<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_2146226</id>
	<title>Comcast Plans IPv6 Trials In 2010</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264586040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Mortimer.CA writes <i>"In a weblog posting, Jason Livingood, Executive Director of Comcast's Internet Systems has stated that <a href="http://blog.comcast.com/2010/01/preparing-for-the-ipv6-transition.html">they're beginning public trials of IPv6</a>; Comcast hopes 'that these trials will encourage other stakeholders to make plans to continue, or to begin, work on IPv6 in 2010 so that all stakeholders do their part in ensuring the future of the Internet is as bright and innovative as it has been in the past.' Interested guinea pigs can volunteer at <a href="http://www.comcast6.net/">Comcast6.net</a> (<a href="http://www.comcast6.net/faq.php">FAQ</a>). Those who have IPv6 connectivity via other means can check out their <a href="http://ipv6.comcast.net/">IPv6-only web presence</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mortimer.CA writes " In a weblog posting , Jason Livingood , Executive Director of Comcast 's Internet Systems has stated that they 're beginning public trials of IPv6 ; Comcast hopes 'that these trials will encourage other stakeholders to make plans to continue , or to begin , work on IPv6 in 2010 so that all stakeholders do their part in ensuring the future of the Internet is as bright and innovative as it has been in the past .
' Interested guinea pigs can volunteer at Comcast6.net ( FAQ ) .
Those who have IPv6 connectivity via other means can check out their IPv6-only web presence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mortimer.CA writes "In a weblog posting, Jason Livingood, Executive Director of Comcast's Internet Systems has stated that they're beginning public trials of IPv6; Comcast hopes 'that these trials will encourage other stakeholders to make plans to continue, or to begin, work on IPv6 in 2010 so that all stakeholders do their part in ensuring the future of the Internet is as bright and innovative as it has been in the past.
' Interested guinea pigs can volunteer at Comcast6.net (FAQ).
Those who have IPv6 connectivity via other means can check out their IPv6-only web presence.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30942136</id>
	<title>Re:Autodiscovery will have to fully mature...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264676340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ideally a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went"</p><p>Care to share how in the world routing would work and scale for this?</p><p>What are these "several obvious downsides" to totally dynamic addressing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ideally a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever , no matter where it roamed and went " Care to share how in the world routing would work and scale for this ? What are these " several obvious downsides " to totally dynamic addressing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ideally a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went"Care to share how in the world routing would work and scale for this?What are these "several obvious downsides" to totally dynamic addressing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925814</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264590360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT.  Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.</p><p>At which point you just sue them for invasion of privacy, not that you'll get anywhere but its a neat idea.</p><p>The other side to that is that your IPv6 router can deal with helping IPv4 devices communicate over the IPv6 backbone as long as the backbone does the proper bridging (according to the protocol) back to IPv4, which they'd surely have to if they don't intend to break of the Internet and become their own useless island.</p><p>In short, some very smart people already thought of that problem when designing the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT .
Comcast ca n't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.At which point you just sue them for invasion of privacy , not that you 'll get anywhere but its a neat idea.The other side to that is that your IPv6 router can deal with helping IPv4 devices communicate over the IPv6 backbone as long as the backbone does the proper bridging ( according to the protocol ) back to IPv4 , which they 'd surely have to if they do n't intend to break of the Internet and become their own useless island.In short , some very smart people already thought of that problem when designing the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its pretty hard to stop someone from using a NAT.
Comcast can't really tell the difference between a NAT and a single machine without deep packet inspection.At which point you just sue them for invasion of privacy, not that you'll get anywhere but its a neat idea.The other side to that is that your IPv6 router can deal with helping IPv4 devices communicate over the IPv6 backbone as long as the backbone does the proper bridging (according to the protocol) back to IPv4, which they'd surely have to if they don't intend to break of the Internet and become their own useless island.In short, some very smart people already thought of that problem when designing the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931942</id>
	<title>Re: IPv6 to IPv4 NAT, whatnow?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264686120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depressingly, the grandparent isn't an idiot.  This actually was the reason that a lot of corporate networks stayed with v4 for so long, and the v6 to v4 NAT arrangement was only finalised about a year ago.  The main reason for it was printers.  Lots of corporate networks contain network printers that only support IPv4.  If you switch the network to v6, then you either need to upgrade the printers (expensive) or provide some hack to connect to them.  Another issue was CCTV cameras.  Lots of companies have IPv4 CCTV cameras which connect to a central monitoring station and stream video footage.  </p><p>
They needed some mechanism by which these v4-only appliances could keep operating.  Most of them didn't actually need to connect to the outside Internet, so they can be put on a private v4 network with a gateway handling translation to v6 addresses.  </p><p>
A typical implementation of this would put all of the v4-only devices on the 192.168/16 subnet and use the 10/8 subnet for v6 NAT.  Any connections to 10/8 addresses are automatically forwarded to a manually-configured v6 address.  In the other direction, the gateway accepts connections on a few v6 addresses and forwards them to 192.168/16 addresses, with the origin address set to a 10/8 address.  The v4-only appliances talk to the gateway via IPv4 and the rest of the network talks to the gateway via IPv6.  </p><p>
Gradually, you replace the legacy devices (as they wear out) with ones that support IPv6 and move them out from behind the NAT.</p><p>
As the other poster mentioned, for v4-only software you can do this in your local operating system's network stack, but for embedded systems you can't (although, given that Adam Dunkels wrote an IPv6 stack that runs happily on a 6502 with 32KB of RAM, there's not much excuse for things not to support v6).  </p><p>
It's not a high priority for home users, because they can just run a dual-stack network and switch off IPv4 when they run out of v4-only devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depressingly , the grandparent is n't an idiot .
This actually was the reason that a lot of corporate networks stayed with v4 for so long , and the v6 to v4 NAT arrangement was only finalised about a year ago .
The main reason for it was printers .
Lots of corporate networks contain network printers that only support IPv4 .
If you switch the network to v6 , then you either need to upgrade the printers ( expensive ) or provide some hack to connect to them .
Another issue was CCTV cameras .
Lots of companies have IPv4 CCTV cameras which connect to a central monitoring station and stream video footage .
They needed some mechanism by which these v4-only appliances could keep operating .
Most of them did n't actually need to connect to the outside Internet , so they can be put on a private v4 network with a gateway handling translation to v6 addresses .
A typical implementation of this would put all of the v4-only devices on the 192.168/16 subnet and use the 10/8 subnet for v6 NAT .
Any connections to 10/8 addresses are automatically forwarded to a manually-configured v6 address .
In the other direction , the gateway accepts connections on a few v6 addresses and forwards them to 192.168/16 addresses , with the origin address set to a 10/8 address .
The v4-only appliances talk to the gateway via IPv4 and the rest of the network talks to the gateway via IPv6 .
Gradually , you replace the legacy devices ( as they wear out ) with ones that support IPv6 and move them out from behind the NAT .
As the other poster mentioned , for v4-only software you can do this in your local operating system 's network stack , but for embedded systems you ca n't ( although , given that Adam Dunkels wrote an IPv6 stack that runs happily on a 6502 with 32KB of RAM , there 's not much excuse for things not to support v6 ) .
It 's not a high priority for home users , because they can just run a dual-stack network and switch off IPv4 when they run out of v4-only devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depressingly, the grandparent isn't an idiot.
This actually was the reason that a lot of corporate networks stayed with v4 for so long, and the v6 to v4 NAT arrangement was only finalised about a year ago.
The main reason for it was printers.
Lots of corporate networks contain network printers that only support IPv4.
If you switch the network to v6, then you either need to upgrade the printers (expensive) or provide some hack to connect to them.
Another issue was CCTV cameras.
Lots of companies have IPv4 CCTV cameras which connect to a central monitoring station and stream video footage.
They needed some mechanism by which these v4-only appliances could keep operating.
Most of them didn't actually need to connect to the outside Internet, so they can be put on a private v4 network with a gateway handling translation to v6 addresses.
A typical implementation of this would put all of the v4-only devices on the 192.168/16 subnet and use the 10/8 subnet for v6 NAT.
Any connections to 10/8 addresses are automatically forwarded to a manually-configured v6 address.
In the other direction, the gateway accepts connections on a few v6 addresses and forwards them to 192.168/16 addresses, with the origin address set to a 10/8 address.
The v4-only appliances talk to the gateway via IPv4 and the rest of the network talks to the gateway via IPv6.
Gradually, you replace the legacy devices (as they wear out) with ones that support IPv6 and move them out from behind the NAT.
As the other poster mentioned, for v4-only software you can do this in your local operating system's network stack, but for embedded systems you can't (although, given that Adam Dunkels wrote an IPv6 stack that runs happily on a 6502 with 32KB of RAM, there's not much excuse for things not to support v6).
It's not a high priority for home users, because they can just run a dual-stack network and switch off IPv4 when they run out of v4-only devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932600</id>
	<title>Re:most routers?</title>
	<author>haapi</author>
	<datestamp>1264690680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Dlink wireless router switches/forwards IPv6 just fine.<br>It is not doing routing, though, just switching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Dlink wireless router switches/forwards IPv6 just fine.It is not doing routing , though , just switching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Dlink wireless router switches/forwards IPv6 just fine.It is not doing routing, though, just switching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925762</id>
	<title>MediaCom Anybody?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting for mediacom to roll out some DOCSYS 3 / IPv6 forever.  This little town I happen to be in, has excellent infrastructure and is physically capable of running it -- unlike most cities.  This town is dependent only on major hardware upgrades, not cable plant upgrades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for mediacom to roll out some DOCSYS 3 / IPv6 forever .
This little town I happen to be in , has excellent infrastructure and is physically capable of running it -- unlike most cities .
This town is dependent only on major hardware upgrades , not cable plant upgrades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for mediacom to roll out some DOCSYS 3 / IPv6 forever.
This little town I happen to be in, has excellent infrastructure and is physically capable of running it -- unlike most cities.
This town is dependent only on major hardware upgrades, not cable plant upgrades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925962</id>
	<title>Grudgingly, impressed.</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1264590840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Comcast actually does what they're saying on the tin, maybe the other ISPs will follow suit.</p><p>This just might be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Comcast actually does what they 're saying on the tin , maybe the other ISPs will follow suit.This just might be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Comcast actually does what they're saying on the tin, maybe the other ISPs will follow suit.This just might be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926484</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunate abbreviation</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1264592460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii supports IPv6. The DS Lite doesn't. I don't know about the DSi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii supports IPv6 .
The DS Lite does n't .
I do n't know about the DSi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii supports IPv6.
The DS Lite doesn't.
I don't know about the DSi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926044</id>
	<title>hoi!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264591080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sex with ducks motherfuckers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sex with ducks motherfuckers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sex with ducks motherfuckers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698</id>
	<title>Autodiscovery will have to fully mature...</title>
	<author>rritterson</author>
	<datestamp>1264597740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, I signed up for the trial. Despite the level-1 tech support's crappiness, and the relative overpricing of their services, Comcast's network department does a pretty good on the backend. Our area has gone from 3mbps to 16mbps (with a 50mbps tier available) in 8 years, and has already completed the analog reclamation process in our area. Good on them for getting a head start on IPv6.</p><p>I presume they are going to want to do end-to-end IPv6 eventually, instead of assigning a single IPv6 address to my modem, and then continuing to use IPv4 NAT behind it. However, if they are going to do that, several things are going to have to change:</p><p>1. Router default settings will have to change. Out of the box, most home routers use NAT by default, and, since most people don't change the settings (based on the number of 2WIRE### SSID's broadcast to my house), they'll have to redo them for IPv6.<br>2. Auto discovery services will have to get better. I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them. The other 2 OSes will have to catch up, because, while a quartet of triplets is annoying but manageable to type, an IPv6 address will be a bear to copy down.<br>3. A debate between static and dynamic IP addresses will have to take place. Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went. It'd be akin to a routable MAC address. However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently. But there are several obvious downsides to continuing to use totally dynamic IPs.</p><p>Finally, as an aside, it's interesting to me, at least, how Apple Airport Base Stations do IPv6 routing automatically via a tunnel provider (as another commenter noted). Comcast doesn't support any IPv6, but when I'm connected to my router at home I get full IPv6 support transparently. Apple doesn't even mention this as a feature on the box, and it's not highly configurable either. So why did they spend all the effort to get it that way? Are they trying to stay so far ahead of the IPv6 curve no one will ever complain they're behind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , I signed up for the trial .
Despite the level-1 tech support 's crappiness , and the relative overpricing of their services , Comcast 's network department does a pretty good on the backend .
Our area has gone from 3mbps to 16mbps ( with a 50mbps tier available ) in 8 years , and has already completed the analog reclamation process in our area .
Good on them for getting a head start on IPv6.I presume they are going to want to do end-to-end IPv6 eventually , instead of assigning a single IPv6 address to my modem , and then continuing to use IPv4 NAT behind it .
However , if they are going to do that , several things are going to have to change : 1 .
Router default settings will have to change .
Out of the box , most home routers use NAT by default , and , since most people do n't change the settings ( based on the number of 2WIRE # # # SSID 's broadcast to my house ) , they 'll have to redo them for IPv6.2 .
Auto discovery services will have to get better .
I can say , categorically , that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them .
The other 2 OSes will have to catch up , because , while a quartet of triplets is annoying but manageable to type , an IPv6 address will be a bear to copy down.3 .
A debate between static and dynamic IP addresses will have to take place .
Ideally , a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever , no matter where it roamed and went .
It 'd be akin to a routable MAC address .
However , if we do that , we 'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly ( though still not fast ) , since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently .
But there are several obvious downsides to continuing to use totally dynamic IPs.Finally , as an aside , it 's interesting to me , at least , how Apple Airport Base Stations do IPv6 routing automatically via a tunnel provider ( as another commenter noted ) .
Comcast does n't support any IPv6 , but when I 'm connected to my router at home I get full IPv6 support transparently .
Apple does n't even mention this as a feature on the box , and it 's not highly configurable either .
So why did they spend all the effort to get it that way ?
Are they trying to stay so far ahead of the IPv6 curve no one will ever complain they 're behind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, I signed up for the trial.
Despite the level-1 tech support's crappiness, and the relative overpricing of their services, Comcast's network department does a pretty good on the backend.
Our area has gone from 3mbps to 16mbps (with a 50mbps tier available) in 8 years, and has already completed the analog reclamation process in our area.
Good on them for getting a head start on IPv6.I presume they are going to want to do end-to-end IPv6 eventually, instead of assigning a single IPv6 address to my modem, and then continuing to use IPv4 NAT behind it.
However, if they are going to do that, several things are going to have to change:1.
Router default settings will have to change.
Out of the box, most home routers use NAT by default, and, since most people don't change the settings (based on the number of 2WIRE### SSID's broadcast to my house), they'll have to redo them for IPv6.2.
Auto discovery services will have to get better.
I can say, categorically, that OS X is better than Windows and Linux at automatically finding nearby machines and devices that do not have a static IP/DNS A record assigned to them.
The other 2 OSes will have to catch up, because, while a quartet of triplets is annoying but manageable to type, an IPv6 address will be a bear to copy down.3.
A debate between static and dynamic IP addresses will have to take place.
Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went.
It'd be akin to a routable MAC address.
However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently.
But there are several obvious downsides to continuing to use totally dynamic IPs.Finally, as an aside, it's interesting to me, at least, how Apple Airport Base Stations do IPv6 routing automatically via a tunnel provider (as another commenter noted).
Comcast doesn't support any IPv6, but when I'm connected to my router at home I get full IPv6 support transparently.
Apple doesn't even mention this as a feature on the box, and it's not highly configurable either.
So why did they spend all the effort to get it that way?
Are they trying to stay so far ahead of the IPv6 curve no one will ever complain they're behind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990</id>
	<title>Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ipv6 is going to suck on so many different levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ipv6 is going to suck on so many different levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ipv6 is going to suck on so many different levels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931860</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 only test...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264685160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quickly see if you're connected with an IPv6 webserver, you can install "ShowIP", a Firefox plugin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/590</p><p>As its name says it shows the IP(v4 or v6) address of the server on the bottom right of the Firefox window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To quickly see if you 're connected with an IPv6 webserver , you can install " ShowIP " , a Firefox plugin : https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/590As its name says it shows the IP ( v4 or v6 ) address of the server on the bottom right of the Firefox window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quickly see if you're connected with an IPv6 webserver, you can install "ShowIP", a Firefox plugin: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/590As its name says it shows the IP(v4 or v6) address of the server on the bottom right of the Firefox window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927336</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1264595700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>woops.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know! What where they thinking by letting people using IPv4 also see that content?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>woops.I know !
What where they thinking by letting people using IPv4 also see that content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>woops.I know!
What where they thinking by letting people using IPv4 also see that content?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928030</id>
	<title>I'm in...oh wait</title>
	<author>sajuuk</author>
	<datestamp>1264599780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would totally be in on this.  What, its Comcast?  Bwahahahahahaha, forget it then.  Not available in my neck of the woods.

Seriously, I think this is just a ploy for them to figure out how to do their throttling, packet inspection, and spying on an IPV6 network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would totally be in on this .
What , its Comcast ?
Bwahahahahahaha , forget it then .
Not available in my neck of the woods .
Seriously , I think this is just a ploy for them to figure out how to do their throttling , packet inspection , and spying on an IPV6 network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would totally be in on this.
What, its Comcast?
Bwahahahahahaha, forget it then.
Not available in my neck of the woods.
Seriously, I think this is just a ploy for them to figure out how to do their throttling, packet inspection, and spying on an IPV6 network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925734</id>
	<title>what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxe</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1264590180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable boxes also start useing ipv6? they use ipv4 now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is the per ip cost ?
$ 5 ? WILL there cable boxes also start useing ipv6 ?
they use ipv4 now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is the per ip cost?
$5? WILL there cable boxes also start useing ipv6?
they use ipv4 now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926712</id>
	<title>c08</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264593180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>percent of the *bSD</htmltext>
<tokenext>percent of the * bSD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>percent of the *bSD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927738</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1264597980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? I, for one, look forward to having a unique address for every computer. It is, after all, the original intent of the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
I , for one , look forward to having a unique address for every computer .
It is , after all , the original intent of the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
I, for one, look forward to having a unique address for every computer.
It is, after all, the original intent of the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930120</id>
	<title>Re: IPv6 to IPv4 NAT, whatnow?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself. As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.</p></div><p>I've been using IPv6 for many years and I don't get it. My obvious question when reading this is: WHY, why would anyone do this? The primary reason I use IPv6 in the first place is to have real globally routable IPs on all my boxen. I expect zero people who understand that most stories who are repeated time and time again on television these days have huge gaping holes will want IPV6 to IPv4 NAT. ISPs may decide to only hand out one IPv6 IP pr. subscriber and force such garbage upon the people, but it seems clear that those 2-3\% of the population who have that now rare quality called "ability to think" will want and demand their own<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 subnet and not even consider foolish IPv6 to IPv4 NAT solutions. It's simply a very dump idea to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router , or you can get one yourself .
As IPv6 gets rolled out , I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.I 've been using IPv6 for many years and I do n't get it .
My obvious question when reading this is : WHY , why would anyone do this ?
The primary reason I use IPv6 in the first place is to have real globally routable IPs on all my boxen .
I expect zero people who understand that most stories who are repeated time and time again on television these days have huge gaping holes will want IPV6 to IPv4 NAT .
ISPs may decide to only hand out one IPv6 IP pr .
subscriber and force such garbage upon the people , but it seems clear that those 2-3 \ % of the population who have that now rare quality called " ability to think " will want and demand their own /64 subnet and not even consider foolish IPv6 to IPv4 NAT solutions .
It 's simply a very dump idea to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself.
As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.I've been using IPv6 for many years and I don't get it.
My obvious question when reading this is: WHY, why would anyone do this?
The primary reason I use IPv6 in the first place is to have real globally routable IPs on all my boxen.
I expect zero people who understand that most stories who are repeated time and time again on television these days have huge gaping holes will want IPV6 to IPv4 NAT.
ISPs may decide to only hand out one IPv6 IP pr.
subscriber and force such garbage upon the people, but it seems clear that those 2-3\% of the population who have that now rare quality called "ability to think" will want and demand their own /64 subnet and not even consider foolish IPv6 to IPv4 NAT solutions.
It's simply a very dump idea to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932216</id>
	<title>Re:Static or Dynamic?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Visser</author>
	<datestamp>1264688280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should be static, if they have any sense. See a <a href="http://jeremy.visser.name/2009/06/23/why-dynamic-ipv6-subnet-allocations-for-home-users-are-evil/" title="visser.name">blog post of mine on the subject.</a> [visser.name]

</p><p>Basically, with IPv4, if you have a dynamic address (say 5.6.7.8), and then your connection drops out, and now you are a different address (say 5.8.7.6), then the machines behind your NAT aren't affected, because they're still using a 192.168.0.x  192.168.0.1 gateway thingy.

</p><p>But in IPv6, what subnet your ISP allocates you (e.g. 2001:db8:1:5678::/64) influences what machines in your LAN (i.e. what would be behind your IPv4 NAT) have as their IP address.

</p><p>So if your subnet your ISP gives you is 2001:db8:1:5678::/64, then a machine on your network may have an IP address of 2001:db8:1:5678:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:1234. Then, if your connection drops out, and you get a new dynamic subnet, say, 2001:db8:1:9876::/64, then your machines on the LAN will not get the new address scheme immediately, and have the wrong IP address when sending to the Internet. A whole world of hurt.

</p><p>Really short durations set on the Router Advertisements may help, but there is still a window of breakage, and thus a whole world of hurt that you just don't want to foist onto your customers.

</p><p>Just think -- you can give out dynamic subnets and conserve address space, but you'll have all hell break loose with the support calls. (My ISP, Internode, is sane and gives out <a href="http://ipv6.internode.on.net/configuration/adsl-faq-guide/" title="on.net">static<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/60 subnets</a> [on.net].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be static , if they have any sense .
See a blog post of mine on the subject .
[ visser.name ] Basically , with IPv4 , if you have a dynamic address ( say 5.6.7.8 ) , and then your connection drops out , and now you are a different address ( say 5.8.7.6 ) , then the machines behind your NAT are n't affected , because they 're still using a 192.168.0.x 192.168.0.1 gateway thingy .
But in IPv6 , what subnet your ISP allocates you ( e.g .
2001 : db8 : 1 : 5678 : : /64 ) influences what machines in your LAN ( i.e .
what would be behind your IPv4 NAT ) have as their IP address .
So if your subnet your ISP gives you is 2001 : db8 : 1 : 5678 : : /64 , then a machine on your network may have an IP address of 2001 : db8 : 1 : 5678 : aaaa : bbbb : cccc : 1234 .
Then , if your connection drops out , and you get a new dynamic subnet , say , 2001 : db8 : 1 : 9876 : : /64 , then your machines on the LAN will not get the new address scheme immediately , and have the wrong IP address when sending to the Internet .
A whole world of hurt .
Really short durations set on the Router Advertisements may help , but there is still a window of breakage , and thus a whole world of hurt that you just do n't want to foist onto your customers .
Just think -- you can give out dynamic subnets and conserve address space , but you 'll have all hell break loose with the support calls .
( My ISP , Internode , is sane and gives out static /60 subnets [ on.net ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be static, if they have any sense.
See a blog post of mine on the subject.
[visser.name]

Basically, with IPv4, if you have a dynamic address (say 5.6.7.8), and then your connection drops out, and now you are a different address (say 5.8.7.6), then the machines behind your NAT aren't affected, because they're still using a 192.168.0.x  192.168.0.1 gateway thingy.
But in IPv6, what subnet your ISP allocates you (e.g.
2001:db8:1:5678::/64) influences what machines in your LAN (i.e.
what would be behind your IPv4 NAT) have as their IP address.
So if your subnet your ISP gives you is 2001:db8:1:5678::/64, then a machine on your network may have an IP address of 2001:db8:1:5678:aaaa:bbbb:cccc:1234.
Then, if your connection drops out, and you get a new dynamic subnet, say, 2001:db8:1:9876::/64, then your machines on the LAN will not get the new address scheme immediately, and have the wrong IP address when sending to the Internet.
A whole world of hurt.
Really short durations set on the Router Advertisements may help, but there is still a window of breakage, and thus a whole world of hurt that you just don't want to foist onto your customers.
Just think -- you can give out dynamic subnets and conserve address space, but you'll have all hell break loose with the support calls.
(My ISP, Internode, is sane and gives out static /60 subnets [on.net].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926066</id>
	<title>Eventually...</title>
	<author>ATestR</author>
	<datestamp>1264591200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the time IPV6 is fully deployed, the IPV6 space will be rapidly filling up, and people will be talking how we really need to deploy IPV8...</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time IPV6 is fully deployed , the IPV6 space will be rapidly filling up , and people will be talking how we really need to deploy IPV8.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time IPV6 is fully deployed, the IPV6 space will be rapidly filling up, and people will be talking how we really need to deploy IPV8...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654</id>
	<title>And what, pray tell, do these good people do?</title>
	<author>The Altruist</author>
	<datestamp>1264593000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=disable\%20IPv6" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=disable\%20IPv6</a> [microsoft.com]

(Myself being one of them.)

Being as the vast majority of home users and small businesses still send their money to One Microsoft Way, Redmond Washington, the standard Slashdot solution of install Ubuntu/Gentoo/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Buy a Mac might not work for everybody. (I am a dual-booter, by the way.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //social.answers.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/ ? query = disable \ % 20IPv6 [ microsoft.com ] ( Myself being one of them .
) Being as the vast majority of home users and small businesses still send their money to One Microsoft Way , Redmond Washington , the standard Slashdot solution of install Ubuntu/Gentoo/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Buy a Mac might not work for everybody .
( I am a dual-booter , by the way .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=disable\%20IPv6 [microsoft.com]

(Myself being one of them.
)

Being as the vast majority of home users and small businesses still send their money to One Microsoft Way, Redmond Washington, the standard Slashdot solution of install Ubuntu/Gentoo/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/Buy a Mac might not work for everybody.
(I am a dual-booter, by the way.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930606</id>
	<title>Too late!...</title>
	<author>Linwooder</author>
	<datestamp>1264712100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows the IPv4 internet will grind to a halt in 2007.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the IPv4 internet will grind to a halt in 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the IPv4 internet will grind to a halt in 2007.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926744</id>
	<title>Re:Grudgingly, impressed.</title>
	<author>N7DR</author>
	<datestamp>1264593300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was part of the team that wrote the IPv6 portion of the DOCSIS 3.0 specs. Although DOCSIS 3.0 added a huge number of features, the two that the cable companies were most desperate for were channel bonding (so they could compete with fiber) and IPv6 support.</p><p>IPv6 has been internal testing with major cable operators for several years now. Comcast was always likely to be the first to deploy it (for reasons that I can't go into) but I expect the other major operators to follow suit within a year or two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was part of the team that wrote the IPv6 portion of the DOCSIS 3.0 specs .
Although DOCSIS 3.0 added a huge number of features , the two that the cable companies were most desperate for were channel bonding ( so they could compete with fiber ) and IPv6 support.IPv6 has been internal testing with major cable operators for several years now .
Comcast was always likely to be the first to deploy it ( for reasons that I ca n't go into ) but I expect the other major operators to follow suit within a year or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was part of the team that wrote the IPv6 portion of the DOCSIS 3.0 specs.
Although DOCSIS 3.0 added a huge number of features, the two that the cable companies were most desperate for were channel bonding (so they could compete with fiber) and IPv6 support.IPv6 has been internal testing with major cable operators for several years now.
Comcast was always likely to be the first to deploy it (for reasons that I can't go into) but I expect the other major operators to follow suit within a year or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925858</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264590480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.</p></div><p>As I understand it, the best practice is for an IPv6 ISP to give out a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64. That's still relatively one four-billionth of the space they're giving out now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.As I understand it , the best practice is for an IPv6 ISP to give out a /64 .
That 's still relatively one four-billionth of the space they 're giving out now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.As I understand it, the best practice is for an IPv6 ISP to give out a /64.
That's still relatively one four-billionth of the space they're giving out now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931454</id>
	<title>Re:what is the per ip cost? $5? WILL there cable b</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1264678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think DOCSIS 3 areas might have been assigning IPv6 addresses to cable boxes for a while now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think DOCSIS 3 areas might have been assigning IPv6 addresses to cable boxes for a while now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think DOCSIS 3 areas might have been assigning IPv6 addresses to cable boxes for a while now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939040</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?  A bald assertion like that with nothing to back it up is pointless and stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
A bald assertion like that with nothing to back it up is pointless and stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
A bald assertion like that with nothing to back it up is pointless and stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926074</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, well...</title>
	<author>Deleriux</author>
	<datestamp>1264591200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the IPv4 version appears to be a hell of a lot slower than its v6 counterpart.</p><p>In fact i've found v6 runs much faster generally (probably cause so few people are using it at the moment). I use it quite often to download new Fedora distros at max speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the IPv4 version appears to be a hell of a lot slower than its v6 counterpart.In fact i 've found v6 runs much faster generally ( probably cause so few people are using it at the moment ) .
I use it quite often to download new Fedora distros at max speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the IPv4 version appears to be a hell of a lot slower than its v6 counterpart.In fact i've found v6 runs much faster generally (probably cause so few people are using it at the moment).
I use it quite often to download new Fedora distros at max speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929382</id>
	<title>mod dOwN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264611060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">it's 6oing, very distracting to confirming the Well-known goal here? How can Clearly become Anybody's guees Mr. Raymond's very own shitter,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's 6oing , very distracting to confirming the Well-known goal here ?
How can Clearly become Anybody 's guees Mr. Raymond 's very own shitter , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's 6oing, very distracting to confirming the Well-known goal here?
How can Clearly become Anybody's guees Mr. Raymond's very own shitter, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927078</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>Cato</author>
	<datestamp>1264594560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the website explains, one of Comcast's 3 transition strategies is based on DS-Lite, which essentially means a big provider-based NAT that allows IPv4 only devices such as games consoles to connect via a new IPv4/IPv6 home router (dual stack) over v6 infrastructure to an end server that is v4 based.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the website explains , one of Comcast 's 3 transition strategies is based on DS-Lite , which essentially means a big provider-based NAT that allows IPv4 only devices such as games consoles to connect via a new IPv4/IPv6 home router ( dual stack ) over v6 infrastructure to an end server that is v4 based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the website explains, one of Comcast's 3 transition strategies is based on DS-Lite, which essentially means a big provider-based NAT that allows IPv4 only devices such as games consoles to connect via a new IPv4/IPv6 home router (dual stack) over v6 infrastructure to an end server that is v4 based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928130</id>
	<title>Re:Static or Dynamic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264600320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the RFC you should get a dynamic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the RFC you should get a dynamic /48 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the RFC you should get a dynamic /48.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30944414</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1264688160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/64 is the standard and if the ISP doesn't use it, it could break stuff. They would have to order custom Cable/DSL modems since all suppliers will be following the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/64 is the standard and if the ISP does n't use it , it could break stuff .
They would have to order custom Cable/DSL modems since all suppliers will be following the /64 rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/64 is the standard and if the ISP doesn't use it, it could break stuff.
They would have to order custom Cable/DSL modems since all suppliers will be following the /64 rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925620</id>
	<title>IPv6?</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264589880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]<br> <br> woops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [ 68.87.64.59 ] woops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pinging ipv6.comcast.net [68.87.64.59]  woops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</id>
	<title>Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1264590060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.</p><p>Besides, most IP-enabled toys wont like IP6 (Wii, VOIP boxes, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most IP6 fan will say that you do n't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.Besides , most IP-enabled toys wont like IP6 ( Wii , VOIP boxes , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.Besides, most IP-enabled toys wont like IP6 (Wii, VOIP boxes, etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929334</id>
	<title>Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do?</title>
	<author>jbgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1264610520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They re-enable IPv6, or whatever was broken that they had to disable it in the first place gets fixed.  Failing that, if they leave it disabled, or have devices for which IPv6 isn't available, there are solutions like Dual-Stack Lite which will allow IPv4 only nodes to still get to the IPv4 internet (IPv4 traffic is tunneled through an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel on their CPE router to a Large Scale NAT device at the ISP.</p><p>There may be ways for these same users to get to IPv6 only web sites, etc, but I haven't actually looked into that, so I'm not sure.  It would have to be some sort of proxy solution, or something like DNS64/NAT64 in reverse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>IMHO, these IPv4 only devices should be upgraded, or go away as soon as possible.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They re-enable IPv6 , or whatever was broken that they had to disable it in the first place gets fixed .
Failing that , if they leave it disabled , or have devices for which IPv6 is n't available , there are solutions like Dual-Stack Lite which will allow IPv4 only nodes to still get to the IPv4 internet ( IPv4 traffic is tunneled through an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel on their CPE router to a Large Scale NAT device at the ISP.There may be ways for these same users to get to IPv6 only web sites , etc , but I have n't actually looked into that , so I 'm not sure .
It would have to be some sort of proxy solution , or something like DNS64/NAT64 in reverse .
: pIMHO , these IPv4 only devices should be upgraded , or go away as soon as possible .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They re-enable IPv6, or whatever was broken that they had to disable it in the first place gets fixed.
Failing that, if they leave it disabled, or have devices for which IPv6 isn't available, there are solutions like Dual-Stack Lite which will allow IPv4 only nodes to still get to the IPv4 internet (IPv4 traffic is tunneled through an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel on their CPE router to a Large Scale NAT device at the ISP.There may be ways for these same users to get to IPv6 only web sites, etc, but I haven't actually looked into that, so I'm not sure.
It would have to be some sort of proxy solution, or something like DNS64/NAT64 in reverse.
:pIMHO, these IPv4 only devices should be upgraded, or go away as soon as possible.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928424</id>
	<title>Re:most routers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264602240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Support. Support?... What's this "support" thing you speak of??? No, if you want IPV6, they will gladly sell you a NEW router.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...support. To funny, Hah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Support .
Support ? ... What 's this " support " thing you speak of ? ? ?
No , if you want IPV6 , they will gladly sell you a NEW router .
...support. To funny , Hah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Support.
Support?... What's this "support" thing you speak of???
No, if you want IPV6, they will gladly sell you a NEW router.
...support. To funny, Hah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928724</id>
	<title>Re:Love comcast is working with it's customers</title>
	<author>LoSt180</author>
	<datestamp>1264604820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I signed up for the trial, interested if I get a response. Guess I need to start looking into getting IPv6 working on a DD-WRT based router. Hopefully it doesn't break my parents' internet too bad...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I signed up for the trial , interested if I get a response .
Guess I need to start looking into getting IPv6 working on a DD-WRT based router .
Hopefully it does n't break my parents ' internet too bad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I signed up for the trial, interested if I get a response.
Guess I need to start looking into getting IPv6 working on a DD-WRT based router.
Hopefully it doesn't break my parents' internet too bad...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926884</id>
	<title>Re:Static or Dynamic?</title>
	<author>outlander</author>
	<datestamp>1264593780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be dynamic - the protocol doesn't use DHCP as we know it; it uses 'neighbor discovery,' which is described here: <a href="http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t\_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm" title="tcpipguide.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t\_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm</a> [tcpipguide.com]</p><p>I've experimented with it on a number of various networks - some professional, some personal - and it's not so bad.  THe implementation isn't as complete as IPv4, but given the user base, it's not that surprising....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be dynamic - the protocol does n't use DHCP as we know it ; it uses 'neighbor discovery, ' which is described here : http : //www.tcpipguide.com/free/t \ _TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm [ tcpipguide.com ] I 've experimented with it on a number of various networks - some professional , some personal - and it 's not so bad .
THe implementation is n't as complete as IPv4 , but given the user base , it 's not that surprising... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be dynamic - the protocol doesn't use DHCP as we know it; it uses 'neighbor discovery,' which is described here: http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t\_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm [tcpipguide.com]I've experimented with it on a number of various networks - some professional, some personal - and it's not so bad.
THe implementation isn't as complete as IPv4, but given the user base, it's not that surprising....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927388</id>
	<title>Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself.  As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.</p><p>You ask for www.google.com, your computer does an IPv4 lookup to the router, the router translates that to an IPv6 lookup, caches the IPv6 address, and returns a valid-looking IPv4 address to your computer.  When you ask for that IPv4 address, the router knows what IPv6 address it has associated with it and handles the heavy lifting for you.  Just like regular NAT, except there's a protocol change too (which is pretty trivial).</p><p>Although, to be fair, you can actually  load an IPv6 stack on Microsoft operating systems as far back as Windows 98 (DOS kernel) or Windows 2000 (NT kernel) and you may even be able to go further back than that.  If you are concerned about IPv6 support on older operating systems than that, you'll have to opt for the router solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router , or you can get one yourself .
As IPv6 gets rolled out , I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.You ask for www.google.com , your computer does an IPv4 lookup to the router , the router translates that to an IPv6 lookup , caches the IPv6 address , and returns a valid-looking IPv4 address to your computer .
When you ask for that IPv4 address , the router knows what IPv6 address it has associated with it and handles the heavy lifting for you .
Just like regular NAT , except there 's a protocol change too ( which is pretty trivial ) .Although , to be fair , you can actually load an IPv6 stack on Microsoft operating systems as far back as Windows 98 ( DOS kernel ) or Windows 2000 ( NT kernel ) and you may even be able to go further back than that .
If you are concerned about IPv6 support on older operating systems than that , you 'll have to opt for the router solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ISP can easily protect you from IPv6 by giving you a NAT router, or you can get one yourself.
As IPv6 gets rolled out, I expect more and more IPV6 to IPv4 NAT routers will become popular.You ask for www.google.com, your computer does an IPv4 lookup to the router, the router translates that to an IPv6 lookup, caches the IPv6 address, and returns a valid-looking IPv4 address to your computer.
When you ask for that IPv4 address, the router knows what IPv6 address it has associated with it and handles the heavy lifting for you.
Just like regular NAT, except there's a protocol change too (which is pretty trivial).Although, to be fair, you can actually  load an IPv6 stack on Microsoft operating systems as far back as Windows 98 (DOS kernel) or Windows 2000 (NT kernel) and you may even be able to go further back than that.
If you are concerned about IPv6 support on older operating systems than that, you'll have to opt for the router solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927840</id>
	<title>lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264598580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still fail to see why we can't just extend the address space of ipv4 all of those new ipv6 features are just wasted overhead bullshit. Here's looking forward to my net being disabled for a month and being extorted to buy some new modem or other crap only to have my ping never return to the way it was before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still fail to see why we ca n't just extend the address space of ipv4 all of those new ipv6 features are just wasted overhead bullshit .
Here 's looking forward to my net being disabled for a month and being extorted to buy some new modem or other crap only to have my ping never return to the way it was before : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still fail to see why we can't just extend the address space of ipv4 all of those new ipv6 features are just wasted overhead bullshit.
Here's looking forward to my net being disabled for a month and being extorted to buy some new modem or other crap only to have my ping never return to the way it was before :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804</id>
	<title>IPv6 only test...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1264590360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://ipv6.google.com/" title="google.com">ipv6.google.com</a> [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.</p><p>We actually used this for the IPv6 test in <a href="http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/" title="berkeley.edu">Netalyzr</a> [berkeley.edu] as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test.  Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ipv6.google.com [ google.com ] is IPv6 only , and if you can reach it , you are IPv6 enabled.We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr [ berkeley.edu ] as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test .
Our servers do n't have IPv6 , but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.We actually used this for the IPv6 test in Netalyzr [berkeley.edu] as the basis of the IPv6 connectivity test.
Our servers don't have IPv6, but we have a small amount of javascript on the analysis page that tries to fetch the logo from IPv6.google.com and reports success or failure back to the server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931992</id>
	<title>Re:Autodiscovery will have to fully mature...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264686660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went</p></div><p>Why?  What problem does this solve?  You should be advertising machines via DNS, not by their IP address.  If you move to another network, you update the DNS entry.  If you're talking about mobile devices roaming between networks then I suggest that you look at Mobile IPv6.  This uses IPsec (optional in IPv4, a required bit of IPv6) to update the routing tables when the machine migrates.  If you have a Mobile IPv6 address, you can move the machine between networks without dropping connections.  Making this the default would be silly though; how often does your PVR move between networks?  Your web server?  Even my laptop doesn't usually need to maintain connections when it hops between unrelated networks; I suspend it and resume it in between, so the connections would drop anyway.  Of all the devices that I might own, only a pocket computer / telephone would actually need this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever , no matter where it roamed and wentWhy ?
What problem does this solve ?
You should be advertising machines via DNS , not by their IP address .
If you move to another network , you update the DNS entry .
If you 're talking about mobile devices roaming between networks then I suggest that you look at Mobile IPv6 .
This uses IPsec ( optional in IPv4 , a required bit of IPv6 ) to update the routing tables when the machine migrates .
If you have a Mobile IPv6 address , you can move the machine between networks without dropping connections .
Making this the default would be silly though ; how often does your PVR move between networks ?
Your web server ?
Even my laptop does n't usually need to maintain connections when it hops between unrelated networks ; I suspend it and resume it in between , so the connections would drop anyway .
Of all the devices that I might own , only a pocket computer / telephone would actually need this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and wentWhy?
What problem does this solve?
You should be advertising machines via DNS, not by their IP address.
If you move to another network, you update the DNS entry.
If you're talking about mobile devices roaming between networks then I suggest that you look at Mobile IPv6.
This uses IPsec (optional in IPv4, a required bit of IPv6) to update the routing tables when the machine migrates.
If you have a Mobile IPv6 address, you can move the machine between networks without dropping connections.
Making this the default would be silly though; how often does your PVR move between networks?
Your web server?
Even my laptop doesn't usually need to maintain connections when it hops between unrelated networks; I suspend it and resume it in between, so the connections would drop anyway.
Of all the devices that I might own, only a pocket computer / telephone would actually need this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925632</id>
	<title>Oh, well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264589880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope.  Can't see the IPv6-only web presence from my IPv4-only internet.  I guess it got slashdotted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope .
Ca n't see the IPv6-only web presence from my IPv4-only internet .
I guess it got slashdotted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.
Can't see the IPv6-only web presence from my IPv4-only internet.
I guess it got slashdotted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929838</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1264615920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it sadly hilarious that this utterly contentless post somehow managed to get an insightful mod...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it sadly hilarious that this utterly contentless post somehow managed to get an insightful mod.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it sadly hilarious that this utterly contentless post somehow managed to get an insightful mod...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926542</id>
	<title>FrisHtA psot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">which a7lows</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>which a7lows [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which a7lows [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928844</id>
	<title>Re:And what, pray tell, do these good people do?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1264605600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And what, pray tell, do these good people do?</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess they'd undo whatever they did to disable IPv6 in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what , pray tell , do these good people do ? I guess they 'd undo whatever they did to disable IPv6 in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what, pray tell, do these good people do?I guess they'd undo whatever they did to disable IPv6 in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929256</id>
	<title>More Spam Pleez, and Jumk Mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264609680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 yeah, for making somebody some money. Go ahead and spray us with all the radiation you want fellas because you live in it to. Nothing like a little more autistic babies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 yeah , for making somebody some money .
Go ahead and spray us with all the radiation you want fellas because you live in it to .
Nothing like a little more autistic babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 yeah, for making somebody some money.
Go ahead and spray us with all the radiation you want fellas because you live in it to.
Nothing like a little more autistic babies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927470</id>
	<title>Re:most routers?</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264596480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:</p><p><a href="http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers" title="sixxs.net">http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers</a> [sixxs.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out , but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers : http : //www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers [ sixxs.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers [sixxs.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636</id>
	<title>Love comcast is working with it's customers</title>
	<author>cullenfluffyjennings</author>
	<datestamp>1264592940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm impressed that Comcast is talking about it trials publicly and engaging customers. Many service providers run stuff in private, don't tell their guinea pigs, I mean customers that they experiment on, and then just select whatever seemed convent for the service provider. Engaging people in a trials like this, seems win/win for the customers and service providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm impressed that Comcast is talking about it trials publicly and engaging customers .
Many service providers run stuff in private , do n't tell their guinea pigs , I mean customers that they experiment on , and then just select whatever seemed convent for the service provider .
Engaging people in a trials like this , seems win/win for the customers and service providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm impressed that Comcast is talking about it trials publicly and engaging customers.
Many service providers run stuff in private, don't tell their guinea pigs, I mean customers that they experiment on, and then just select whatever seemed convent for the service provider.
Engaging people in a trials like this, seems win/win for the customers and service providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927396</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264596060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more.</p><p>Yeah, it increases the number of IPs MASSIVELY, but the drawbacks are way too much, not to mention the idea of having one IP is a rather scary thought, especially since it is rather easy to make enemies online.</p><p>NAT could be extended and work more-or-less on current hardware as long as firmware updates are possible.<br>Currently, NAT depends on subnetting to reach internal IPs, right?<br>This causes huge problems, such as no direct access to ports on any internal IPs, forwarding, blah blah etc, we all know the pain.</p><p>A better solution would have been the addition of X octets in packets that will direct them to a device behind the routing device. (yes, a 2nd Destination IP)<br>X can start off at 1 initially, but is future-proofed for 4.  (or even more?)<br>Directly accessing an IP behind another IP could be done in this format:  X.X.X.X:port;Y[.Y.Y.Y.n]:port/resource.ext<br>This is incredibly simple to do in comparison to IPv6, most of it only requires a firmware update and updates to the routing rules in whatever servers, hard-coded hardware is going to be a bit of a problem, but any change is expected to cause problems.<br>While it will decrease space in packets for data (and potentially clog up the net a little more), the benefits far outweigh the problems, unlike IPv6 which is the opposite. (and already uses more space anyway!)</p><p>Both routes will cause headaches for network operators, the dual-destination IP approach is just simpler and easier to implement, not to mention familiar.<br>IPv6 just looks like a major headache waiting to happen.  Admittedly it was designed for the sake of not requiring the need to LOOK at IPs due to the large number being capable of assigning more than several IPs to every person alive, but some work requires IP.<br>The headaches this will cause for people setting up game servers...<br>ISPs should at least have some sort of DNS redirect that a person can setup to simplify it. (maybe even sell it as a premium service, evil, yes)<br>user.personal.ISP.TLD:port</p><p>If any confusion is found in this post, blame the heat, i'm almost fainting with it.  Bring back the snow and cold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more.Yeah , it increases the number of IPs MASSIVELY , but the drawbacks are way too much , not to mention the idea of having one IP is a rather scary thought , especially since it is rather easy to make enemies online.NAT could be extended and work more-or-less on current hardware as long as firmware updates are possible.Currently , NAT depends on subnetting to reach internal IPs , right ? This causes huge problems , such as no direct access to ports on any internal IPs , forwarding , blah blah etc , we all know the pain.A better solution would have been the addition of X octets in packets that will direct them to a device behind the routing device .
( yes , a 2nd Destination IP ) X can start off at 1 initially , but is future-proofed for 4 .
( or even more ?
) Directly accessing an IP behind another IP could be done in this format : X.X.X.X : port ; Y [ .Y.Y.Y.n ] : port/resource.extThis is incredibly simple to do in comparison to IPv6 , most of it only requires a firmware update and updates to the routing rules in whatever servers , hard-coded hardware is going to be a bit of a problem , but any change is expected to cause problems.While it will decrease space in packets for data ( and potentially clog up the net a little more ) , the benefits far outweigh the problems , unlike IPv6 which is the opposite .
( and already uses more space anyway !
) Both routes will cause headaches for network operators , the dual-destination IP approach is just simpler and easier to implement , not to mention familiar.IPv6 just looks like a major headache waiting to happen .
Admittedly it was designed for the sake of not requiring the need to LOOK at IPs due to the large number being capable of assigning more than several IPs to every person alive , but some work requires IP.The headaches this will cause for people setting up game servers...ISPs should at least have some sort of DNS redirect that a person can setup to simplify it .
( maybe even sell it as a premium service , evil , yes ) user.personal.ISP.TLD : portIf any confusion is found in this post , blame the heat , i 'm almost fainting with it .
Bring back the snow and cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.Yeah, it increases the number of IPs MASSIVELY, but the drawbacks are way too much, not to mention the idea of having one IP is a rather scary thought, especially since it is rather easy to make enemies online.NAT could be extended and work more-or-less on current hardware as long as firmware updates are possible.Currently, NAT depends on subnetting to reach internal IPs, right?This causes huge problems, such as no direct access to ports on any internal IPs, forwarding, blah blah etc, we all know the pain.A better solution would have been the addition of X octets in packets that will direct them to a device behind the routing device.
(yes, a 2nd Destination IP)X can start off at 1 initially, but is future-proofed for 4.
(or even more?
)Directly accessing an IP behind another IP could be done in this format:  X.X.X.X:port;Y[.Y.Y.Y.n]:port/resource.extThis is incredibly simple to do in comparison to IPv6, most of it only requires a firmware update and updates to the routing rules in whatever servers, hard-coded hardware is going to be a bit of a problem, but any change is expected to cause problems.While it will decrease space in packets for data (and potentially clog up the net a little more), the benefits far outweigh the problems, unlike IPv6 which is the opposite.
(and already uses more space anyway!
)Both routes will cause headaches for network operators, the dual-destination IP approach is just simpler and easier to implement, not to mention familiar.IPv6 just looks like a major headache waiting to happen.
Admittedly it was designed for the sake of not requiring the need to LOOK at IPs due to the large number being capable of assigning more than several IPs to every person alive, but some work requires IP.The headaches this will cause for people setting up game servers...ISPs should at least have some sort of DNS redirect that a person can setup to simplify it.
(maybe even sell it as a premium service, evil, yes)user.personal.ISP.TLD:portIf any confusion is found in this post, blame the heat, i'm almost fainting with it.
Bring back the snow and cold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928426</id>
	<title>Re:most routers?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1264602240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would image they're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who don't have it.  Really, all it'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with "Compatible with IPv6!!!" on the box?  Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would image they 're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who do n't have it .
Really , all it 'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with " Compatible with IPv6 ! ! !
" on the box ?
Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would image they're waiting until they can sell ipv6 support to people who don't have it.
Really, all it'd probably take is a firmware update but how many users will do that rather than buy a new router with "Compatible with IPv6!!!
" on the box?
Perhaps the strategy is to wait and market it as an upgrade or wait for a major ISP to start NAT-ing ipv4 rather than buy new address space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926</id>
	<title>most routers?</title>
	<author>arbiter1</author>
	<datestamp>1264593960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it means most companies (aka dlink, linksys, etc) have to get off their ass and add support to their routers since most home routers don't support ipv6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it means most companies ( aka dlink , linksys , etc ) have to get off their ass and add support to their routers since most home routers do n't support ipv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it means most companies (aka dlink, linksys, etc) have to get off their ass and add support to their routers since most home routers don't support ipv6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930624</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>j h woodyatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they're delegating a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/56 to each subscriber.  Certainly shorter than a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they 're delegating a /56 to each subscriber .
Certainly shorter than a /64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they're delegating a /56 to each subscriber.
Certainly shorter than a /64.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925604</id>
	<title>ipv6.comcast.net isn't ipv6 only</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264589820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no ipv6 at this location and it loads just fine here, not exactly 'ipv6 only' like the Dancing Kame<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no ipv6 at this location and it loads just fine here , not exactly 'ipv6 only ' like the Dancing Kame .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no ipv6 at this location and it loads just fine here, not exactly 'ipv6 only' like the Dancing Kame ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928324</id>
	<title>Re:Grudgingly, impressed.</title>
	<author>adaviel</author>
	<datestamp>1264601460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, reading this backwards, I presume we need new cable modems for native IPv6 support ?<br>And if Comcast's doing a trial, I guess they are in production somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , reading this backwards , I presume we need new cable modems for native IPv6 support ? And if Comcast 's doing a trial , I guess they are in production somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, reading this backwards, I presume we need new cable modems for native IPv6 support ?And if Comcast's doing a trial, I guess they are in production somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925798</id>
	<title>Unfortunate abbreviation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main page mentions tunneling IPv4 over what it calls "Dual-Stack Lite technology (aka DS-Lite)". But Comcast must not have been aware of Nintendo's prior use of "DS Lite" for a handheld video game system with Wi-Fi support. Do Nintendo video game consoles even support IPv6?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main page mentions tunneling IPv4 over what it calls " Dual-Stack Lite technology ( aka DS-Lite ) " .
But Comcast must not have been aware of Nintendo 's prior use of " DS Lite " for a handheld video game system with Wi-Fi support .
Do Nintendo video game consoles even support IPv6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main page mentions tunneling IPv4 over what it calls "Dual-Stack Lite technology (aka DS-Lite)".
But Comcast must not have been aware of Nintendo's prior use of "DS Lite" for a handheld video game system with Wi-Fi support.
Do Nintendo video game consoles even support IPv6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930110</id>
	<title>Re:Love comcast is working with it's customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264619400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't just engaging customers, but also the people that "run the Internet".</p><p>See this NANOG thread: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04678.html</p><p>(In other news, why isn't Slashdot using reCaptcha?!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't just engaging customers , but also the people that " run the Internet " .See this NANOG thread : http : //www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04678.html ( In other news , why is n't Slashdot using reCaptcha ? !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't just engaging customers, but also the people that "run the Internet".See this NANOG thread: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04678.html(In other news, why isn't Slashdot using reCaptcha?!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931314</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 only test...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264677480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://ipv6.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">ipv6.google.com</a> [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I think there's something wrong with that link. I just get a "host not found" error. I'm using Google's DNS too. What's IPv6, by the way?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ipv6.google.com [ google.com ] is IPv6 only , and if you can reach it , you are IPv6 enabled .
I think there 's something wrong with that link .
I just get a " host not found " error .
I 'm using Google 's DNS too .
What 's IPv6 , by the way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ipv6.google.com [google.com] is IPv6 only, and if you can reach it, you are IPv6 enabled.
I think there's something wrong with that link.
I just get a "host not found" error.
I'm using Google's DNS too.
What's IPv6, by the way?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939136</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, this is sooo going to suck</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that's an interesting proposal, though it seems like a really dumb hack to me.</p><p>And I don't understand any of the reasons why you think it will be a headache.  The only one that really makes any sense is that you think your proposed scheme will require fewer software changes on devices.</p><p>You don't appear to explain any of your other reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's an interesting proposal , though it seems like a really dumb hack to me.And I do n't understand any of the reasons why you think it will be a headache .
The only one that really makes any sense is that you think your proposed scheme will require fewer software changes on devices.You do n't appear to explain any of your other reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's an interesting proposal, though it seems like a really dumb hack to me.And I don't understand any of the reasons why you think it will be a headache.
The only one that really makes any sense is that you think your proposed scheme will require fewer software changes on devices.You don't appear to explain any of your other reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472</id>
	<title>Static or Dynamic?</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1264592460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will the addresses by dynamic or static? Is there any good reason for them <em>not</em> to be static?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the addresses by dynamic or static ?
Is there any good reason for them not to be static ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the addresses by dynamic or static?
Is there any good reason for them not to be static?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928566</id>
	<title>Why not making the Chinese pay ?</title>
	<author>djscoumoune</author>
	<datestamp>1264603620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm feeling the Chinese are the only ones that can benefit from the ipv6 and they would get the help of everyone for free ?! Economically it would be foolish to make the world switch to ipv6 for nothing. China is not fair to anyone they don't respect patents and counterfact items so I don't see why we should make them the ipv6 gift.
Make them trade this ipv6, let every ISP in the world test it and then regroup and ask China to trade ipv6 for something. It doesn't have to be money : pollution reduction laws or human rights sound fair. Anything they can do fast and not just a promise would do.
They're the ones who'll run out of addresses not us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm feeling the Chinese are the only ones that can benefit from the ipv6 and they would get the help of everyone for free ? !
Economically it would be foolish to make the world switch to ipv6 for nothing .
China is not fair to anyone they do n't respect patents and counterfact items so I do n't see why we should make them the ipv6 gift .
Make them trade this ipv6 , let every ISP in the world test it and then regroup and ask China to trade ipv6 for something .
It does n't have to be money : pollution reduction laws or human rights sound fair .
Anything they can do fast and not just a promise would do .
They 're the ones who 'll run out of addresses not us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm feeling the Chinese are the only ones that can benefit from the ipv6 and they would get the help of everyone for free ?!
Economically it would be foolish to make the world switch to ipv6 for nothing.
China is not fair to anyone they don't respect patents and counterfact items so I don't see why we should make them the ipv6 gift.
Make them trade this ipv6, let every ISP in the world test it and then regroup and ask China to trade ipv6 for something.
It doesn't have to be money : pollution reduction laws or human rights sound fair.
Anything they can do fast and not just a promise would do.
They're the ones who'll run out of addresses not us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927194</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 only test...</title>
	<author>Matt\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1264595040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p># host ipv6.google.com<br>ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.<br>ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68</p><p># host www.google.com<br>www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.<br>www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.99<br>www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.104<br>www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># host ipv6.google.comipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001 : 4860 : c004 : : 68 # host www.google.comwww.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.99www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.104www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001 : 4860 : c004 : : 68 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext># host ipv6.google.comipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68# host www.google.comwww.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.99www.l.google.com has address 66.102.11.104www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:c004::68 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932174</id>
	<title>Re:Will they permit NATs?</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1264688040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.</p></div><p>My ISP gives me (or anyone who cares enough to activate the free option) a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 IPv6 subnet. It wouldn't make much sense if it didn't.</p><p>I'll grant you that it'll be a while before the various gadgets (or even the software) play nice with IPv6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most IP6 fan will say that you do n't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.My ISP gives me ( or anyone who cares enough to activate the free option ) a /64 IPv6 subnet .
It would n't make much sense if it did n't.I 'll grant you that it 'll be a while before the various gadgets ( or even the software ) play nice with IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know most IP6 fan will say that you don't need them but you just know when the smoke clears Joe customer will still get ONE Address.My ISP gives me (or anyone who cares enough to activate the free option) a /64 IPv6 subnet.
It wouldn't make much sense if it didn't.I'll grant you that it'll be a while before the various gadgets (or even the software) play nice with IPv6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930730</id>
	<title>Re:Autodiscovery will have to fully mature...</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1264670100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went. It'd be akin to a routable MAC address. However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently.</p></div><p>
Ummm... you don't really grasp the vastness of the IPv6 address space, do you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever , no matter where it roamed and went .
It 'd be akin to a routable MAC address .
However , if we do that , we 'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly ( though still not fast ) , since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently .
Ummm... you do n't really grasp the vastness of the IPv6 address space , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, a device would get a static IPv6 address assigned to it and keep it forever, no matter where it roamed and went.
It'd be akin to a routable MAC address.
However, if we do that, we'll run out of IPv6 addresses more quickly (though still not fast), since things like phones get recycled fairly frequently.
Ummm... you don't really grasp the vastness of the IPv6 address space, do you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30942136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30944414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_2146226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30939040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30942136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30932174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30944414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30928844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30929334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30927388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30930120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30931942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30926066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_2146226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_2146226.30925762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
