×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the has-strong-pro-vi-stance-too dept.

Government 442

alphadogg writes "The Obama Administration bills itself as the most tech-savvy political team ever, but until now it has ignored one of the biggest issues facing the Internet: the rapid depletion of IPv4 Internet addresses and the imminent need for carriers and content providers to adopt IPv6. Today, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will host a workshop on IPv6 that features high-profile executives from government, industry and Internet policymaking organizations. Some observers are hoping the Obama Administration will use the workshop to issue a deadline for all federal agencies to support IPv6 on their public-facing Web sites."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

442 comments

Deadline (5, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725070)

I heard he's going to mandate that all Federal agencies cut over to IPv6 by the time they close Gitmo.

-Peter

Re:Deadline (congrats first post) (0, Offtopic)

tg123 (1409503) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725122)

Congratulations on the first post. Very difficult to do these days.

Re:Deadline (congrats first post) (2, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725506)

I was gonna be first but my 6to4 layer adds too much latency.

Re:Deadline (congrats first post) (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725698)

If you dont go through a 6to4 relay, you don't have any extra latency at all, aside from the fixed time it takes to strip the v6 packet out of a v4 packet.

Re:Deadline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725210)

I heard he's going to mandate that all Federal agencies cut over to IPv6 by the time they close Gitmo.

Barry said that?

Re:Deadline (1, Troll)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725216)

I'm sure Fox News will bill it as Obama trying to take over the internet. Your IP address will have to face a death panel!

Re:Deadline (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725332)

Don't need to Fox news, just a brain and one rational thought to know king barry is the death panel for America!!!

Geeks are shitty political commentators! Stick to linux or windozes, or the next lame game.

Re:Deadline (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725362)

Don't need to Fox news, just a brain and one rational thought to know king barry is the death panel for America!!!

Right. Because no president before Obama has ever made bad decisions on a large scale. ::eye roll::

Re:Deadline (1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725464)

What's the point of your comment? That nobody is supposed to criticize Obama for making bad decisions because other presidents in the past have made bad decisions?

Re:Deadline (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725678)

I suspect the point was that Obama won't be death for America, just like all the other presidents who have made mistakes did not result in the death of America.

Re:Deadline (1, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725716)

No, my point is that claiming Obama is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, especially when you consider what previous leaders have done, is ludicrous.

Re:Deadline (2, Funny)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725536)

>>>Because no president before Obama has ever made bad decisions on a large scale. ::eye roll::

Right on! It's disgusting to see Obama posters with Hitler mustaches. I used to carry round a sign with Bush == Hitler, but to do it to Obama? Sacrilege.

Re:Deadline (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725772)

I think it's disgusting to do that to any American President.

It has nothing to do with the "sanctity" of the office, but the fact that no American President comes even close to the atrocities that Hitler inflicted on other people. It's a bad analogy, one which indicates a ignorance at best and an outright denial of facts at worst.

Re:Deadline (4, Interesting)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725970)

I would argue that Jackson comes close. I think it's shameful that he's on the US $20.

-Peter

Re:Deadline (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33726074)

True...the motivation and scale was different, but the ultimate result was fairly close in message.

Re:Deadline (1, Offtopic)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725886)

(Score:5, Insightful) - I used to carry round a sign with Bush == Hitler, but to do it to Obama? Sacrilege.

This is too funny. I was being sarcastic and yet the mods appear to agree comparing Bush to Hitler is acceptable.

Re:Deadline (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725926)

The problem seems to be, in my eyes, that the shoe just... keeps on fitting.

BO is a huge improvement over bush. Of course, thats kind of like your doctor saying "good news, it turns out its just lupus".

What I find is that, a lot of people talk about the issues where democrats and republicans differ. Frankly, its the vast majority of issues where they agree that scares the bejesus out of me. Neither side has any problem with courts accepting "oh national security" as a lame ass blanket excuse to remove ANY issue that they want. (god forbid the truth be known! Our reputation is clearly more important than truth and justice!)

Neither side really cares about personal privacy or liberty, or even truth. We have a government full of guys like Ray Lahood who, when a study came out showing that states which banned txting while driving had NO decrease in accidents, called the study "irresponsible". Yes, its irresponsible to challenge our assumptions and guesses about how to fix things with data that contradicts them. Quite irresponsible.

The republicans don't deserve all the blame by far.

-Steve

Re:Deadline (2, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725928)

it's not sacrilege.

it's hypocrisy.

sacrilege would be if it was a pope's hat instead of a hitler mustache.

of course, with this pope, i can understand the confusion...

Re:Deadline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725444)

You might have more luck getting your political agenda heard if you could type out a coherent post.

Good luck.

Re:Deadline (-1, Troll)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725482)

>>>I'm sure Fox News will bill it as Obama trying to take over the internet. Your IP address will have to face a death panel!

It's FAUX news - as in fake news.

I hate them.
But I love Mister Obama.
And the democrat-owned MSNBC (my favorite channel)

Re:Deadline (0, Flamebait)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725960)

I'm sure Fox News will bill it as Obama trying to take over the internet. Your IP address will have to face a death panel!

It's FAUX news - as in fake news.

I hate them.
But I love Obama.

Already Run Out (2, Insightful)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725220)

Weren't all addresses supposed to be gone by now? That's problem with doomsday predictions IPv4, warming, God, it never happens as scheduled and then people just ignore you next time you start predicting. If we were more temperate about our predictions, people wouldn't dismiss them as more of the same "sky-is-falling" crapola.

agreed (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725542)

and you see this in all sorts of problems in life, from coworker's agendas, to politicians and their bombast:

you can win attention in the short term by describing a threat in worse language than it actually is

but by doing that, you pay the longterm cost of people just not trusting what you say anymore

Re:Already Run Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725574)

Come on, if we gave up on all the conspiracy theories, what would I do with my perfectly good tinfoil hat? We're going to run out of IP's on December 21, 2012, as global warming makes the oceans rise over every coastal city in the world, and asteroid Toutatis crashes into every major city in the world, and the [pick a party] will [pick a horrendous act] to the [pick a group]!

    And all I can do is put on my trusty hat, break open a fine bottle of liquor (fine being the closest one), and start singing "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.... and I feel fine.. la la la ... la la la ..."

It doesn't matter much to me,
I'm the one with the Tardis key,
*AND* I know where it's parked.
la la la ...
la la la ...

It's the end of your world as you know it ...
and I feel fine ....
la la la ...
la la la ...

Re:Already Run Out (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725584)

You mean like how "they" always assume worst case?

Peak Oil will hit in 2005 they told us, but that year came and went. They should have used a more conservative estimate and said 2030 will be the year, instead of going with worst case. IPv4 will probably run out in 2020 +/- a year or two.

Re:Already Run Out (2, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725794)

Peak Oil will hit in 2005 they told us, but that year came and went. They should have used a more conservative estimate and said 2030 will be the year, instead of going with worst case.

Peak oil is an interesting example. You see, peak oil in the USA was in something like 1967. Mexico has been in oil production decline since 2006.

Similarly, it will be interesting to watch ipv4 addrs run out. Perhaps ARIN will run out before APNIC, or vice versa. That will be an interesting time to watch.

Re:Already Run Out (5, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725608)

To be honest the whole "addresses are running out" thing is just a way to sell IPv6 to laypeople, because "we have 4 billion addresses and over 6 billion people" is so easy to understand.

In reality it's about getting rid of the restrictions of needing network address translation, allowing devices to be accessible by one address anywhere, unifying different forms of addressing like phone numbers, IPv4 addresses, multicast/anycast addresses, etc all into one address space, making routing more efficient, making autoconfiguration more seamless, getting built-in cryptography, etc, etc, etc.
Addresses running out is, for the reasons you give and more, really not what it's about, but it is a bit heart-wrenching to see tech-savvy people say we shouldn't go for IPv6 because we're not really running out; we aren't, but we still need to go for IPv6, and if tech-savvy people don't have one mind on this issue it'll take far longer than it should.

Re:Already Run Out (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725784)

If we were more temperate about our predictions, people wouldn't dismiss them as more of the same "sky-is-falling" crapola.

In this day and age of information overload, nobody listens to you unless you make a lot of noise and say outrageous things. There's an incredibly high noise threshold to overcome.

There's no room for calm rational discussions in today's media, either. Hence the popularity of people like Glenn Beck.

Re:Already Run Out (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33726072)

Weren't all addresses supposed to be gone by now?

What will likely happen is that the price of an IPv4 address will rise (it hasn't). As it does, people holding blocks of ipv4 will release them - for example, I think HP has two Class As. Merck has a Class A. Etcetera - the main reason they hold on to them at this point is that they don't want to pay the cost of migrating to a 10.x. At some point, they will become valuable enough that these holders will move (and also Class Bs, etc.)

The price equilibrium will see-saw for a while (price rises, people release, price falls, etc.) but yes, on the far side of all that activity, we'll be at a point where we really are running low on ipv4.

That process hasn't even started yet. We're nowhere near running low on ipv4.

Re:Deadline (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725368)

He thinks the internet is filled with natty-headed hos.

Re:Deadline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725730)

As soon as the IPV4 lobby gives him a campaign contribution, he'll reverse his position.

NAT (5, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725080)

Can we at least all agree that NAT is evil, and destroys one of the nicest features of TCP/IP (and a free Internet): it creates a network of peers?

Re:NAT (1, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725134)

IPv6 still has NAT, dude. This just means we get to use it when we want it, instead of being forced into using it due to address shortages.

Re:NAT (2, Informative)

linuxgurugamer (917289) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725190)

There actually isn't any need for NAT with IPV6. Each public address will have 64000 addresses available to do the equivilent of nat'ing.

Re:NAT (3, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725224)

Yes, there still is a need for NAT if you don't like showing the world how many hosts you have behind your firewall.

Re:NAT (4, Informative)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725386)

And why would you need nat for that? Inbound scans can be blocked by the firewall on the router. Outbound traffic sniffing needs to approximate anyways either by looking at the IP's in use or how fast the ports change in NAT (PAT really). NAT has never been anything but security through obscurity over a standard firewall.

Re:NAT (2, Insightful)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725288)

Unless Comcast decides to give me more IP addresses for free just because they can, I will have a need for NAT.

Re:NAT (5, Informative)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725594)

Actually on the current 6rd deployment of comcast they are giving out more ip addresses for free. Mostly because they have to or you can't use the privacy extensions of ipv6.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725196)

It also means that the generic outside-in security that is inherent in most home networks can go away. This is good then? Here's hoping the vendors selling $30 Wifi routers leave this enabled by default.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725272)

Or they just add a firewall rule that blocks incoming SYN from the WAN interface and be done with it.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725234)

The ISPs like that NAT makes it harder to run servers. I wouldn't be surprised if, even with IPv6, the ISPs insist on only giving you a NATed connection.

Re:NAT (1)

nj_peeps (1780942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725344)

They do?? Every ISP I ever had the dis-pleasure of paying always gave me a public IP, that i could ping, ssh, etc. to.

Re:NAT (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725426)

but how many people and small business what all printers / desktops and more on the internet with any one can just type in and get to with no need for port forwarding or other stuff like it?

also will when AT&T and comcast even have IPv6? will they give you more then 1 ip other ipv6? this is the same comcast that wants $8 or more per tv to rent there box.

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725300)

IPv6 still has NAT, dude. This just means we get to use it when we want it, instead of being forced into using it due to address shortages.

Amen to that! NAT is an evil being forced on networks since the beginning of commercial internet - no home user could get a /28 or /24 IPv4 address. Now, home networks finally get a full /64 with a secondary /64 for PPP connection. Even a small ISP can easily get a /48 allowing for to 65k customers. With a /32, ISPs can easily have 4 *billion* access points, and they are only using 1-IPv4-equivalent of the address space.

NAT is a stupid hack, breaking protocols from Torrent, to FTP to SIP to simple UDP/TCP servers. NAT is not a security device, yet there are people that somehow believe it is. But then I guess going deaf can be considered a security vs. profanity too.

Re:NAT (1)

Beetjebrak (545819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725354)

I'm already on IPv6 at home through sixxs.net. They (or actually SurfNet.nl) gave me a /48 all to myself. I can now give unique addresses to my mediacenter, my 2 notebooks, the lady's 2 notebooks and the SGI O2 that's purring peacefully in the corner. Now what to do with the zillion addresses I have left?

Re:NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725358)

You can do NAT on it. Last I heard iptables didn't support it, but in princible, it can be done. Just not been demanded enough to write the code.

The only situation in which you might actually need NAT is if your ISP is deliberatly limiting you to one IP for business reasons - eg, to prevent a business from using a cheaper residential connection, or discourage connection-shareing. It is still a potentially useful security tool though, as it can obscure your network specs from outside attackers. In some configurations (If you use auto-config) the IPv6 address will reveal the endpoint MAC address, so this can be quite important. If you know the MAC, you can identify a router's manufacturer, even model sometimes.

Re:NAT (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725398)

There are many situations that will still require NAT on IPv6. It won't go away.

Re:NAT (1)

Beetjebrak (545819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725442)

Require NAT? As in *REQUIRE* and be the absolutely non-optional best-if-not-only way to do something? Would you mind naming a few of such scenarios?

Re:NAT (2, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725666)

Require NAT? As in *REQUIRE* and be the absolutely non-optional best-if-not-only way to do something? Would you mind naming a few of such scenarios?

Amongst the clueless, the answer usually revolves around "statefull firewalls can only be implemented by using NAT" or often some variety of security thru obscurity.

Amongst the clueful, the answer usually revolves around mobile vehicles with substantial LANs that want to talk to numerous fixed station networks, don't want to talk BGP, and don't want to do the proxy server thing. Another clueful application, although in my opinion generally misguided, is some pretty strange cluster based load balancing designs, although if it makes you feel better you can call your NAT box a "load balancer" instead of a NAT box, they are trying to do their load balancing directly at layer 3 instead of a proxy layer 7 solution or a DNS solution.

Re:NAT (2, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725440)

Eventually, every network gets subdivided at some piece of equipment, be it a transparent bridge or router somewhere. The idea of being a "peer" is an imaginary one really - other than boxes plugged into the exact same switch or router on the same subnet, you're doing a network traversal somewhere. NAT makes this traversal more explicit, perhaps, but evil?

Hell, if you really want other "peers", there's all kinds of VPN stuff you can do that will effectively give you the same thing.

Monthly reminder (4, Funny)

slaxative (1867220) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725114)

Coming up next ... our monthly reminder of ipv4's demise. How many stories can you guys come up with that basically dance around the same issue? We know its happening, now we're just waiting for everyone to catch up and get compliant.

IPv4 will probably outlast IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725194)

I wouldn't doubt that IPv4 fails to run out of addresses before IPv6 is superceded.

Re:IPv4 will probably outlast IPv6 (1)

LiquidLink57 (1864484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725294)

I might not fail to take the opposite a short amount of time to not quite understand your non-lack of negatives.

What's IPv6? Who's Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725198)

As an average slashdothead, I am above the curveball, but who is ipv6 and what is obama? These should be explained before?

Re:What's IPv6? Who's Obama? (3, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725548)

IPv6 is Microsoft's latest internet operating system, which isn't selling well because Google doesn't like it.

Obama is the infamous terrorist hiding in Afghanistan, who may or may not have been born in America, but is our President, unless you're a republican.

Re:What's IPv6? Who's Obama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725998)

Are you high?

Cool, I can't wait... (4, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725252)

Gee, I hope while they are at it, they can make sure they can track all the content, every citizen and device that get's "plugged" into the internet.

Hopefully, they are bringing in the vast collective knowledge of the **IA's to ensure that the rest of the world is represented as well.

Re:Cool, I can't wait... (2, Interesting)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725458)

Interesting point... getting rid of nat is going to put a lot of machines out on the internet that are currently hiding behind NAT. Once that's done all those NSA backdoors are now available where before there was no route to host... Before they had to own the NAT device, then the machine. Not as though that's a problem for them, its just an inconvenience.

Re:Cool, I can't wait... (1)

nj_peeps (1780942) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725528)

Umm... isn't that what they make firewalls for? To block any unwanted incoming/outgoing traffic? (unless of course the firewall it's self has a backdoor, in which point it would be pointless to use it in the first place)

Re:Cool, I can't wait... (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33726048)

Consider that today if anyone owns our NAT devices, it's China. If there are any hidden backdoors on them, they're Chinese. Or did you think that the electronics inside that slick, cheap plastic box were US made? Last I heard, the most common commodity router gut-maker was Xyxel, a Chinese company. Makes you wonder how often the NSA goes to Best Buy, gets a NAT box, and reverse-engineers it, just to see what's really happening inside. Then it makes you wonder about the idea of pre-owning only a fraction of the NAT boxes, to reduce risks of forementioned checking.

Classmates.com and such (0, Troll)

broKenfoLd (755627) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725324)

Get rid of the crap services out there and recover those IP's.

Why do websites span over multiple domains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725820)

I've seen unnecessary domain registries and IP addressing expand across the networks that I think this is the case for waste. Consider the fact that AOL and Yahoo and others will have their primary websites with a subdomain here and there yet then they require you to allow 3rd-party interaction with something like AOLCDN or whatnot. It's as though that they own the domains, but introduce theirselves as a 3rd-party in addition to having context on the webpage in their original domain. From a security standpoint, this is ruckus in any other way than to simply direct the client to process data on it's own through the available network bandwidth through the client whereas these domains should be implementing a Peer backend network that didn't go through the public networks. The entire matter proves that this inefficieny is most-likely the cause of the government needing these intricate redundant webs just so they can properly filter all the data as a 2nd-party to the data allocation schemes rather than just allow these websites to go line-of-sight in a more reasonable and efficient topology.

Indeed, this is many proofs that the government has always been maintaining a tiered "Internet" that is slowly etching deeper boarders to define the difference between their unregulated network of the government and the overregulated network of the people both of which payed-for by the people but depriving the people their rights to use either. Notice that I haven't even covered Virtual Private Networks yet, and that's probably one of many reasons why the government requires so-much eavesropping because in theory it simply can't coexist with other private regulation becuase itself is in-fact a private person like all the other privateers that don't have "Government" in their legal name.

Again? (1)

xipxero (1910958) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725364)

"Some observers are hoping the Obama Administration will use the workshop to issue a deadline or all federal agencies to support IPv6 on their public-facing Web sites." Wait, didn't we try this before?

Re:Again? (2, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725502)

The Obama Administration plans to increase the amount of Hope and Change budgeted for federal agencies in the hope that it will spur IPv6 adoption.

High-profile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725388)

"We have high-profile executives working on IPv6 now."

"Who?"

"High... profile,,, executives."

that only took (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725416)

ten years? don't you love governments: moving at their own speed even while the world races ahead of them.

part of me is surprised that they haven't explicitly prevented agencies from getting too far ahead of the curve.

guess all that ipv6 compatible equipment will finally come in handy!

Always something (0, Troll)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725438)

- First they obsoleted my VCR so I got a DVR.

- Then they turned-off analog broadcast, so the DVR was obsoleted too.

- Now I have to upgrade my browser to get IPv6 (whatever that is).

- Next I guess somebody will tell me the New Internet Explorer doesn't work on my XP netbook, or that I have to upgrade my radio to Digital Audio Broadcast

Why not go mobile IPv6? (1, Flamebait)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725450)

If I was in the US Government I would lean on mobile vendors like Apple, Google, AT&T, etc to ONLY support IPv6 for mobile devices (e.g. Android, iPhone, etc). That way you start to carve out a real consumer base with IPv6. If web-sites want to get iPhone users to their service they better support IPv6 ASAP.

Microsoft already has strong IPv6 support in Windows as does Linux. So there is no reason why ISPs couldn't switch over at any time but the issue is a chicken and egg problem with it being expensive and no consumers caring.

Re:Why not go mobile IPv6? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725696)

Quick solution: Facebook to be ipv6 only.
*tongue in cheek*

Re:Why not go mobile IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725770)

"there is no reason why ISPs couldn't switch over at any time but the issue is a chicken and egg problem with it being expensive and no consumers caring"

well, technically there's nothing stopping IPv6 support, but there are load balancers that need to to ipv6 to ipv4 translation properly. For protocols like IMAP, SMTP and POP, there is no standard yet.

The main issue is dealing with client address tracking for abuse prevention, authentication, and logging -- all of these are not something you can just configure on a router and let-it-rip.

It will take focused effort to get a good ipv6 system up and running -- over the next year, it will start happening...

Re:Why not go mobile IPv6? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725850)

Carrier support comes first. Making AT&T, Verizon do it will force phone/OS manufacturers (Apple, Google, etc.) to implement it on their OSes. It won't work the other way around. In either case, apparently Verizon is requiring IPv6 for LTE devices [networkworld.com].

The Routing Tables! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725550)

Won't someone think of the routing tables!

"Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue" (1, Troll)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33725554)

Not bloody likely. There's little chance that he has the foggiest notion what an IP number is (well, he may have a foggy notion, but it is almost certainly wrong).

Re:"Obama Highlights IPv6 Issue" (2, Insightful)

j h woodyatt (13108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33726018)

The original article actually points out the real problem that the headline misrepresents. The real problem is that the Obama administration is almost comically clueless about Internet engineering issues related to governance.

stuff that really matters unhighlighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33725744)

the search continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation

google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+blair+obama+weather+authors

meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati (who believe thar we came from monkeys, & they ?didn't?) is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck (while sucking DOWn/destroying/wasting immeasurable amounts of stuff/other people's lives, while telling us (monkeys) to tighten our belts/learn to go hungry etc...). if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...