Subby should try showering and leaving his mom's basement, meet real, actual girls instead of 'a/s/l?'ing bots that strike up conversations on AIM.

/and they will

But what about heavy sack beatings? Are they up as well?

So, that means that 19 businesses support it now?

ZAZ: Slightly more than 2 percent of zones were served by mail servers that support IPv6
Less than 1 percent of Web servers in zones were IPv6-enabled

So IPv6 is irrelevant just like it always has been and probably always will be.

notsureifserious.jpg

ZAZ: Slightly more than 2 percent of zones were served by mail servers that support IPv6
Less than 1 percent of Web servers in zones were IPv6-enabled

So IPv6 is irrelevant just like it always has been and probably always will be.

itll be irrelevant as long as there are no new internet enabled devices are made ever again, ever.

ColonelSanders33 : itll be irrelevant as long as there are no new internet enabled devices are made ever again, ever.

So as long as there's NAT new internet devices, we're ok?

lordargent: So as long as there's NAT new internet devices, we're ok?

Yep. Once somebody says they will only talk to us over IPv6 - we will nail up a firewall that supports it. I'm guessing in 3 or 4 years. There is simply no business case for the vast majority of businesses to convert over their internal networks to IPv6.

/sits on two class Bs that no one is forcing us to give back.
//or even use.

The Angry Hand of God: So, that means that 19 businesses support it now?

Global IPv6 Deployment Report. (new window)

152209421 Registered domains.
3246814 Domains that have a AAAA record.
About 2% deployment.

ColonelSanders33: ZAZ: Slightly more than 2 percent of zones were served by mail servers that support IPv6
Less than 1 percent of Web servers in zones were IPv6-enabled

So IPv6 is irrelevant just like it always has been and probably always will be.

itll be irrelevant as long as there are no new internet enabled devices are made ever again, ever.

it will be relevant when everybody keeps all of their existing devices connected even though they purchased new ones and they demand that their network toaster oven of the future needs to be on the other side of their home router.

bravian: we will nail up a firewall that supports it. I'

Pretty much everything made in the last several years already support IPv6.

baorao: it will be relevant when everybody keeps all of their existing devices connected even

Given that we're already short on IP addresses, and NAT is a horrible way to handle the issue, it's quite relevant already.

baorao: it will be relevant when everybody keeps all of their existing devices connected even though they purchased new ones and they demand that their network toaster oven of the future needs to be on the other side of their home router.

That

About 10-15 devices on my LAN, but only one IP on the WAN.

This is only an issue for people who need to have tons of devices all exposed to the outside world (which right now, is nobody).

/now, let's talk phone numbers

WhyteRaven74: Given that we're already short on IP addresses

Sounds like you need to purchase some IP Address offset credits.

lordargent: baorao: it will be relevant when everybody keeps all of their existing devices connected even though they purchased new ones and they demand that their network toaster oven of the future needs to be on the other side of their home router.

That

About 10-15 devices on my LAN, but only one IP on the WAN.

This is only an issue for people who need to have tons of devices all exposed to the outside world (which right now, is nobody).

/now, let's talk phone numbers

Phone numbers need to die in favor of internet services, as well as cable and radio. The Internet is vastly more important for the future than outdated crap people happen to use right now/

ZAZ: Slightly more than 2 percent of zones were served by mail servers that support IPv6
Less than 1 percent of Web servers in zones were IPv6-enabled

So IPv6 is irrelevant just like it always has been and probably always will be.

It's not that IPv6 is irrelevant, it's that it solves a problem ISP's would rather not solve. They'd much rather continue with the scarcity of IPv4, charge you a fortune for static IP's and it gives them a media friendly excuse for booting anyone who uses a "uncertified" (by the ISP) router off their network.

Whilst some ISP's are starting to roll out IPv6 to those who specifically ask for it, they know the majority of their users won't and they can charge more for a 'rare' IPv4.

lordargent: This is only an issue for people who need to have tons of devices all exposed to the outside world (which right now, is nobody).

Hahahahaha. Why don't you go sit quietly in the corner while us network admins talk. You clearly have no idea how the internet works.

I'm going to hold onto IPv4 for as long as possible, or use an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway if usage becomes mandatory at some point.

The main reason is that IPv4 NAT/PAT (address translation) allows people to easily hide devices on an internal network where the devices can not be accessed externally without taking special measures. The hidden devices can make outward contact easily, but the reverse path is hard to establish.

With NAT/PAT anytime the the hidden internal devices talk to the outside world, their messages are modified to obscure the identity of the internal device and make all messages appear to originate from the NAT/PAT gateway.

NAT/PAT was originally created to deal with the IPv4 address shortage problems but it also has significant benefits for protecting devices from external hacking or attack, and hiding devices from external surveillance.

(It's no wonder China embraced IPv6 early. IPv6 is well-suited for a government that wants to surveillance access to all devices used by the public.)

IPv6 does not allow hiding. Any device communicating with the outside world is directly visible and identifiable, and there are no plans to implement NAT/PAT with IPv6, because it isn't "technically" necessary, with so many addresses available..

NAT carries a performance cost we won't want to pay too many times. Most people are paying it twice at home and three times at work (if they work in office buildings) right now.

Home: Your PC has an address issued by your router, which in turn has an external address issued by your ISP, which has a short range of "real" public addresse.

Work: Almost the same deal -- your "router" is probably a switch controlling your floor at the office, which gets an address from a building-wide network router, which talks to an ISP....

That's not what worries everyone, though. We could hypothetically do NAT forever, just adding layers of translation at need, but every time we do that we have to increase packet sizes and pay another couple of milliseconds of latency, and it'll all add up. No, the big problem is that NAT doesn't work for devices that leave your home.

There are 4.3 billion IP addresses in the IPv4 address space.
Every cellphone gets one.

So: IPv6, which has 18.4 quintillion addresses. Where I work, we turned it on on World IPv6 day (last June), and have been running our site in dual-support mode ever since.

Niali: No, the big problem is that NAT doesn't work for devices that leave your home.

There are 4.3 billion IP addresses in the IPv4 address space.
Every cellphone gets one.

Just make cell towers into big routers?

Niali: Every cellphone gets one.

I work on the cellular industry (but in the wrong area to know this for certain.

But I don't think cell phones use IP addresses when they're using the cellular network.

And when they connect to WIFI, they're connecting to a wireless router, and could get an IP that's inside of NAT.

/There are 17,891,328 IP addresses inside of the private IPv4 address spaces (just around 16,700,000 in the class A block). That means that one IP address on the WAN could, in theory, have almost 18 million addresses on the LAN side.

/Not everything needs to be visible on the WAN side.