[TriLUG] Adding to the list of topics: IPv6

[William Sutton]

PMBIB,

Just why do we want things like toaster, refrigerators, and toilets to 
have their own IP addresses?  Why, for that matter, do we want digital 
cameras and pdas to have their own addresses?  Workstations, servers, 
printers, and networking gear I can understand, but appliances?

William

On 21 Jan 2004, Jon Carnes wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:13, Mike Johnson wrote:
> > Jon Carnes [jonc at nc.rr.com] wrote:
> > > Full scale implementations of IPv6 are expected to to blossom in 2005.
> > > It will start in places like China (already working on  several large
> > > scale roll-outs of internet access via IPv6), and it will move around
> > > the world.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced.  China has their national firewall.  They can use
> > whatever addresses behind that thing that they want, and still speak
> > ipv4 to the world.
> 
> Well how about the Japanese who are also working on their IPv6 "WIDE"
> project.  They have massive corporate support. And of course there are
> hundreds of IPv6 global inititives (China just has some of the largest
> implementations).
> >  
> > > Currently most of us connect to the internet using IPv4, which has a
> > > built-in limitation on the number of IP addresses available: ~ 4.3
> > > billion, that's not a lot when you consider that there are in excess of
> > > 6 billion computing devices in the world today. 
> > 
> > So?  There are not ~ 4.3 billion 'servers'.  Never will be.  From my
> > workstation, I don't need to have a direct conversation with your
> > workstation.
> 
> You say that now, but manufacturers want to make just about any device
> that uses information internet accessible. And they want to talk
> directly from device to device - with both sides being able to initiate
> the flow of data (something that NAT prohibits).
> 
> Of course the operating systems *wont* be windows...
> >  
> > > IPv6 offers a virtually infinite number of Internet addresses: ~
> > > 340000000000000000000000000000000000000 usable ip addresses. It also
> > > offers better security, easier multicasting, and simplified routing
> > > (organizations no longer need to use NAT).
> > 
> > Why -not- use NAT?  NAT is a good thing.  See above.
> > 
> > Also, NAT hides a lot of information.  This is a good thing.
> 
> NAT is good for security. Very true. You can still secure your network
> without NAT.  You can use access control lists and routing filters to do
> the same effective job, but leave open ports to allow secure
> communications from one computing device to another.
> 
> This allows you to run a decentralized office.  Your workers can be
> anywhere in the world - still receiving there phone calls, and still
> being able to move data in/out of the company servers.
> 
> >   
> >  
> > > If this is going to take the world by storm over the next year or three,
> > > we should definitely be in the know about it.  
> > 
> > Bah.  Three years for a start, maybe.  I'm having a hard time seeing the
> > need for ipv6 anytime soon.
> > 
> That is the prevailing attitude in America, and that is why other
> Nations including China have already taken the lead and are well ahead
> of us in implementing IPv6.
> 
> Sony and other corporations are already gearing up for the IPv6
> revolution.  At Sony every computing device (camera, radio, cd player,
> refrigerator, toilet, etc... ) is going to have the embedded ability to
> communicate via IPv6 by the end of 2005. It's something they can't do
> using IPv4.
> 
> America is going to be playing catch-up soon.
> 
> Jon Carnes
> 
>