IPv8

[Godly Soup]

I'm surprised I didn't see anything about this. Or maybe just doing a search for "ipv8" doesn't find everything... Anyway.

My instructor here at college has been telling us about the Chinese conversion from IPv6 into IPv8. He's worried that if China converts before the U.S., it could become the world's greatest anonymizer. Therefore, the U.S. might lose control of the world's information.

IPv8 is suppose to be that each and every machine out there will have it's own static IP address. Now, that would be a good thing for the U.S. anyway right? If each machine here had it's own IP address and could be traced quite easily?

He told us that most politicians aren't even aware of this either. I think that would scare a lot of nationalists out there...

[nihil]

OK, I didn't attend the lecture so I am probably missing some of the logic?

IPv8 is suppose to be that each and every machine out there will have it's own static IP address.

I don't see that. At the moment you connect to an ISP who assigns you an IP address. They keep logs which can be subpoened. They can trace which customer contacted them and so on.

If you assign the IP addy to the user's machine, how many nanoseconds before the criminal element figure out how to re-chip a box and spoof the IP addy................ for real this time. Having the ISP as a middleman actually introduces some control as I currently see it.

It still won't prove who was using the machine anyway.

Now, that would be a good thing for the U.S. anyway right? If each machine here had it's own IP address and could be traced quite easily?

How would you trace it? Like with a cash bought throw away cellphone?

Like yourself, I would like to know more.

[SirDice]

Therefore, the U.S. might lose control of the world's information.

And this would be bad? Frankly, I don't like the US controlling the worlds information.

[kingkong]

All over even i agree with the point of "SirDice"

Originally Posted by Godly Soup
Therefore, the U.S. might lose control of the world's information.

And this would be bad? Frankly, I don't like the US controlling the worlds information.

as china comes in the market its good as the china is the cheapest and fastest..

Regards
KK

[Alec Empire]

And this would be bad? Frankly, I don't like the US controlling the worlds information.

The united states government doesn't "control the worlds information". Companys like Viacom have a grip over that.

The most the goverment still has a play at things these days is ICANN. DNS namespace has been given to developeing nations and even islands, yes... ISLANDS!! But the United Nations still wants control over it. And China has always been trying to section itself off as a fully separate network from the internet complete with its own network standards.

[Nokia]

Do you mean IPv4 to IPv6..... To my knowledge IPv8 was proposed in the late 1990's and early 2000's and even IPv16 as a successor to IPv4, however IPv6 won the standard and is about to be implemented immanently in places like China and parts of Asia - the driving force to switch from v4 is coming from here due to them literally having a few thousand IPv4 addresses left.

Internal networks, whether they be at home or in an office can stay with IPv4 for as long as they please if they invest in a IPv4 to IPv6 NAT router - most ISP's are running IPv6 concurrently with IPv4 right now and will start to switch over within the next three years.

[SirDice]

Internal networks, whether they be at home or in an office can stay with IPv4 for as long as they please if they invest in a IPv4 to IPv6 NAT router - most ISP's are running IPv6 concurrently with IPv4 right now and will start to switch over within the next three years.

My ISP already has IPv6 as an experimental service. Meaning I can play with it but don't really get support other than the ISP's forums. Having said that it's been working like a charm for well over a year now. Unfortunately there still aren't many sites that are accessible via IPv6.

[xen248]

Actually Most still use IPv4. They have not made the switch to IPv6 because of the costs involved with running two servers one that supports each. IPv6 has been out for about 10 years and yet it still isnt the standard. That saddens me.

[Nokia]

They all still use IPv4.

Every main UK ISP I know of is running IPv6 along side IPv4 - there's no extra cost from a sever point of view as additional servers are not required to use IPv6.

All main vendors have released firmware/software updates to allow both versions to co-exist - all that is required is a NAT device that will specifically translate v6 addresses to v4 and vice versa - and even this functionality can be incorporated into existing equipment.....so no extra cost anywhere really, at least at the moment.

[SirDice]

Actually Most still use IPv4. They have not made the switch to IPv6 because of the costs involved with running two servers one that supports each. IPv6 has been out for about 10 years and yet it still isnt the standard. That saddens me.

That's wrong. Apache and IIS6 can be easily configured to listen to both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses at the same time. No need for two servers. Applications really don't need to change either. All it needs is IPv6 support and it'll work just like on IPv4.