:2)
London Times? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:London Times? (Score:2)
Re:London Times? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:London Times? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a Brit, and I can get narked when people on slashdot or elsewhere make stupid/erroneous statements about British things, but this isn't one of them...
What it really means. (Score:2)
I for one.. (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a sec. (Score:4, Insightful)
The very last thing in the article is "8 The average age at which a child gets a mobile phone in Britain."
Now, it seems to me that not every kid out there gets a mobile phone. Shouldn't this push average WAY up? I can't believe that eight year olds need cell phones. Who are they calling? Why are they calling? What is wrong with today's society?
Dang whippersnappers. How can I be 18 and feel old and set in my ways? It just ain't right.
Re:Wait a sec. (Score:2)
So the average can't go up all that far, by definition.
Gotta agree the figure seems suspect all the same, though. For that to be true, you'd need as many four year olds getting phones as 12 year olds, etc.
As for who they're calling - probably nobody, probably mainly texting!
And yes, I too feel old and "that just isn't right" ("get off my lawn") when I see things like that. I didn't get internet til I was about 16 and didn't get a mo
Re:Wait a sec. (Score:2)
Re:Wait a sec. (Score:2)
I still don't see a need (Score:3, Interesting)
Each IP address can also directly address 64K computers, via the existing port structure. IP addresses can also be reused (over and over) on intranets and subnets, via NAT. Yes, it's a terrible thing - but we've already solved that problem, and the solution is in use (and works) worldwide.
Issues like bandwidth control and management are only symptoms of limited bandwidth. Every day that issue will become less and less of a problem (at the endpoints). Core network technologies are expanding bandwidth at an incredible rate. In 1995, core networks used T1 lines! Now, they are deploying OC-768. The bandwidth controls will be meaningless long before a conversion to IPV6 could be completed.
All in all, if IPV6 were being deployed in the early 1990's it might have made sense to avoid some of the pain we went through. Now, its like the pre-IP protocol stacks - its time has passed.
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
NAT works remarkably well for a significant number of cases. but it's no magic bullet. SRV rec
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
You probably meant to say that each IP address can provide 64K different services. But they all must be on one host. You can't assign the same IP address to both your toaster and your refrigerator, unless you have a NAT. And even then behind the NAT they will have different addresses.
All in all, if IPV6 were being deployed in the early 1990's it might have made sense to avoid some of the pain we went through. Now, i
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
The major deal with NAT's is usually when you start getting two hosts on a WAN, and both are behind different NAT's.
Yay. Try to configure a NAT for some random application not having made a big effort to support NAT's there.
And as the IP space keeps getting eaten, what happens is:
1. More circumstances where both are behind a NAT.
2. Less circumstances where someone is "
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
??? But that's just a mail adress. How are we supposed to e.g. communicate in real-time directly to that device with a mail address? Hack the mail server to deliver real-time / streaming media
Re:I still don't see a need (Score:2)
Why spend the time and effort
Ok, how long an answer do you want? (Score:5, Informative)
IPv6 mandates hierarchical addresses. In fact, if you use automatic address assignment, you don't get a choice. Every router WILL have a subgroup of the parent's IP block, and every IP address WILL have a prefix that matches the host router's prefix. This means that routers can largely dispense with routing tables. If the prefix matches the prefix of the router, up to the prefix length of that router, it goes on the local network. Everything else goes upstream. If you are on a peered network, you need to add one prefix check per peer. This means that a router with N ports and M tunnels has an absolute maximum of (N + M - 1) prefix tests. On a huge, 256-port router, with no pipes used for redundancy, you're looking at 255 tests.
That's one hell of a difference, when it comes to latency.
Ok, so what are the other differences? Well, IPv6 mandates IPSec. If you comply with requirements, you WILL use encrypted connections. So, sure, the Government can mandate that ISPs send them all the traffic. Let them. Give them all the triple-DES or AES-encrypted streams they like. Won't do them much good. From a privacy standpoint, IPv6 is about as good as it gets. Even the UK's requirements of handing over encryption keys if there is a reason to believe you have them is of no use - IPSec is opportunistic, per-unit of time, per-session. You don't know the keys, you have no reason to, and most Operating Systems won't let you have them even if you did want them.
Mobility. IPv6 mandates mobility for computers AND for networks. IPv4 - well, it's possible but (a) both providers need to support it, and (b) routing won't be optimized. Ever. With IPv6, upstream routers become aware of your move and the routing becomes corrected over time. You don't need cooperative ISPs, it's built-in. It will simply work.
Zeroconf. Again, you can do this with IPv4 - if the ISP (or network admin in a corporation) is feeling uber-generous. With IPv6, zeroconf is the norm. You can use DHCPv6 if you really want, but you're not stuck with it.
Multicast. This has existed within IPv4 for many decades, but the bloody ISPs won't enable it in their routers, so you can't use it. This is sheer bloody-mindedness on their part, as multicast doesn't place a greater strain on their networks. It would actually reduce it something fierce. It doesn't require any additional effort on their part, other than to enable PIMv2 on the upstream and downstream connections. Everything else is automatic, as multicast has been natively supported on the backbone for at least a decade. Two settings. Two tiny, insignificant settings, and they could cut network traffic at peak times by an order of magnitude.
(FTP-over-multicast exists. I'm sure bittorrent-over-multicast would be doable, if it hasn't been done alrea
Re:Ok, how long an answer do you want? (Score:3, Informative)
1. IPV6 mandates *support* for ipsec. IPV4 also supports ipsec. 99% of communication will not use it anyway, and that which does could have done it with IPV4 anyway, so no difference there.
2. Mobility. Huh? Another solution waiting for a problem. I guess that all those laptops in starbucks *aren't* quite happy with the functionality of DHCP then.
3. First, that's not zeroconf. Go google what zeroconf is then come back. Also IPV6 does *not* remove the need for DHCP - it just has a diff
6to4 Routing (Score:5, Informative)
Every IPv4 address has been assigned a big block of IPv6 addresses, with a prefix of 2002:[IPv4_address]. If you've got a 6to4 address, and want to send a packet to another 6to4 address, it just gets encapsulated and sent directly to the destination over the IPv4 Internet.
However, if you want to send a packet from a 6to4 address to a "real" IPv6 address with a 2001: prefix, then it needs to get routed through a 6to4 gateway.
If your ISP has a clue, then you should be able to traceroute to the 192.88.99.1 anycast address, and reach a gateway that's somewhat close to you. For a fun time, try it from different computers on different ISPs to see where you end up.
The nice thing about 6to4 is, if you can get your router set up with a 6to4 address, then it can advertise that prefix on your LAN, and all your LAN computers can have a public IPv6 address.
At some level, it's like the ultimate stateless NAT traversal system: you can send packets directly from one LAN to another without needing to do any of that port forwarding nonsense. It really shows you how the Internet was designed to work in the first place.
Well anyway, here's the Wikipedia article on 6to4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4 [wikipedia.org]
Still designed Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Still designed Wrong (Score:2)
Two Thirds... not used so much (Score:3, Insightful)
Error Checking (Score:2, Funny)
On what planet does this sentence even come close to making sense?
Morons (Score:4, Informative)
IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses
IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses
Theres the incorrect information part. I'll leave it up to the reader to recognize the utter stupidity part.
I let all my friends share my IP (Score:3, Funny)
Borgified computers share a common mind they might as well share a common IP address
Wrong department? (Score:3, Funny)
"The Netherlands already uses IPv6" (Score:3, Informative)
and IPv6 is in use in some countries, including the Netherlands
That is way too generalistic a statement. It is used in a few academic intitutions and I can think of one consumer ISP that hands out IPv6 addresses (www.xs4all.nl) and then only if you ask for it. The rest of us here in teh Netherlands are stil on regular old IPv4.
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Simon.
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Simon
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
If it is fundamentally impossible for you to receive an email, I don't see the point of including you in the stati
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Simon.
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can solve for the assumed number of email accounts in use by:
50 billion emails sent = 32 emails received * number of email accounts to receive them
50 billion emails sent / 32 emails received = 1.56 billion email accounts to receive them
According to the this page [internetworldstats.com] with World Internet Usage Stats, the number of people online is: 1,022,863,307. Meaning that the average person has 1.5 email accounts. Tr
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Re:A New British Math? (Score:2)
Can you explain to us non-genius-math types what unit a people people is?
Re:"88 per cent of e-mails are junk" (Score:3, Funny)
# of kids with phones weighted by age then divided by all kids in the UK? Not sure it's doable without a national inquiry involving every child with a cell phone.
Re:"88 per cent of e-mails are junk" (Score:2)
Take an unbiased sample of a thousand kids and extrapolate to the UK population. This will give you a suitable answer to within plus or minus a few percent.
Re:"88 per cent of e-mails are junk" (Score:2)
Re:Why 128 bits? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm probably misunderstanding what you were trying to say, but isn't this why we have DNS? I personally don't know any IP addresses by heart aside from my local 192.168.*.* ones at home, and I survive just fine. The only reason I can think of offhand, is for games with IP-based multiplayer, where you have to type in the IP address of your frie
Re:Why 128 bits? (Score:5, Interesting)
First, if you're going to do a design that involves a "big number", it is helpful for the number to actually be "big". If you're going to have addresses of a fixed size (and there are good technical reasons for doing so) then your addresses should all be "big" so that you don't have to change your addressing scheme at some point. Among the numbers that were thought to be "big" but which didn't turn out to be are the number of cylinders in an ST-506 hard drive, the number of bytes in an 8086 segment, and the number of IPv4 addresses.
Second, initial experience with IPv4 showed that addresses would be assigned very inefficiently. It was initially expected that most networks would assign fewer than 1% of their addresses to computers. In fact, the allocation efficiency of IPv6 addresses is tiny by design, as the promoters of IPv6 expect that the minimum allocation of addresses to a single host to be a /64, which means that there are really enough addresses to give 92,000 /64's to every square meter of the earth's surface. Actually, I think that 92,000 is wrong. The number I have for the earth's surface area is 510.0501e6 square kilometers which works out to about 36,000 /64's for each square meter of earth's surface. Maybe you were thinking millionths of a square mile, because then 92,000 would be about right, but that's kind of an odd unit.
Anyway, of course when people started allocating addresses willy-nilly, people learned to use IPv4 addresses more efficiently, (my home network has more than 2 computers on it for each real live IPv4 address I get with my feed) but IPv6 will always assign addresses inefficiently. I would expect that people will make use of that fact should use of IPv6 ever become widespread.
It's called Absurd Limit Theory (Score:3, Interesting)
To give some examples of what goes wrong when you ignore ALT: The IBM PC was able to address the absurdly huge limit of 640K of RAM. Microsoft Excel to this day cannot address more than 65,000 rows in a single spreadsheet, which is nowhere near enough for high finance and some datalogging applications. The maximum addressable drive