![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The section on DNS has been moved to the "IPv6 address" topic. It might be good to note this here, or maybe even have a redirect for "IPv6 DNS" to the "IPv6 Address" topic. Currently, it is easy to miss where this section went to. Artiseamer ( talk) 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worth listing some of the implementations of transition technologies on the page? For example Miredo ( http://www.remlab.net/miredo/ ) is an open source implementation of Microsoft's Teredo specification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmas ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 June 2007
It is not currently mentioned how many IPv6 addresses are allocated per a converted IPv4 address. I know this is a trivial matter, but as such it is worth a trivial mention. I'd calculate it out myself from the draft data, but my brain is foggy today, so if an expert could append in a line with the exact number, not counting the standard ipv6 broadcast addresses (for which you would say plus the reserved addresses for broadcast.) I'm sorry I couldn't do it myself, and just put up a request. Robert Wm "Ruedii" ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggest removing the fault injection section. Jec ( talk) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is way too verbose for this article. I'm hesitating between making a radical summary of it (as in two or three paragraphs at most) or removing it altogether. Jec ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Reference [30] on ipv6 page, namely, http://www.linux-ipv6.org/stable-6-ann.html, incorrectly purports to suggest that Linux in 1996 had alpha quality IPv6. This is not backed by any data, implicit or explicit as evidenced from Reference [30]. Consequently, i'd like to suggest deleting the row entry as it serves no factual purpose other than to create a false impression that Linux was the first to have ip6 stack. Saifikhan ( talk) 05:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just reading this paragraph-
"Most equipment would be fully IPv6 capable with a software/firmware update if the device has sufficient code and data space to support the additional protocol stack. However, as with 64-bit Windows and Wi-Fi Protected Access support, manufacturers are likely to try to save on development costs for hardware which they no longer sell, and to try to get more sales from new "IPv6-ready" equipment. Even when chipset makers develop new drivers for their chipsets, device manufacturers might not pass these on to the consumers. Moreover, as IPv6 gets implemented, optional features might become important, such as IPv6 mobile."
I don't believe it; not because of my personal standpoint, but because 60% of this is neither true nor likely.
Firstly, commercial manufactures never have and never will make any attempt to reduce costs by implementing new standards without overwhelming incentives. Secondly, two thirds or more of the paragraph is in the conditional tense and the subject is nit hypothetical. IPv6 is a reality both tested and proven. 126.244.149.73 ( talk) 14:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Should this be added. See, for example. http://gerald-duck.livejournal.com/507801.html
looking for some business prospectives of ipv6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.139.210 ( talk) 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The following statement, "Unlike mobile IPv4, mobile IPv6 avoids triangular routing and is therefore as efficient as native IPv6", is so authoritative that it's requoted in the Mobile IPv6 page, sourced here, but (according to other Wikipedia pages) it's not actually true - mobile IPv6 connections are from external point -> home -> mobile connection (a triangular route) with a return as mobile connection -> external point (not triangular). So, if that's true, they avoid *some* triangular routing and they're clearly not as efficient as a normal connection. I'd prefer an expert agreed with this before changing the article, however, I'm just observing issues of consistency here. -- 64.103.25.233 ( talk) 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
n/t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.5.37 ( talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What happens if an existing address is intentionally duplicated by some other device? Let's say an attacker pings all the hosts of a target, and then assigns those same addresses to their own devices. How do the routers know which one is the real address?
There needs to be a section discussing these security issues and how they compare to IPv4. DMahalko ( talk) 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"IPv6 is an Internet Layer protocol for packet-switched internetworking and provides an unreliable end-to-end datagram delivery service."
Really do think this is supposed to be "reliable end-to-end datagram delivery service." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.16 ( talk) 12:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The section on DNS has been moved to the "IPv6 address" topic. It might be good to note this here, or maybe even have a redirect for "IPv6 DNS" to the "IPv6 Address" topic. Currently, it is easy to miss where this section went to. Artiseamer ( talk) 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be worth listing some of the implementations of transition technologies on the page? For example Miredo ( http://www.remlab.net/miredo/ ) is an open source implementation of Microsoft's Teredo specification.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmas ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 June 2007
It is not currently mentioned how many IPv6 addresses are allocated per a converted IPv4 address. I know this is a trivial matter, but as such it is worth a trivial mention. I'd calculate it out myself from the draft data, but my brain is foggy today, so if an expert could append in a line with the exact number, not counting the standard ipv6 broadcast addresses (for which you would say plus the reserved addresses for broadcast.) I'm sorry I couldn't do it myself, and just put up a request. Robert Wm "Ruedii" ( talk) 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggest removing the fault injection section. Jec ( talk) 05:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This section is way too verbose for this article. I'm hesitating between making a radical summary of it (as in two or three paragraphs at most) or removing it altogether. Jec ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Reference [30] on ipv6 page, namely, http://www.linux-ipv6.org/stable-6-ann.html, incorrectly purports to suggest that Linux in 1996 had alpha quality IPv6. This is not backed by any data, implicit or explicit as evidenced from Reference [30]. Consequently, i'd like to suggest deleting the row entry as it serves no factual purpose other than to create a false impression that Linux was the first to have ip6 stack. Saifikhan ( talk) 05:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just reading this paragraph-
"Most equipment would be fully IPv6 capable with a software/firmware update if the device has sufficient code and data space to support the additional protocol stack. However, as with 64-bit Windows and Wi-Fi Protected Access support, manufacturers are likely to try to save on development costs for hardware which they no longer sell, and to try to get more sales from new "IPv6-ready" equipment. Even when chipset makers develop new drivers for their chipsets, device manufacturers might not pass these on to the consumers. Moreover, as IPv6 gets implemented, optional features might become important, such as IPv6 mobile."
I don't believe it; not because of my personal standpoint, but because 60% of this is neither true nor likely.
Firstly, commercial manufactures never have and never will make any attempt to reduce costs by implementing new standards without overwhelming incentives. Secondly, two thirds or more of the paragraph is in the conditional tense and the subject is nit hypothetical. IPv6 is a reality both tested and proven. 126.244.149.73 ( talk) 14:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Should this be added. See, for example. http://gerald-duck.livejournal.com/507801.html
looking for some business prospectives of ipv6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.139.210 ( talk) 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The following statement, "Unlike mobile IPv4, mobile IPv6 avoids triangular routing and is therefore as efficient as native IPv6", is so authoritative that it's requoted in the Mobile IPv6 page, sourced here, but (according to other Wikipedia pages) it's not actually true - mobile IPv6 connections are from external point -> home -> mobile connection (a triangular route) with a return as mobile connection -> external point (not triangular). So, if that's true, they avoid *some* triangular routing and they're clearly not as efficient as a normal connection. I'd prefer an expert agreed with this before changing the article, however, I'm just observing issues of consistency here. -- 64.103.25.233 ( talk) 10:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
n/t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.5.37 ( talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What happens if an existing address is intentionally duplicated by some other device? Let's say an attacker pings all the hosts of a target, and then assigns those same addresses to their own devices. How do the routers know which one is the real address?
There needs to be a section discussing these security issues and how they compare to IPv4. DMahalko ( talk) 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"IPv6 is an Internet Layer protocol for packet-switched internetworking and provides an unreliable end-to-end datagram delivery service."
Really do think this is supposed to be "reliable end-to-end datagram delivery service." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.16 ( talk) 12:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)