ipv6 - 16 byte?? - Networking

This is a discussion on ipv6 - 16 byte?? - Networking ; ipv4 it's a *little bit* too small (only approx 4.000.000.000 hosts... ) ipv6, 128 bit, approx 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 hosts 1.000.000.000.000 It'n only my opinion, or ipv6 is a little bit *expensive* and *wasteful*? Everything in computer is logical... there's a logical ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: ipv6 - 16 byte??

  1. ipv6 - 16 byte??

    ipv4 it's a *little bit* too small (only approx 4.000.000.000 hosts... )

    ipv6, 128 bit, approx
    1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 hosts
    1.000.000.000.000 <- this is a trillion

    It'n only my opinion, or ipv6 is a little bit *expensive* and *wasteful*?

    Everything in computer is logical... there's a logical in it too?



  2. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    world surface: approx 510.065.600.000.000 mq (wikipedia)
    one computer: approx 1mq

    If a fill the entire surface of the world with coputer one attached to
    another, i can have, at most, 1.000.000.000.000.000, approx 6/7 bytes

    using ipv6 (16 bytes) I can fill the entire surface of the entire planets of
    the Solar System... and maybe someone of other galaxies



  3. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On 07/07/2007 12:22 PM, toni wrote:
    > ipv4 it's a *little bit* too small (only approx 4.000.000.000 hosts... )
    >
    > ipv6, 128 bit, approx
    > 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 hosts
    > 1.000.000.000.000 <- this is a trillion
    >
    > It'n only my opinion, or ipv6 is a little bit *expensive* and *wasteful*?
    >
    > Everything in computer is logical... there's a logical in it too?


    On pointing browser to google
    http://www.google.com/linux?q=why+ipv6&restrict=linux

    I get:
    Results 1 - 10 of about 114,000 for why ipv6. (0.11 seconds)

    and ... the very first link
    http://en.linuxreviews.org/Why_you_want_IPv6

    reveals a lot of information.

    Plz do some homework yourself first, before you post such a silly questions.

    --
    Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
    Anu'z Linux@HOME Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
    Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Gentoo, Fedora, Debian/FreeBSD/XP
    Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

  4. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    I have read something about ipv6, but nothing about motivation of it's
    lenght.
    Why It's not enough 8*1 byte, instead of 8*2?
    I must read more, it's ok, but 16 byte for one address is really really
    really large.


    example:
    What's your phone number?
    My phone number is:

    1364367276374173165025385264946

    This is the phone number of E.T.


    I really want to make only smart question
    If it's a silly one, I hope it's at least funny...
    If neither, I'm honestly regretful for your time-lost.



  5. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    I have read something about ipv6, but nothing about motivation of it's
    lenght.
    Why It's not enough 8*1 byte, instead of 8*2?
    I must read more, it's ok, but 16 byte for one address is really really
    really large.


    example:
    What's your phone number?
    My phone number is:

    1364367276374173165025385264946

    This is the phone number of E.T.


    I really want to make only smart question
    If it's a silly one, I hope it's at least funny...
    If neither, I'm honestly regretful for your time-lost.



  6. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On Jul 6, 11:52 pm, "toni" wrote:
    > ipv4 it's a *little bit* too small (only approx 4.000.000.000 hosts... )
    >
    > ipv6, 128 bit, approx
    > 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 hosts
    > 1.000.000.000.000 <- this is a trillion
    >
    > It'n only my opinion, or ipv6 is a little bit *expensive* and *wasteful*?
    >
    > Everything in computer is logical... there's a logical in it too?


    Efficiency has a cost. Sometimes it's better to take a bit of
    inefficiency rather than pay the cost of efficiency. For example, with
    128-bits, a computer needs to know only its network and its MAC
    address to generate a unique address.

    DS


  7. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    > inefficiency rather than pay the cost of efficiency. For example, with
    > 128-bits, a computer needs to know only its network and its MAC
    > address to generate a unique address.


    At this time MAC address is a private information
    (.doc word file write it inside the document... strange thing...)

    With ipv6, MAC address became public.
    IMHO, this is'nt a good thing about our privacy... and perhaps about our
    freedom...

    But maybe I'm paranoiac



  8. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    Em Sábado, 7 de Julho de 2007 12:48, toni escreveu:

    >> inefficiency rather than pay the cost of efficiency. For example, with
    >> 128-bits, a computer needs to know only its network and its MAC
    >> address to generate a unique address.

    >
    > At this time MAC address is a private information
    > (.doc word file write it inside the document... strange thing...)
    >
    > With ipv6, MAC address became public.
    > IMHO, this is'nt a good thing about our privacy... and perhaps about our
    > freedom...
    >
    > But maybe I'm paranoiac


    Even the easter bunny can see your mac-adress if it knows your ip.

    Ipv6 is not the Mac adress

    Soon Ipv4 will not have ip adresses for everybody, ipv6 will be needed, and
    i just hope that it won't be late with so many delays.

    and yes, you're been paranoid.


  9. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    > Even the easter bunny can see your mac-adress if it knows your ip.
    > and yes, you're been paranoid.


    Well... better this than the opposite.
    Thanks



  10. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On Jul 7, 4:48 am, "toni" wrote:
    > > inefficiency rather than pay the cost of efficiency. For example, with
    > > 128-bits, a computer needs to know only its network and its MAC
    > > address to generate a unique address.

    >
    > At this time MAC address is a private information
    > (.doc word file write it inside the document... strange thing...)


    > With ipv6, MAC address became public.
    > IMHO, this is'nt a good thing about our privacy... and perhaps about our
    > freedom...


    > But maybe I'm paranoiac


    IPv6 does not require you to use a MAC address as part of the node
    address. I'm just saying that's one of the options you gain. With a 64-
    bit space (inside a subnet), you can also choose your address
    randomly.

    DS


  11. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
    <468f3836$0$4794$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it>, toni wrote:

    >ipv4 it's a *little bit* too small (only approx 4.000.000.000 hosts... )


    See RFC3330. On the 15th of each month, I get a copy of the RIR zone
    files, and create some local data bases. If you exclude RFC3330 IP
    addresses, there are a total of 3,706,453,504 IPv4 addresses available.
    As of 06/15/2007, 2,492,308,556 or 67.24 percent have been assigned or
    allocated by the RIRs (assigned means delegated to an end-user, while
    allocated means delegated to a national or local registry, or an ISP
    for further sub-delegation). Earlier year-end figures are

    1985 360,680,960 9.73%
    1990 730,298,112 19.70%
    1995 1,374,740,706 37.09%
    2000 1,698,877,890 45.84%
    2005 2,246,643,418 60.61%

    Note that this _excludes_ everyone who is using RFC1918 addresses in
    the 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16. Would you care to
    forecast when we will run out of IPv4 address space?

    >ipv6, 128 bit, approx
    >1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 hosts


    [compton ~]$ echo '2^128' | bc
    340282366920938463463374607431768211456
    [compton ~]$

    340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,45 6

    but if you look at RFC3587, only a small chunk of this space is now
    being delegated (2000::/3) and even a far smaller amount actually
    allocated/assigned (roughly 6 * /19 or about 3.89 * 10e33)

    >It'n only my opinion, or ipv6 is a little bit *expensive* and *wasteful*?


    Why do you worry - you are not paying any money for it. But this is now
    an Internet standard (see RFC2460) and you will have difficulty trying
    to change people's ideas now that it is standardized. You should have
    been expressing your concerns in 1993 (see RFC1454)

    >Everything in computer is logical... there's a logical in it too?


    Bits are not expensive any more - we are not worried about the 64K page
    size, or the 640K limit in MS-DOS. Providing enough "space" for larger
    variables is sensible. Perhaps you should look at 'time_t' and how
    this 32 bit variable is going to cause grief on January 19, 2038 at
    03:14:07 UTC. NTP also uses a limited sized variable (64 bits), and
    that variable will roll over in February 2036 (unless you include the
    extended 96 bit variable (32 bit 'era', 32 bit seconds, 32 bit fraction
    of seconds). While this might be acceptable on a 32 bit processor, you
    are going to waste space, or CPU cycles on your new 64 (or future 128)
    bit CPU.

    Old guy

  12. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    In article <468f9ac6$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, ArameFarpado wrote:
    > Soon Ipv4 will not have ip adresses for everybody, ipv6 will be needed, and
    > i just hope that it won't be late with so many delays.


    I don't see any need for it, with NAT not everybody needs an IP address
    that is directly visible on the internet. I am unwilling to expend
    the time and effort to learn IPV6 and simply disable it on all my
    systems. (I've been working with "IPV4" pretty much since its inception
    and have no particular desire to deal with a new, unneccessary protocol.)

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  13. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    Roger Blake coughed up some electrons that declared:

    > In article <468f9ac6$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, ArameFarpado
    > wrote:
    >> Soon Ipv4 will not have ip adresses for everybody, ipv6 will be needed,
    >> and i just hope that it won't be late with so many delays.

    >
    > I don't see any need for it, with NAT not everybody needs an IP address
    > that is directly visible on the internet. I am unwilling to expend
    > the time and effort to learn IPV6 and simply disable it on all my
    > systems. (I've been working with "IPV4" pretty much since its inception
    > and have no particular desire to deal with a new, unneccessary protocol.)
    >


    NAT is the kludge from hell - and all it's done, IMHO, is to delay the
    adoption of a proper solution, aka IPv6.

    Tim

  14. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    Em Segunda, 9 de Julho de 2007 04:47, Roger Blake escreveu:

    >
    > I don't see any need for it, with NAT not everybody needs an IP address
    > that is directly visible on the internet.


    Aren't you forgeting that everyday are more and more internet clients
    getting new connections?

  15. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On Jul 8, 8:47 pm, Roger Blake wrote:

    > I don't see any need for it, with NAT not everybody needs an IP address
    > that is directly visible on the internet.


    Not everybody even needs a computer. But if we're going to have
    computers and this Internet thing, people are going to constantly be
    wanting to do new things with it. Peer-to-peer things work poorly with
    NAT. Personal servers work poorly with NAT.

    If you're one of those people who think that the Internet is the world
    wide web and that there's no reason any normal person would ever want
    to run a server, then it makes sense that you wouldn't see any need
    for it. However, people who don't see things that way do see a need
    for globally visible addresses on end nodes.

    > I am unwilling to expend
    > the time and effort to learn IPV6 and simply disable it on all my
    > systems. (I've been working with "IPV4" pretty much since its inception
    > and have no particular desire to deal with a new, unneccessary protocol.)


    That's your choice, of course.

    DS


  16. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    In article <1183971354.610672.54970@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.c om>, David Schwartz wrote:
    > If you're one of those people who think that the Internet is the world
    > wide web and that there's no reason any normal person would ever want


    I'm one of those people who think that the internet is of no real
    importance beyond its use as a technical resource for work, which is
    what I have primarily used it for since the early 1980s.

    Hopefully by the time this unnecessary IPV6 changeover occurs I will be
    retired from the computing business and will have no further use for
    the internet. Needless to say at which point I really won't give a
    rat's behind what happens with it.

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  17. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    In article <4691e5e4$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, ArameFarpado wrote:
    > Aren't you forgeting that everyday are more and more internet clients
    > getting new connections?


    Considering that you can have an entire Class A subnet (10.*.*.*) masked
    behind a single public IP address, I don't see the problem.

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  18. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    In article <4691dea9$0$647$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim Southerwood wrote:
    > NAT is the kludge from hell - and all it's done, IMHO, is to delay the
    > adoption of a proper solution, aka IPv6.


    I find that NAT works quite well, and from a security standpoint certainly
    it is a good thing to have an IP address that is not completely exposed
    to the internet.

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  19. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    Em Segunda, 9 de Julho de 2007 13:44, Roger Blake escreveu:
    >
    > Considering that you can have an entire Class A subnet (10.*.*.*) masked
    > behind a single public IP address, I don't see the problem.
    >

    New clients !! new isp clients!! and new servers too!!


    do have any ideia wtf are you talking about? do you know how internet works
    at all?

    how could a client behing a subnet like that have it's own web server? when
    every body in the outside would have to estabelish special routes to access
    it?
    or would you like to access the server by 10.10.10.25@212.125.45.79 ?
    know that is not possible, so with your ideia, will be having 2 or more
    web-servers with the same ip... how do you intent to set routes for them?
    hum?
    when the routing rule is:
    for that ip got trought this path.

    it's all about routing...

    regards
    ArameFarpado

  20. Re: ipv6 - 16 byte??

    On Jul 9, 5:42 am, Roger Blake wrote:

    > I'm one of those people who think that the internet is of no real
    > importance beyond its use as a technical resource for work, which is
    > what I have primarily used it for since the early 1980s.


    Good to know this, as it will assist people in giving your opinions
    the appropriate amount of credibility.

    DS


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast