There is no Plan B: why the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition will be ugly - Polidicks

Yeah, what I don't like is the address itself. Jesus, manually typing that down is going to be a bitch.

[QUOTE=Elexar;25159966]Could someone sum this up nicely? I'm interested but don't have the time to read all of that.[/QUOTE] In other words, TL;DR.

China called... [editline]05:35PM[/editline] ...they want their wall back.

It's gonna be like [IMG]http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/SPinternet.jpg[/IMG]

I know it says not to ask about version 5, but what happened to version 5?

[QUOTE=gman003-main;25161999]Then you'll love [URL="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1924"]RFC 1924[/URL] representation: 4)+k&C#VzJ4br>0wv%Y That is a valid address. So is this: 0aZ!~[>jhg#Ed8){|cQ Imagine typing those in. [sp]Note the date of release for RFC 1924. April 1, 1996.[/sp][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kwuzowPtpn1qzy1xho1_100.jpg[/IMG] "What are you looking for?"

2012 is really the internet shutting down.

[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;25162854]I know it says not to ask about version 5, but what happened to version 5?[/QUOTE] It was an experimental version, something to do with web video, IIRC. Never entered actual usage.

[img]http://www.slurmed.com/fanart/dexus5/005_professor.png[/img] [b]"Ah yes. Anything with that many big words can't be good."[/b]

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25159619]I love how it opens by saying 1.5Mbs is hardly even acceptable for home usage. Where I live, the very fastest internet available to me is 768Kbs. :frown:[/QUOTE] You've got it better then I do. :saddowns:

As a sysadmin, I dread the day :(

IPv6 FUCK YE- EWW WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THAT ADDRESS c

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25159619]I love how it opens by saying 1.5Mbs is hardly even acceptable for home usage. Where I live, the very fastest internet available to me is 768Kbs. :frown:[/QUOTE] Hey, Mr. Jack you're not alone :< one of my friends, who lives just 3 miles away, was complaining because their internet was 'crappy slow' downloading at 1.3 mbs. Bastards. Bastards the lot of 'em.

:downs:: Grandpa? What was the internet like when you were a kid? :wal:: Well for one thing, it didn't have any fucking letters. Numbers, decimal separators, as faaar as the eye could see.

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25159619]I love how it opens by saying 1.5Mbs is hardly even acceptable for home usage. Where I live, the very fastest internet available to me is 768Kbs. :frown:[/QUOTE] Fuck you, I only get 300 Kbs.

Dear lawd you people have terrible internet. If I could donate any part of my [i]Fiber Optic[/i] 100Mbps internet, believe me, [i]I would[/i]

[QUOTE=s0beit;25166030]:downs:: Grandpa? What was the internet like when you were a kid? :wal:: Well for one thing, it didn't have any fucking letters. Numbers, decimal separators, as faaar as the eye could see.[/QUOTE] It's called "hexadecimal". It's base 16 numbering. But, since there's no symbol for "15" besides "15" (and XV, if you want to get archaic), they use a few letters. Only up to F, though. And there's ways to shorten the addresses. Hell, "::" is a valid address (0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000, to be precise).

[QUOTE=gman003-main;25166913]It's called "hexadecimal". It's base 16 numbering. But, since there's no symbol for "15" besides "15" (and XV, if you want to get archaic), they use a few letters. Only up to F, though. And there's ways to shorten the addresses. Hell, "::" is a valid address (0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000, to be precise).[/QUOTE] I'm aware. I'm also aware of the reason that IP addresses contain numbers between 1 and 255. It's a joke :techno:

[QUOTE=s0beit;25167060]I'm aware. I'm also aware of the reason that IP addresses contain numbers between 1 and 255. It's a joke :techno:[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.sixthseal.com/archive/April2005/shit_water_slide_shit.jpg[/img] ^Its a joke. Haha. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Off topic and trolling" - verynicelady))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Eagle9;25167199][img]http://www.sixthseal.com/archive/April2005/shit_water_slide_shit.jpg[/img] ^Its a joke. Haha.[/QUOTE] It's called "poop". It's a product of your digestion and is spewed forth from your large intestines. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Quoted image, now I have to delete your post too" - verynicelady))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=s0beit;25167512]It's called "poop". It's a product of your digestion and is spewed forth from your large intestines.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/9435/esoph.png[/img]

[IMG]http://imgur.com/Ibhgh.png[/IMG]

Why are there pictures of shit in a thread about internet protocol?

[QUOTE=luck_or_loss;25167949]Why are there pictures of shit in a thread about internet protocol?[/QUOTE] Because people are stupid and/or evil.

I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but why can't they just add more space for ipv4 addresses?

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;25168038]128-bit addresses are excessive, if you gave an IPv6 address to each kilogram of the sun, you'd have enough for over 160,000,000 suns[/QUOTE] or 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,770,000,000 addresses?

[QUOTE=Sonicfan574;25168034]I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but why can't they just add more space for ipv4 addresses?[/QUOTE] I'm no expert on this, but: Imagine all phone numbers are taken someday. The size/format of a phone number is pretty well ingrained into how things work. It's not easy to just switch it around without completely changing the format of everyone's phone number into something with more digits. That's kind of what's going on here.

[QUOTE=Sonicfan574;25168034]I don't know a whole lot about this subject, but why can't they just add more space for ipv4 addresses?[/QUOTE] Because IPv4 represents addresses as 32-bit integers. The packets only have room for 32 bits. That's a bit over 4 billion addresses, and that seemed like overkill when it was first implemented, when there were less than a thousand computers on the planet. You can't just "add more room" without breaking everything that works. Computers right now know that IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses. Sure, you might be able to patch the software, if the companies are still around, but many routers implement it in hardware. So even that won't work. IPv6 also has a bunch of other improvements. They realized they couldn't make it a drop-in replacement for IPv4, so they decided to fix various things while they were at it. Pure IPv6 should be significantly faster than IPv4, since they made packet processing much simpler. It will be more secure, since IPSec support is mandatory, not optional as it is in IPv4. It will be easier to autoconfigure, since DHCP is being replaced with stateless autoconfiguration. Multicast groups are easier to obtain. Really, the only flaw in IPv6 is that there is no one-to-one mapping of IPv4 addresses into IPv6 space. [editline]12:21AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Matthew0505;25168038]128-bit addresses are excessive, if you gave an IPv6 address to each kilogram of the sun, you'd have enough for over 160,000,000 suns[/QUOTE] When IPv4 was first made, there were about 300 computers on the "Internet", known at the time as ARPANet. They gave it 4 billion addresses, and they realized they needed more twenty-five years later. Sure, 128 bits seems excessive now, but who knows how much growth there will be?

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;25168334]What are you talking about, there isn't enough material in the solar system to make enough devices to fill the IPv6 space, unless of course they're 6 microgram nanobots made of pure hydrogen[/QUOTE] How long will we stay in this solar system?

[QUOTE=gman003-main;25168540]How long will we stay in this solar system?[/QUOTE] Long enough to watch us kill ourselves