tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post2168357912086128791..comments2023-12-22T13:23:14.312-05:00Comments on Anarchy != Chaos: Negative aspects of IPv6?Curt-http://www.blogger.com/profile/15378506296755879713noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-2734498131972240442011-02-10T18:16:33.178-05:002011-02-10T18:16:33.178-05:00Anon,
"how much worse will it be going betwe...Anon,<br /><br />"how much worse will it be going between v4 and v6 then back again."<br /><br />Let's be serious and admit that that is simply not going to work for anything more than a simple data stream. No IPSec, for example.<br /><br />But just like double static NAT, it could be done and work, but its application is going to be very narrow.Curt-https://www.blogger.com/profile/15378506296755879713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-89363187080715292922011-02-10T12:39:45.449-05:002011-02-10T12:39:45.449-05:00"I think a better solution is the one already..."I think a better solution is the one already purposed. Let's just simply move to IPV6... There's nothing stopping us and it's backwards compatible."<br /><br />No, it is not backwards compatible. That is one of the issue that has been preventing it's deployment. To use IPv4 and IPv.6 together you need a dual stack implementation, and not all dual stack solutions play well with other dual stack solutions. Second to go from an IPv4 to 6 or back you have to have some kind of translator in the middle.<br /><br />If you look at the kinds of issue that still get encountered with NAT on IPv4 to 4 networks, how much worse will it be going between v4 and v6 then back again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-66639130627818391002011-02-10T11:12:49.978-05:002011-02-10T11:12:49.978-05:00@Anonymous - Great, now all our prices will go up ...@Anonymous - Great, now all our prices will go up and dedicated IP's will become completely unavailable to smaller companies or individuals. Also once the Government decides to implement a tax it only seems to go up... Gotta subsidise the less fortunate who can't get a pubic IP ya know. No thanks.<br /><br />I think a better solution is the one already purposed. Let's just simply move to IPV6... There's nothing stopping us and it's backwards compatible. We just need to make all new products are IPV6 compliant from here on out (and most are) and get our ISP's on board (That might be the hard part).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-45655203238133049722011-02-10T08:55:09.569-05:002011-02-10T08:55:09.569-05:00> "A company like IBM could sell 9.0.0.0/8...> "A company like IBM could sell 9.0.0.0/8 for lots and lots of money..."<br /><br />Another way would be to tax the owners of Class A (and B?) blocks -- priced correctly, unused blocks would be released back to IANA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-50919341364424496422011-02-10T08:43:37.249-05:002011-02-10T08:43:37.249-05:00What I'm curious about is how this will actual...What I'm curious about is how this will actually trickle to the average user. Right now most of us in the USA are using a broadband provider's modem as a NAT box as well. So, for the most part, we don't care if things stay the same or not from inside the house. As long as IPv6 address are resolved when I request them.Eric Mesahttp://server.ericsbinaryworld.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-72379325359785286242011-02-07T23:37:45.942-05:002011-02-07T23:37:45.942-05:00As the first poster, Anon, I think you deserve a r...As the first poster, Anon, I think you deserve a reply.<br /><br />There's no need to worry about the pieces working together, because it's been built into the spec directly. My reason for bemoaning it is not because it won't work, but that now anything like a simple change to DHPCv4 that would have enabled it TO work cannot happen.<br /><br />Maybe a better answer to what is in the IPv6 spec would not have been found, but we will never know. In times past, a "reference implementation" would have been created, and then refined. That is the path I would have preferred.Curt-https://www.blogger.com/profile/15378506296755879713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728206713477106822.post-52901266846919638682011-02-07T23:17:41.605-05:002011-02-07T23:17:41.605-05:00Only thing I disagree with is the level of second-...Only thing I disagree with is the level of second-system syndrome going on. With new adressing standards for IPv6, you will need an updated version of UDCP and IPSec at least to work with addresses in IPv6 format. The pieces need to work together, and UDCPv4 just won't cut it with an IPv6 network.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com