Talk:IPv6

docsis and IP6

This article implies that all DOCSIS 3 modems are also IPv6 compliant. But, that's not true

Do you have a source?Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear from an expert, but:

http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-MULPIv3.0-I16-110623.pdf

appears to imply that IPv6 support is a basic part of the DOCSIS 3.0 standard. OTOH, it quite explicit that the ISP is *not* required enable it (see section 5.2.5.1, for example). Rwessel (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This mildly annoyed me before as well, but it seems to be worded more neutrally now. Rwessel is quite correct, DOCSIS 3.0 does have IPv6 has part of the standard...but it's entirely dependent on the ISP supporting that! (From a somewhat-expert; I *am* the IPv6 documentation prefix, after all!) I edited the section to note most DOCSIS providers don't actually support IPv6, but I don't have a a verifiable source, so feel free to remove that... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 HIstory

The history section needs to have more from RFC 1752.

I have edited documentation on this page

Sincerely, IPv6 documentation prefix. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Refactored deployment section

i am working on the deployment section to make sure it is a summary of the deployment page.--TheAnarcat (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

done. --TheAnarcat (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Shorter intro, please

The intro (before the TOC) is too long, I think -- it's about half a screen right now. It's four paragraphs

• short intro and explanation of what the Internet does
• IPv4 address exhaustion and why/how IPv6 solves it
• IPv6 features not in IPv4
• IPv4 address exhaustion (again); lack of IPv6 penetration because ...

I bet most of it should go in the sections below, and most likely it's all already there. How about just saying (in other words)

• what it means to be an internet protocol
• that it was designed, starting in the early 1990s, to replace IPv4 (which is what we use now)
• that one of its killer features is more addresses, the scarcity of which is a major problem today
• but that it hasn't succeeded yet

JöG (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great outline. The current intro strikes me as too technical for a general audience, particularly the way it depends on already knowing IPv4, and the way the background information isn't written from the perspective of the topic (e.g. "Each host or computer on the Internet requires an IP address in order to communicate."). However I think I'd keep a summary of the other new features in IPv6 (apart from having more addresses). --Pnm (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Use this if you want to. I kinda consider it WIP, and will probably come back to it if I have time.

Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is the next version of IP addresses that will increase the available address space, and will also enable numerous security, privacy, and mobility features lacking in the current Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4).

Internet Protocols such as IPv6 are rules that allow different computers and devices to communicate across computer networks, such as the Internet. Each computer or device needs an "IP address" in order to send or recieve "packets" of information to another computer, and the world is beginning to reach the end of available IP addresses in IPv4. IPv6 was concieved and began development in the early 1990's to replace IPv4 because of the foreseen end of available address space.

The reason IPv6 has not yet been made the defacto standard of the Internet is due to a combination of expense upgrading end-user equipment, and because until recently, most computers did not have software for IPv6 installed.

-Nameless (talk) 6:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That one is a little too flattering of IPv6, per WP:NPOV, even though I whole-heartedly agree with what it says.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd really just like to see a shorter lede. I copyedited a bit, but then read this, re-read the lede, and realized that it's pretty useless if you don't have much knowledge of the subject. I guess the lede itself should try to specify that IPv6 is *mainly* about (as far as the real world goes) allocating more addresses... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 11:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I edited the lede and put all but the first paragraph into an Introduction section.--agr (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And now extend the lead as per WP:LEAD. ;) Nageh (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Power in Numbers: China Aims for High-Tech Primacy by DAVID BARBOZA and JOHN MARKOFF published New York Times December 5, 2011; excerpt ...

They show maps of China and the world, pinpointing China’s IPv6 links, the next generation of the Internet. China already has almost twice the number of Internet users as in the United States, and Dr. Wu, a computer scientist and director of the Chinese Educational and Research Network, points out that his nation is moving more quickly than any other in the world to deploy the new protocol. IPv6 — Internet Protocol version 6 — offers advanced security and privacy options, but more important, many more I.P. addresses, whose supply on the present Internet (IPv4) is almost exhausted. “China must move to IPv6,” Dr. Wu said. “In the U.S., some people don’t believe it’s urgent, but we believe it’s urgent.”

141.218.36.43 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section is completely incoherent and unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.42.150 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Table with exact number of possible addresses

I added the following table to show the difference in a more visual manner:

IP Version	Number of Possible Addresses
IPv4	232	4,294,967,296
IPv6	2128	340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

Jasper Deng undid the revision stating that "2 or 3 significant figures and the orders of magnitude (here 34 versus 9) are enough". However, I think it provides a good visual representation of the difference between the numbers, and therefore should be included, especially since the exact values are not provided anywhere in the article's text. 71.199.54.157 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

People aren't as impressed by numbers as things like the fact that this would be like 1.7 times the # of carbon atoms in a 50m cube of diamond, or that the DoD's allocation (/13)'s addresses would be more than two hundred million times the radius of the solar system if each address were turned into a penny.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with impressing anybody, and everything to do with representation in a way most people can easily understand. In fact, your comparisons don't impress me at all, because they mean nothing to me. —Darxus (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added a very similar table, before looking over this discussion. And yes, "2 or 3 significant figures and the orders of magnitude (here 34 versus 9) are enough" - if you just want to sufficiently accurately convey the size of the address space. But not if you want to actually represent the size in a way that most people will instantly grasp. —Darxus (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And besides, many addresses in both spaces have no practical unicast use (the one most care about) (127.0.0.0/8, ff00::/8, etc.), so it's not most accurate.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Very true, that subject has certainly been thoroughly glazed over in this article, and I would be in favor of clarifying it. But I don't think that's a reason to remove the long form of the size of the address spaces. 75.68.127.94 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think the exact (FSVO "exact") numbers add much value, I'm not really particularly opposed to them being there. *But*, let's at least format the darn things decently? If we're going to have a table, use the one above, instead of the one now in the article. Rwessel (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the table. If someone really wants it back in there, let's use the rather more nicely formatted one at the top of this section. Rwessel (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommended address format

I added RFC 5952's Section 4 recommendations for proper address formatting, and Jasper Deng reverted the edit saying "These are not mandatory".

I think it's important to include the recommended guidelines for writing the addresses, especially since there are so many different ways to format an IPv6 address. If it's just the wording you disagree with ("rules", "MUST", etc), it would be much more productive to simply change the wording rather than revert the entire edit. Naff89 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I support Jasper Deng's removal on an additional ground: a canonical representation is irrelevant to this article. The protocol is going to use the expanded address, so which abbreviation was used to supply the ultimate address does not matter to the suite. A canonical representation may be important elsewhere, but I don't see it here. Why should this article devote a lot of attention to writing canonical address abbreviations? Glrx (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and on further investigation the recommendations are already well integrated into the 'IPv6 Address' page. I just know it's gonna bug the crap out of me when people start formatting their addresses stupidly ;) Naff89 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Undecillion

Removed 'Undecillion' from the introductory section: "an address space of 2128 (approximately 340 undecillion or 3.4×1038) addresses." Using "Undecillion" and other obscure number-words adds nothing to the understanding of the article: exponential notation is sufficient and appropriate. 169.234.46.39 (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)