We'll enter the IPv6 era, where every single person will have a static address assigned to their identity (due to a large pool of IPv6), which will allow NSA and other national spying agencies to track internet activity even more than they do now.
>>43018061 I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure one of the things that will be happening more with IPv6 is that home broadband users will be assigned public subnets to use instead of just one public address with masqueraded clients. This means that all your computers in your home network will have public addresses and private addresses won't really be much of a thing, though you should still be able to set up v6 masquerading on your router.
This has its good and bad points but it may be up to you to set up your firewalls properly in your homes.
If it is the case that everyone gets a large subnet of public addresses to use in their home, it doesn't mean that you can just change your address to evade IP-bans or stop tracking or whatever because it's most likely that people will start blocking the small subnets instead of individual addresses.
>>43018467 The IP crisis became unavoidable a decade ago, and they should have been finished doing something about it five years ago, The real core of the problem is that transit providers and ISPs and service providers who rely on networks are all cheap bastards.
I work for a company you've heard of, and rely on for various bits of internet infrastructure, and we had routers in major sites that hadn't had a TAC contract for nearly 8 years.
>>43018605 Within the IPv6 protocol there is backward compatibility to IPv4, so technically he is not correct. Their ISPs would still have time to convert and evaluate what it means to convert long before they actually needed to.
These protocols have a lot of though and consideration put into them, they aren't written by /g/.
>>43018816 What it means is that larger corporations can begin converting to IPv6 as a process and slowly begin to pressure smaller ISPs to make the transition as well.
This change isn't made to happen overnight. Nobody is sitting at the control board waiting to flip the switch, tapping their foots at Cleetus and Selma who route their packets over a dead rat at Fuckall ISP, Inc to upgrade.
>>43018544 STFU NSA shill and take your IPv6 with you.
The IPv4 scarcity is artificial. Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses? What's wrong with NATs? Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address). Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address, why is that needed, why ain't they more random?
>>43018914 >This change isn't made to happen overnight.
It's not like IPv6 is a new thing. It hasn't even happened over a decade. It's unlikely to be finished in the next decade.
>Nobody is sitting at the control board waiting to flip the switch, tapping their foots at Cleetus and Selma who route their packets over a dead rat at Fuckall ISP, Inc to upgrade.
It isn't even that, though: there is still major infrastructure out there with no IPv6 or poor IPv6. You can't even guarantee that if you send off a v6 packet to your transit that your provider can even route it to the other end; the v6 network is still patchy and full of holes. This isn't Bumfuck Networks Inc., these are major tier 1 providers.
Once cgNAT kicks in there'll be even less pressure to finally start supporting IPv6.
>>43019001 >The IPv4 scarcity is artificial. Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses?
Sure, and HP have two /8's: but who's going to pay for them to vacate those address blocks? They've carved their address space up into all sorts of networks, some of which are in use internally. It'd cost them tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, to renumber everything to empty out those blocks. And all for a lousy /8 or two that would be gone within months.
>>43019001 >The IPv4 scarcity is artificial. no it isn't. there are more internet-connected devices than ipv4 can support.
>Why does the DoD need 280 million IP addresses? because fuck you that's why
>What's wrong with NATs? NAT (specifically PAT) is a stop-gap, not a solution. NAT and PAT requires a lot of processing and memory for large networks. Its a huge fucking headache.
>Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address). they don't. besides, what the fuck does it matter?
>Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address, why is that needed, why ain't they more random? the device identifier from the auto-configuration is random. also, you can very easily pinpoint your location with an IPv4 address anyways. aside from all that, everything you do is tracked and it has nothing to do with your IP address.
>>43019006 IPv6 hasn't happened because it doesn't need to happen. That doesn't mean it *can't* happen. An ISP can theoretically run a completely IPv6 network apart from the edge routers and still reach every computer they could on an IPv4 network, and vice versa. As end users, it really doesn't matter to us what they use. The burden of making it work or even of evaluating it as a product at this point isn't on us as consumers. It's on the ISPs.
If I am an ISP and I want to go full IPv6 I can do it any time I want, the rest of the Internet be damned.
>>43019001 For someone who is so tinfoil you know very little about internet security. IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the network card on occasion because that happens to be a very solid working model for preventing IP conflicts. There are others too.
It doesn't even matter what IP your Macbook has at any point and on any protocol because your router is going to provide NAT as a security measure anyway. What you're worrying about is literally a non-issue.
>Why can you pinpoint someones location by his IPv6 address, You can do that with IPv4 or even your credit card number if you know the right people.
>>Why do IPv6 addresses contain the MAC address of the used network card (or a "random" chunk generated off the MAC address). >they don't. besides, what the fuck does it matter? It matters specially in combination with the part of you IPv6 address that depends on location.
You start traveling around, first bits of your IPv6 address change according to your location, the part based on the MAC address of your devices NIC stay. Metadata in it's finest form.
>>43019420 >Which is my point; they're cheap bastards, which is why it hasn't happened. There isn't a good reason to make it happen. Do you think your internet speeds are going to double just because you're on IPv6? Because there is no other reason to provide IPv6 to a network other than to allow more devices with a unique IP on it. >Not if you're an Internet Service Provider. You kind of have to provide service to the internet. That's kind of your job. You don't understand, by issuing IPv6 addresses in the IPv6-IPv4 compatibility range you compromise *no* service whatsoever. Everyone can reach everyone, but you're on IPv6.
>>43019395 >It doesn't even matter what IP your Macbook has at any point and on any protocol because your router is going to provide NAT as a security measure anyway. What you're worrying about is literally a non-issue.
Lol dude, you put it in such a convincing way, I almost believed you.
If it's a non issue, why are things like this proposed:
>>43019414 No, we ran out of unallocated IPs, there's still a ton of IPs allocated to ISPs that aren't being used. IPv6 still has problems in implementation and hopefully we'll be able to continue NATing IPv4 to the point IPv6 is fixed and able to be widely deployed
>>43019650 >"Hey, instead of letting the machine request an IP, we'll allow any router to force it an IP on its network" >IPv6 RA flood attack ensues and Microsoft alone takes 3 years to fix their implementation which previously would just continue accepting IPs from a spoofed router until the OS crashed
We've made the OSes have to do sanity checks for when a flood might be occurring rather than just not use such a backward system, but hey IPv6 is fuckold.
>>43019789 Like I said, they'll have to make something that will seamlessly integrate v4. Stop trying to push an obviously broken protocol and work on something that will just fucking work without making millions of devices instantly obsolete.
>That only holds true if EVERYONE uses IPv6 address in the IPv4 compat. range, and they're not. There are entire AS's that are not routeable from certain tier 1 providers. Your argument is that ISPs providing an IPv6 to customers is not functional model because you cannot achieve good routing all the time by using it. I refuted that claim by mentioning the compatibility range.
Regardless of what other people do or are doing, my statement will be true.
As far as adoption is concern, adoption is low because most people are still using and preferring IPv4 because they don't have a problem using it. Unless you live in Botswana, it probably isn't an issue for you either. The fact that only about 8% of the edge routers in the US have adopted IPv6 is a function of the fact that IPv4 works great for them and they don't see a reason to change. It is *not* a statement of whether their tier1 servers can handle IPv6, and in fact their adoption rates are up compared to nations which *are* being affected by IPv4 exhaustion. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
IPv4 addresses are being freed as we speak. I didn't even get a dedicated IP from my ISP before I threw a shitfit. They just kept giving me private 10.x.x.x range IPs and NATed them. I had to talk to four levels of support of my ISP to get them to change that.
>>43017967 ipv5 masterrace here i'm using ipv5 which is a secret protocole, only the elite can use it it is as ipv4 but with 5 dots XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX every network card is compatible, because it's tunneled from a unique ipv4 main server i'm using youporn on ipv5 right now, the quality is much better, there is lot more videos in full HD and 4K
>>43020028 It's not that they do not support it, it's that they're not set up for it. Router manufacturers have been pushing IPv6 support for years. It's the fucking people managing the routers that haven't enabled IPv6 yet.
>>43020078 >"We don't need it is" is a euphemism for "We aren't going to pay for it". Then why are the countries that are being affected by bandwidth exhaustion today more than any other so slow to adopt IPv6?
>>43020357 If you plug your router into the wall and don't get an IP, you call your ISP right? And your ISP says, "Oh shit we're out of IPs, enable IPv6 or dieeee! What do you say? >FUCK NO I AIN'T PUTTING YOUR FILTHY PORNO ON MY COMPOOT No. You enable IPv6. Hence, there is no IPv4 crisis as of today.
You just watch. A bunch of ISPs will get together one day and decide they're going to have an IPv6 rollover day. On that day, they will disable IPv4 and tell people to switch to IPv6, blaming the other ISPs for pressuring them into it. >Yeah jee sorry anon everyone else was doing it and so facebook was going to be down and they aren't switching back so we figured it would be best to cut our service too since it would only be useful for like three people on our network after today And they'd make it a holiday and everyone would get the day off. And people would probably die because they'd try to email an emergency hotline but for that you have only yourselves to blame for not switching sooner.
>>43020823 that's what I'm saying. there are more than enough IPv6 for every human on earth to use 1 million addresses per second until the sun burns out. there is absolutely no fucking excuse whatsoever for the same address to be reused.
doesn't piss me off as much as phone companies re-using phone numbers. Had a tracphone before, with a number that probably belonged to some crack dealer. Lots of interesting calls. Most people I know with contracts get random calls as well all the time, with people asking for someone else.
>>43020856 that used to happen a lot when I posted from a VPN, I would try to post and it would sometimes say I was banned (usually for cp, spam, or shitposting) because someone else had gotten that particular IP banned.
Pretty scary because I was posting with my pass, which I paid for while on my real IP.
>>43020936 not quite that bad, but my phone number used to belong to this bitch named Diane, who apparently had lots of debt and some very severe medical issues that warranted her doctor calling 3 times in one day. I would answer and tell them that I'm not her whenever possible, but the calls still continue, often from the same numbers I tell to fuck off.
I've heard that multiple nations are wanting to implement a system where every square mile of the planet's surface is assigned its own set of IP addresses, completely dropping IPv4. Is this IPv6 or a newer version?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.