Cisco Sally
@ameritech.net | What if Juniper threw a party...
...and nobody came?
Sucks to be selling a product few are willing to buy.
It'll come when it comes. Trying to stimulate premature market ejaculation via "studies" is a sign of desperation. |
|
Maggs
Premium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | IP v6 is at least 10 years down the road
The complexity of the internet means that this is around 10 years down the road.
--
It's a SYN, not to ACK your packets. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by Maggs  :The complexity of the internet means that this is around 10 years down the road. I think the beginning of the changeover will start in 2008. But before the non-business home residence customers are almost all IPV6, your estimate of 10 yrs is probably pretty close to the mark.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK | reply to Cisco Sally
Re: What if Juniper threw a party...
well, it's really just in North America that IPv6 is having issues with deployment |
|
Cisco Sally
@ameritech.net | And...that's the point. If it were all that and a bowl of ice cream US networks would be tripping over each other to implement it. They aren't, mostly because there is no real hurry despite these "studies" and alarmist hype. |
|
Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON
| Should be of concern
It should be a big issue. The US is a IP hog. That has been the bone of contention in the push in having the US give up control of key internet interests.
When some countries have to rely on NAT and only have a hand full of IP's to use while single US companies have more IP's then an entire nation. NAT has some limitations and thats why it's such a big push in other countries to use IP6. The think that the US may find out is as other countries build parrell networks and root servers with IP6 the us may find it self being left behind and pushed out of having any control. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| of course...
we still have enough ipv4 space that there shouldn't be a need to convert for no reason...
Sure, it'll be awhile, but everything should still be interoperable, so what's the rush?
How can we be "left behind" with boatloads of perfectly good address space? |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to Cisco Sally
Re: What if Juniper threw a party...
said by Cisco Sally :
And...that's the point. If it were all that and a bowl of ice cream US networks would be tripping over each other to implement it. They aren't, mostly because there is no real hurry despite these "studies" and alarmist hype.
It's more that, because we "got there first" and staked out huge swaths of the IPv4 address space, the US isn't in nearly as much danger of address space exhaustion that places like China were (prior to their IPv6 push).
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
|  reply to Armour
Re: Should be of concern
said by Armour :It should be a big issue. The US is a IP hog. That has been the bone of contention in the push in having the US give up control of key internet interests. You can always invade!
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Pascal
join:2003-11-16
Streamwood, IL
| reply to amungus
Re: of course...
said by amungus :How can we be "left behind" with boatloads of perfectly good address space? Ummm, maybe because ipv4 users can't get to services in the new address space?
-Pascal |
|
jjcrandall
join:2004-01-01
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to amungus
IPSec support is a good reason. Isn't all Ipv6 traffic supposed to be encrypted? |
|
davidsmind
The Eye's Mind
Premium
join:2001-07-04
Canada | not all but it can be specified simply in the header field, as opposed to having to set up client-server services. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to Pascal
ok. good point.
...I thought that one could simply re-mask an ipv4 address into version 6 though... so at that point, as long as the route(s) to those services are properly formatted, it should still work. Guess that would still mean some new hardware along the way... |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to pnh102
Re: Should be of concern
said by pnh102 :said by Armour :It should be a big issue. The US is a IP hog. That has been the bone of contention in the push in having the US give up control of key internet interests. You can always invade! NO BLOOD FOR OIL IP ADDRESSES!
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy |
|
dibbb
join:2003-09-19
 ·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to Armour
said by Armour :When some countries have to rely on NAT and only have a hand full of IP's to use while single US companies have more IP's then an entire nation. The large company I work for, and it's not a telecom company either, has an entire Class A IP range. On every single PC, printer, switch, router, etc, we use a "real" IP address, not a 192.168.x.x or whatever.
It's a waste. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to Armour
the problem with IP6 is that it doesnt support NAT which is a very important need of home networking. without NAT owning multiple PCs requires you to buy an IP for them and even with the trillions of addresses that IP6 allows the cable company isnt going to give them out for free.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
