IPv10
-
Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Split the internet into 4 seperate internets, 1 would be just porn etc, another would be worthless internet stuff, another would be the rest of the worthless stuff, and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network :) Matt Newman
...armed with what? spitballs!? - Zell Miller
-
IPv6 has been around and implemeted for years on many Unix platforms. As usual, the rest of the world is waiting for MS to catch up. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Yes, even I am blogging now!
It'll be a loooong way away. Besides, just as in IPv4 we'll make the limit stretch even further with private IPs and subnets. Jeremy Falcon
-
Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Their implement was years after everyone else. Also, it has been buggy. Jeremy Falcon
-
I couldn't see anything when poking around with Ethereal 0.10.5a. What were you doing when you saw these packets? Having said that, the only way to send such packets would be to use the RAW socket functionality, which is only available to administrators, or to add a new driver to the stack. Have you checked for spyware? Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote: What were you doing when you saw these packets? That's what I was going to ask - and how - packet sniffer?
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Split the internet into 4 seperate internets, 1 would be just porn etc, another would be worthless internet stuff, another would be the rest of the worthless stuff, and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network :) Matt Newman
...armed with what? spitballs!? - Zell Miller
Matt Newman wrote: and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network Nice! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
This demographic will quite happily click on shiny things however:laugh:
Found on Bash.org [erno] hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Split the internet into 4 seperate internets, 1 would be just porn etc, another would be worthless internet stuff, another would be the rest of the worthless stuff, and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network :) Matt Newman
...armed with what? spitballs!? - Zell Miller
Matt Newman wrote: Split the internet into 4 seperate internets, 1 would be just porn etc, another would be worthless internet stuff, another would be the rest of the worthless stuff, and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network Telephone sanitizers and middle men right? David
-
Yes, but what will we do when we reach the 281,474,976,710,656 (256^6) IPv6 addresses limit? Yes, even I am blogging now!
Ahem. The IPv6 address space is only 128 bits. :) -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
Their implement was years after everyone else. Also, it has been buggy. Jeremy Falcon
I think their wait was a smart choice. IPv6 by itself is useless. The true potential of IPv6 comes with better transport protocols which can deliver proper QoS. Why spend money on something that won't be useful for a long while? The reason why it was first made on Unix is that most researchers have open access to the source code... :) -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
I couldn't see anything when poking around with Ethereal 0.10.5a. What were you doing when you saw these packets? Having said that, the only way to send such packets would be to use the RAW socket functionality, which is only available to administrators, or to add a new driver to the stack. Have you checked for spyware? Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
I write software that manages networks. I was collecting packets in order to diagnose a problem I was experiencing while displaying data. While analysing the packets using Sniffer I came across a packet that was signed as IPv10. It was sent from microsoft to my machine (sorry I can not tell you which messenger site as I am home now and the packets are at work.) The only recent change that I made was to enable IPv6 on my WinXP Pro machine. I wonder if this is something to do with it. Note: I have MSN Messenger running most of the time. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain) -
Yes that is right. Although IPv6, IPv7, IPv8 and IPv9 were all proposed before they settled with IPv6. :-D Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain) -
Mike Dimmick wrote: What were you doing when you saw these packets? That's what I was going to ask - and how - packet sniffer?
See reply to Mike Dimmick's message Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain) -
I think their wait was a smart choice. IPv6 by itself is useless. The true potential of IPv6 comes with better transport protocols which can deliver proper QoS. Why spend money on something that won't be useful for a long while? The reason why it was first made on Unix is that most researchers have open access to the source code... :) -- Arigato gozaimashita!
-
I write software that manages networks. I was collecting packets in order to diagnose a problem I was experiencing while displaying data. While analysing the packets using Sniffer I came across a packet that was signed as IPv10. It was sent from microsoft to my machine (sorry I can not tell you which messenger site as I am home now and the packets are at work.) The only recent change that I made was to enable IPv6 on my WinXP Pro machine. I wonder if this is something to do with it. Note: I have MSN Messenger running most of the time. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain)The only recent change that I made was to enable IPv6 on my WinXP Pro machine. I wonder if this is something to do with it. Hrm... IPv4 + IPv6 would be IPv10, wouldn't it? Perhaps this indicates that the given packet is an IPv6 packet being tunneled through an IPv4 packet, or vice versa? -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
The only recent change that I made was to enable IPv6 on my WinXP Pro machine. I wonder if this is something to do with it. Hrm... IPv4 + IPv6 would be IPv10, wouldn't it? Perhaps this indicates that the given packet is an IPv6 packet being tunneled through an IPv4 packet, or vice versa? -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: Hrm... IPv4 + IPv6 would be IPv10, wouldn't it? :-D I like your reasoning, nice theory. Although (generally) the packet headers are IPv4 when tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain) -
Matt Newman wrote: Split the internet into 4 seperate internets, 1 would be just porn etc, another would be worthless internet stuff, another would be the rest of the worthless stuff, and then the useful internet could probably fit within IPv2 network Telephone sanitizers and middle men right? David
As you're making HHGTTG references, you may want to look at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4[^] on thursday night at 11pm (UK). The are repeating the first episode of HHGTTG:2 from tuesday night. Iain.
-
OK, I know I may be flamed here but I was curious. I have been looking at some decoded packets and noticed a few were stamped with IP v10. Further investigation showed that they were from Microsoft (MSN Messenger in fact). I have tried to find information on IPv10. Has anyone seen anything about this or can anyone point me at some relevent articles. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain)interesting.... was it just one packet or you could capture bunch of them? did you see them again and again. can you give some detail? ankita
-
Why spend money on something that won't be useful for a long while? Why does MSDN Magazine come to mind...? :-D An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
So that's one vote for the Raymond Chen camp? Charlie if(!curlies){ return; }
-
interesting.... was it just one packet or you could capture bunch of them? did you see them again and again. can you give some detail? ankita
Further investigation into this I am come to the conclusion that there was some sort of corruption of this particular packet. Basically what I had was a single packet (multicast) that I noticed was stamped IPv10, there may have been more though I didn't go looking for them. i.e. After the ethertype 08 00, is the IP header We had A8 Therfore it thought the packet was version 10, with a length of 32 bytes (4 * 8) I have just seen that the header checksum is incorrect and therefore I suspect the header at least is corrupt. Ant. I'm hard, yet soft.
I'm coloured, yet clear.
I'm fruity and sweet.
I'm jelly, what am I? Muse on it further, I shall return! - David Williams (Little Britain)