Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Lee Bandy on IPv6

Download

Right click “Save as…”

Lee Bandy chats with Scoble about IPv6 and the need for transition technologies. Learn why it is possible to write applications today that will work with a network infrastructure that is slowly migrating to IPv6 and that will work when that migration is complete.

Tags:

Follow the Discussion

  • ZippyVZippyV Fired Up
    When are we supposed to switch to ipv6?
  • PerfectPhasePerfectPhase "This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman
    What are the plans to update ISA to deal with IPv6?
  • Is there any possibility that these Ch9 videos will have an iPod Feed or at least the videos in m4v format in the near future?
  • brian2k1 wrote:
    Is there any possibility that these Ch9 videos will have an iPod Feed or at least the videos in m4v format in the near future?


    Unlikely but you can download this in WMV and convert it to any format you want.
  • Sweet so I guess I could convert it to RM or an animated gif too Smiley

    My question was more of a suggestion or request to the admins of Ch  9. I would hope the people who watch Channel 9 already know they can convert the files to other formats. Obviously they offer direct downloads so making it available in iTunes format isn't out of the question.

    If I had my CHOICE of hardware. I would have a pocketPC with a 30gb harddrive instead of an ipod video 30g. (hint hint) Or even better a reasonably sized phone with a pocketpc and 10-30gb hard drive which I could store whatever I wanted wmv, mp3, ect... formats and play them all.
  • ZippyV wrote:
    When are we supposed to switch to ipv6?


    There is no specific time for all devices to switch an ipv6 network layer, which is impossible considering the scale of the internet.

    Also Vista natively uses ipv6, so if you use Vista you "switch".

    ipv4 will slowly be phased out by allowing both v6 and v4 to work in conjunction (like Lee mentioned through tunneling and other technologies).

    Even though it'll take a while to phase out ipv4 it's great that Microsoft is pushing ipv6 to speed things up.
  • Mike SampsonSampy And I come back to you now - at the turn of the tide

    on10.net currently supplies iPod feeds as well as PSP feeds.

    I imagine that when the work to unify 9 and 10 goes down this may come along.

  • Am I the only one here who feels intimidated by the security implications of this thing?

    I'm not so concerned with firewalling as much as I am with the trojians and backdoors that can exploit this tech...

    Anyways time will tell!

  • Wow, that must have been the most unenthusiastic channel 9 video I've seen in a long time.  There seemed like there was no effort to ask hard or interesting questions. 

    It didn't really sound like scoble's voice either, are you sick? Did a family member just die?  ... hrmmm.  Sad
    cobble's
    cable's
    sable's
    scale's
    Sibel's
    Edit...
    Ignore all
    Add to dictionary
    Hiram
    harem
    harems
    chromium
    Hiram's
    Edit...
    Ignore all
    Add to dictionary
  • Do we really need IPV6? Sure alot of computers are out there but most of them are behind routers so there is only one IP address per router (If I am understanding and it's very likely I am not) and because of that you can cut down the number of IP addresses by thousands.
  • rcsrcs
    IRenderable wrote:
    Do we really need IPV6? Sure alot of computers are out there but most of them are behind routers so there is only one IP address per router (If I am understanding and it's very likely I am not) and because of that you can cut down the number of IP addresses by thousands.


    Yes, we really do! IPV4 has a maximum of something like 4.2 biliion addresses (after you take out unusable addresses). If you just consider the publicly exposed addresses, that is still a dangerously high number of addresses that are used - and worse, there is a lot of extra obscure/clever/confusing ways to break up those subnets. So, we are running out of addresses, we are resigned to using wacky methods to make the addresses we do have, usable in our environments..

    Meanwhile, IPV6 has a maximum of something like 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses.

    Seems like changing over is a small price to pay to "never" having to worry about IP addresses allotment again, I think!
  • rcs wrote:
    
    IRenderable wrote: Do we really need IPV6? Sure alot of computers are out there but most of them are behind routers so there is only one IP address per router (If I am understanding and it's very likely I am not) and because of that you can cut down the number of IP addresses by thousands.


    Yes, we really do! IPV4 has a maximum of something like 4.2 biliion addresses (after you take out unusable addresses). If you just consider the publicly exposed addresses, that is still a dangerously high number of addresses that are used - and worse, there is a lot of extra obscure/clever/confusing ways to break up those subnets. So, we are running out of addresses, we are resigned to using wacky methods to make the addresses we do have, usable in our environments..

    Meanwhile, IPV6 has a maximum of something like 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses.

    Seems like changing over is a small price to pay to "never" having to worry about IP addresses allotment again, I think!


    To add to this "non-home" routers have many network interfaces and each one of these has an ip address which contribute to the depletion of addresses, not to mention in the future all devices may have network capabilities.  Another reason for switching to ipv6 is because nats inherently break the design of the internet (every interface was ment to have an address).  That's why people outside the nat can't initiate contact with people inside without some kind of hack and middle man server. (you could see this as a security risk... but firewalls can do a pretty good job and still retain flexibility)  Also ipv6 is optimized for performance gains and adds some extensibility over ipv4.
  • scobleizerscobleizer I'm the video guy
    brian2k1 wrote:
    Sweet so I guess I could convert it to RM or an animated gif too Smiley

    My question was more of a suggestion or request to the admins of Ch  9. I would hope the people who watch Channel 9 already know they can convert the files to other formats. Obviously they offer direct downloads so making it available in iTunes format isn't out of the question.

    If I had my CHOICE of hardware. I would have a pocketPC with a 30gb harddrive instead of an ipod video 30g. (hint hint) Or even better a reasonably sized phone with a pocketpc and 10-30gb hard drive which I could store whatever I wanted wmv, mp3, ect... formats and play them all.


    We're looking at doing that. http://www.on10.net already does just that and that team is part of the Channel 9 team as well.
  • scobleizerscobleizer I'm the video guy
    Nah, the interviewer wasn't me. I forget who did this one, though.
  • IRenderable wrote:
    Do we really need IPV6? Sure alot of computers are out there but most of them are behind routers so there is only one IP address per router (If I am understanding and it's very likely I am not) and because of that you can cut down the number of IP addresses by thousands.

    Why are you still thinking about computers??
    What you say was 5 years ago.

    DEVICES, it's all about DEVICES nowadays!

    Natting phones is a mess (to just name 1 example), and the number of phones that are connected to the Internet is quickly surpassing the number of pc's (or already has!).
    And it's not only phones, there are thousands and thousands of devices with an IP connection.

    So yes, we need IPv6 and we need it very fast.

    I applaud the effort of MS, but still they should do more to push this!!!  I hope the people of the team (and their managers) read this.  I work for a service provider, and we want to start seeing IPv6 support everywhere.  Unfortunately, it is not happening (and it's not the ISP's who are responsible for this, we are ready and eager!  It's the software makers and network gear companies! - How many home routers do support IPv6??  I don't see IP Phones for IPv6, etc...)  VERY SAD Sad
  • BoomportBoomport SG1: Deep Space Radar Telemetry is the job to have.
    scobleizer wrote:
    Nah, the interviewer wasn't me. I forget who did this one, though.


    It only took 30 seconds to tell that the description stating you were doing the interviewing was wrong.  Hey where are the loads of videos Charles mentions a while a go.  He said 1 a day or more.  It would be great to have 1 fresh 'english' video to look forward to everyday as well as other languages:)
  • Charles also mentioned of an XNA video a while ago.....

    anyways IPv6, any sugestions on security implecations?
  • It is happening, but you gotta give it some time (just like all other converging markets, without immediate benefit).

    Most Routers, IP Phones etc.. already have the capability, because all it really depends on is the IP stack of the OS those devices run on. (and most do support it)
    If a stack and the belonging API know that, it really isn't that much of a deal to it, whether it's ip4 or ipv6.

    This usually means a simple firmware update.

  • Tom ServoTom Servo W-hat?
    Kerberos Mansour wrote:
    Am I the only one here who feels intimidated by the security implications of this thing?

    I'm not so concerned with firewalling as much as I am with the trojians and backdoors that can exploit this tech...

    Anyways time will tell!

    Trojans and backdoors can be made work even behind a NAT. They usually run a mini IRC client that logs them onto an IRC network to be controlled. If not that, it'll use a different way to be made available.  Hell, there were even trojans with their own TCP/IP stack to circumvent some firewalls. NATs give a false sense of security.

    An rather simple avantage of IPv6 is that the host part of the address is 64bit large. And because the host address is either the MAC or a random number, this makes simple scanning for vulnerable hosts virtually impossible.

    An exploiting virus a la Blaster could still try to reach other machines by using neighbor discovery, which would however just limit it to your local prefix, and maybe the destination cache, which will allow it to identify external hosts, but still not give it the means of mass infection. The destination cache would be in most cases however mainly hardened and/or invulnerable internet servers and a couple of addresses of active IM sessions. All in all, it would slow down such viruses a lot.

    Generally, I think we'd be better off with an IPv6 network. Also, it'd speed up routing because the tables would be way smaller. IPsec in it isn't a cheap hack either.
  • Whalewatcher wrote:
    

    It is happening, but you gotta give it some time (just like all other converging markets, without immediate benefit).

    Most Routers, IP Phones etc.. already have the capability, because all it really depends on is the IP stack of the OS those devices run on. (and most do support it)
    If a stack and the belonging API know that, it really isn't that much of a deal to it, whether it's ip4 or ipv6.

    This usually means a simple firmware update.


    The web interfaces need redesigning as well...

    I know it's happening, but it's happening far too slow, and only a company like MS can do something about that!!! Smiley
  • Hi,

    about the mp4 conversation, does any one know a free converter? I mean wmv 2 mp4 converter. I own a Samsung d820 mobile phone and unfortunately it only plays mp4 videos.
  • I think it's difficult to have an interresting discution about networking technologies.

    The end-user , or even the developper, doesn't want to care about how it works. It just has to.

    IPv6 has a great potential, removing all the burdens from NATs. And the transition have to happen in the next few years, due to IPv4 address space depletion.

    I use the term transition, 'cause I dislike migration. We wont switch from IPv4 to IPv6, as the two protocols may cohabit for maybe more than 10 years.

    So 6to4 and teredo should be called transition technologies instead of migration technologies. Technologies that I don't like much. Using third-party servers, which aren't many, IPv4 service is, most of the time, better.

    That's why, currently, ISV doesn't really want to use IPv6 for their apps. Without apps, ISPs doesn't really want to deploy native IPv6 (or at least, servers for the transition technologies) in their networks. The classical chicken and egg problem. Furthermore, windows doesn't support IPv6 by default, yet.

    Now enters vista. IPv6 at the same place as IPv4, enabled by default. That will help, I think (and I hope).

Remove this comment

Remove this thread

close

Comments Closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.