router with ipv6
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: Article about home wireless "congestion"
Next: Weekly Deals from OfficeMAX hurry sale ends January 30th
From: mikeyhsd on 29 Jan 2010 09:58 do use comcast. but for nothing but what is absolutely essential. -- mikeyhsd(a)hotmail.com "Bob" <bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Kd6dnTlrDc7wKv_WnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... On 29/01/2010 00:06, mikeyhsd wrote: > thanx, will do some further research. > > -- > > mikeyhsd(a)hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd(a)hotmail.com> > If you were a Comcast user you could get involved in their trials. <http://www.comcast6.net/>
From: Moe Trin on 29 Jan 2010 22:01 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article <2297099.paU67uLZWG(a)ale.cx>, alexd wrote: ]mikeyhsd wrote: >> keep seeing warning that IPV4 addresses are about exhausted. >It feels like there have been warnings about IPv4 exhaustion on a >monthly basis for the past ten years. Well, let's see... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space RFC3330 used to say there were 3706453504 IPv4 addresses usable (RFC5735 added two more /24 reserved ranges, and we're down to 3706452992 now). Ignoring RFC5735 address space, we have: Date Networks IPv4 addresses Percent 12/31/1982 1813 307452416 8.295 12/31/1985 1997 360680960 9.731 12/31/1990 7907 730298112 19.703 12/31/1995 44077 1374740706 37.090 12/31/2000 54938 1698877890 45.836 12/31/2005 72599 2246643418 60.614 12/31/2007 83944 2566145180 69.235 12/31/2009 99556 2986843144 80.585 01/15/2010 99798 2994785288 80.799 I suppose some might say "end of the internet in sight - films at 11". I know you're aware of RFC1918, but RFC1917 may be interesting reading. 1917 An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks (Prefixes) to the IANA. P. Nesser II. February 1996. (Format: TXT=23623 bytes) (Also BCP0004) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) Note the date. The first IPv6 addresses weren't allocated until August 1999, and even now there are only 4153 IPv6 networks world-wide. >Apparently in China, some internet users are behind many layers of >NAT, so we'll know we've hit a crunch point when ISPs are doing that >on a widespread basis in the west. I'm not sure that I'd pick on China (or India) - as both are comparatively undeveloped, but multi-layer NAT doesn't sound very likely. China didn't get the Internet until 1990, and at year end for each year, they had: 1990 1 256 2000 450 13276672 1991 2 512 2001 542 21803520 1992 7 197632 2002 599 29487616 1993 17 396288 2003 694 41646592 1994 50 517376 2004 829 60339712 1995 143 1256960 2005 968 74348032 1996 198 2966016 2006 1157 97990144 1997 240 3769856 2007 1384 135281920 1998 331 5424640 2008 1551 181776640 1999 375 7570944 2009 1695 232446464 As of 01/15/2010, that was 1700 nets and 234183168 IPv4 addresses for a population of ~1.3e9 people (about 1 address for every 5 people) while India had 695 nets and 19420928 IPv4 addresses for 1.1e9 people (about 1 address for every 57 people), compared to (examples) South Korea with 748 networks and 77822464 IPv4 addresses for about 48e6 people (~1.6 addresses per person) or the UK with 3916 nets and 74332504 IPv4 addresses for about 60.5e6 people (~1.2 addresses per person). Old guy
From: Moe Trin on 29 Jan 2010 22:12 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article <4d0c6b3d-2719-4c86-a70a-07db75c60d99(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, bod43 wrote: NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >For home DSL users IPV6 may be a long, long way away >as a matter of necessity. I suspect that the major ISPs >are already all geared up for it internally but I am not >by any means sure. I see a significant number of complaints from *nix users reporting slow browser connections. When they put a packet sniffer on the system, they see their system asking the DNS server for an 'AAAA' record (hostname to IPv6 address) and the server ignoring them. After a few seconds (up to 30), their system asks for an 'AA' record (hostname to IPv4 address) and get an almost immediate response. This is a well documented problem: 4074 Common Misbehavior Against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses. Y. Morishita, T. Jinmei. May 2005. (Format: TXT=13073 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL) and you'd think ISPs would have pulled their finger out by now... Old guy
From: John Navas on 31 Jan 2010 12:09 Please don't post in HTML. Thanks. On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:02:48 -0600, "mikeyhsd" <mikeyhsd(a)lamparty.net> wrote in <pdWdnW9O2usmuP_WnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD> > <META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = > http-equiv=3DContent-Type> > <META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.7600.16490"></HEAD> > <BODY style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: = > 15px"=20 > id=3DMailContainerBody leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 = > CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20 > name=3D"Compose message area"> > <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>anyone know of a wireless router that = > provides ipv4=20 > and ipv6 support.</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT> </DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only = > provides=20 > ipv4.</FONT></DIV> > <DIV><FONT size=3D2=20 > face=3DArial> = > &= > nbsp; &n= > bsp; &nb= > sp; &nbs= > p;  = > ; = > =20 > </FONT></DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial> > <DIV><BR>-- <BR><BR><A=20 > href=3D"mailto:mikeyhsd(a)hotmail.com">mikeyhsd(a)hotmail.com</A></DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV> </DIV> > <DIV><BR></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: John Navas on 31 Jan 2010 12:12
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600, ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin(a)compton.phx.az.us>: >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. Nonsense. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> |