Google IPv6 Conference 2008: What will the IPv6 Internet look like?

[yoududeuser]

People will not say, "I want IPv6" for any reason. They will however say, "I need IPv6 because I want XYZ". This is the key to adoption whether it is because of an address shortage or a new application or faster service for something.

[MrShow9999]

It sounds nice when you hear these words of enlightened people but as you know all stuff has it`s good and bad sides, so good sides are that they are prsenting to us and bad sides are that they are using for they own. Please say to me what do you think

[bluecatvideo]

IPv6 is Here!

[CaptainDuke71]

great mind screw

[dgeoffri]

This horrible mind-virus of starting a sentence with the word "So, " with no connection to anything prior (I've heard entire lectures begin with this word) can not possibly die a quick enough death. I like watching intelligent discussions but I cringe every time I hear someone do that.

Aside from that, some interesting points and questions are raised here. I can't wait for IPv6 to be available natively from my ISP.

[roverr1]

Correct.

[bzenns]

That was some cleverly collaborated farce-menship I have ever seen in a while.

2 thumbs up!

;)

[dmmkrk]

and the answer is: run ipv4 and ipv6 side by side - ipv6 for devices that need end-to-end connectivity and ipv4 for everything else. oh - and stop this bs about NAT breaking things - it works great. a bunch of used car salesmen.

[revellionalt]

so NAT nicely allows lets say App A on a host at site A behind NAT to reach a host also behind NAT on Site B running App A to connect to each other directly without any extra middle-hands or fuzz?, please enlighten me.

[DarrenRBaker]

What's happened is strange - the limitation you mention has somehow evolved into a security 'feature' for many organizations, and the idea of being directly connected to the 'net without that virtual condom is really frightening to them.

[revellionalt]

yeah true. but if you told em that their NAT is not the security part at all (which is the truth).

and just the fact there's state-tracking involved. then they could see that NAT itself ain't what is securing their network from unsolicited traffic.

but the fact the gateway device itself tracks the connections and only allows established and known conversations only.

The sooner people are educated that NAT is not security the better.

[suicidalfish]

NAT blocks certain payloads within an IP data packet, and with talks of transition mechanisms, IPv6 is the payload of IPV4 therefore NAT will not allow that traffic. I agree with revellioant that people need to be educated that NAT is not a security feature, purely an invention to breathe new life into a dying v4, allowing private addresses to access the world through one public address.

[SimonEiri]

Excellent little panel. It's refreshing to see a company putting problems and engineering first. With everyone working on the problem, more progress can be made, faster.