<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on IPv6 early adopters cautioned ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-18T16:08:24-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[thanks]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2239596]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thanks for the info, I'm now subscribed ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2239596]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin Fielding]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 06:33:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Toredo Tunneling]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2239476]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Related to IPv6 is Toredo Tunneling.  (Google this) Hit your unit with an ipconfig /all to reveal it's presence.  Why is it there? What is it related to? How do I get rid of it? No, there is no reason for it to be there.  Does not dump with ipconfig /release. Not listed in IP Properties.  Yes, i'm very, very paranoid about this.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2239476]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Regulus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 03:01:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[IPv6 unavoidable for mobile Internet and home appliances]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2238522]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's high time to consider IPv6 seriously, because we'll need it for true Plug-n-Play appliances and for true interoperability between multiple operators from a single personal network spanning multiple Internet providers (allowing freedom of choice of the operator, or the selection of multiple operators, depending on the access technology).We'll also need it for mobile Internet (including on the road, i.e. in cars or in mobile phone).It issignificant that most IPv6 early adopters are found in Japan, due to the more advanced development of mobile Internet and the multiplication of home appliances with internet connectivity.For now, the solutions deployed are focusing too much on routers provided by asingle operator which are expected to connect all home appliances through that single operators, but this strategy is not what consumers are expecting: they want freedom of choice for their operator, and no complex configuration for their appliances so that they work through their home routers.The industry would like to be able to sell various kinds of devices that have Internet connectivity (remember the huge number of electronic devices we already have: why can't they interoperate through a single unified technology based on IP networks, instead of too many incompatible plugs and cables?)Now if you think about the future: you'll want thesedevices to remain usable separately without being boundto a single home router.Of course most of these devices won't allow you to browse the web (why would they always need a screen, keyboard or mouse?), but other interesting features would be wishable such as control from remote, autodiscovery, extension of their features through other neightbour devices implementing some missing features, firmware upgrades, customer services.So rethink about whatyou have now, you'll want to be able to connect to a unified network not just a handlful of devices but possibly several dozens of them; if everyone must get an IP address bock large enough for connecting so many devices, without having to solve complex configuration systems, we need IPv6.It's also high time to break the barrier that Internet providers have made, trying to catch all the Internet uses through their single router, with limited capabilities, and lack of standard configuration (because in IPv4, it only works through NAT/PAT, something that is really not Plug'n'Play and too complex to configure correctly and securely).What users want: an private IP network for life, that they configure only once, where ever they are, andcanconnect to any number of ISP (from the Internet it may be seen as multiple separate networks, but from the user's private network, it will be viewed as a single permanent network, with transparent connectivity to the Internet, using for each device the best Internet connection that is just enough to complete the service in a cost effective way.) This is currently not possible with IPv4 or really a nightmare to configure (and to reconfigure if one changes of ISP, using another router configured differently).What are hardware manufacturers doing to allow such explosion of Internet-enabled devices, breaking the dependency about a single ISP for the interoperability of their products?Let's adopt IPv6 sooner, and stop the nightmare of NAT routing!----The discussed problem of &quot;loose IP routing&quot; should not have been extended from IPv4 to IPv6, this wasreally not needed, not even for early deployment. What was needed instead is more work on the Plug-n-Play autoconfiguration features of IPv6 which are the most promizing and really justifying the move to IPv6; this &quot;loose IP routing&quot; feature is just made for internal management of the Internet provider infrastructure, it is not made for home users and should not cross gateway bounderies and so should be disabled by default, except on internal routers within a network with the same management authority (or within a private virtual network transported through VPNs or isolated links like fibers).This warning is not about a new feature, IPv6 is not suddenly more dangerous than IPv4 which already has that feature for the same purpose.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2238522]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[PhilippeV]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 04:44:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Practical implementations of IPv6]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2235735]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I was commissioned to write a report on practical implementations of IPv6. It is in dutch, but an english abstract will be available soon.If you send any mail to ipv6@getresponse.com (you will need to opt-in), I will send you the english abstract now, as well as the full english report when it becomes available.The bottom line: you will need to be aware of IPv6 and it might save you money.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-222847-2235735]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pveijk@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 03:35:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

