When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?
Displaying poll results.17595 total votes.
When will large-scale IPv6 deployment happen?
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:2, Informative)
DNS still works just fine and IPv6 has a built-in feature to use globally unique self-applied addresses. It is the EUI-64 standard. [ieee.org] Essentially all that happens is a system uses the network portion of whatever it is connected to and the rest is autogenerated by using the MAC address split in half with an FFFE inserted.
That is how it is in all IPv6 deployments I have seen. There is no reason to do static addressing anymore, save for servers and the like.
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:4, Informative)
Just use a different base.
This problem was solved waaaay back in 1996 by the IETF in RFC 1924 [ietf.org].
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:1, Informative)
Only one of those three are true.
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, you might want to look at the date on that RFC. The whole thing is a joke. Written by a guy who was involved with the IETF IPng working group, and was well aware of why the format was chosen to be what it is.
More to the point: use DNS.
More to the meta-point: IPv6 is already entering wide-scale deployment. I saw a Verizon report that something like 30% of their LTE traffic was over IPv6.
Re:IPv6 Addresses (Score:3, Informative)
What do you mean Large Scale Deployment? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a pretty large scale deployment to me.
Re:Fuck IPv6 (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a 4 set, that's just the human-readable formatting. The actual IPv4 address is an unsigned 32-bit integer. The human-readable format splits those into octets and displays them in decimal.
Your "add an octet" would result in using 40-bit integers, which isn't a normally used size nowadays. A variant of your idea would be to use 64-bit integers and simply double the size of the existing addressing, but this would break things the same way (as everything is predicated on dealing with 32-bit addresses), and going to 128 bits allows more future proofing and allows for some convenient auto-configuration methods, as you can stick a almost-always-unique MAC address (64 bits) into half of the address, then you can just stick the 64 bit network prefix in front of that and you've got a full IPv6 address ready.
You could conceivably write an IPv6 address in the same octets format as an IPv4, but it would be absurdly long i.e. 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255, hence why they standardized on the "4 sets of 4 hex digits" format.