<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_27_161231</id>
	<title>Major 'Net Players Mulling IPv6 Whitelist</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269710700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>netbuzz writes <i>"From this week's IETF meeting in Anaheim comes word that leading Web content providers are talking about creating <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html?hpg1=bn">a shared list of customers who can access their Web sites via IPv6</a>. The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4. David Temkin, network engineering manager with Netflix, says: 'We're looking into the same service that Google has, where we will try to track what connectivity the user has. We're in discussions with Google, Yahoo, Netflix and Microsoft to see whether it makes sense to have a shared, open source DNS whitelist service.' ISPs are not wild about the idea."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>netbuzz writes " From this week 's IETF meeting in Anaheim comes word that leading Web content providers are talking about creating a shared list of customers who can access their Web sites via IPv6 .
The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4 .
David Temkin , network engineering manager with Netflix , says : 'We 're looking into the same service that Google has , where we will try to track what connectivity the user has .
We 're in discussions with Google , Yahoo , Netflix and Microsoft to see whether it makes sense to have a shared , open source DNS whitelist service .
' ISPs are not wild about the idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>netbuzz writes "From this week's IETF meeting in Anaheim comes word that leading Web content providers are talking about creating a shared list of customers who can access their Web sites via IPv6.
The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4.
David Temkin, network engineering manager with Netflix, says: 'We're looking into the same service that Google has, where we will try to track what connectivity the user has.
We're in discussions with Google, Yahoo, Netflix and Microsoft to see whether it makes sense to have a shared, open source DNS whitelist service.
' ISPs are not wild about the idea.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31643926</id>
	<title>Not the greatest idea</title>
	<author>FliesLikeABrick</author>
	<datestamp>1269697320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am concerned that this idea, if implemented, would stick around for way too long and would actually impede the progress of IPv6 adoption.  I would be much more comfortable with an idea like this if it had an expiration date from the start, e.g. "this listing mechanism will be considered deprecated after 2 years, and will become unavailable on &lt;date&gt;."  Without this, I can see it being hard-coded into and depended on by way too many apps, tools, companies, sites etc etc for years to come, and actually inhibiting IPv6 adoption and causing connectivity issues.<br><br>There are loads of issues with outdated blacklists for spam-fighting, for example, and issues with companies and other bodies using their own out-of-date copies/instances of such lists.  What would keep problems like that from plaguing this idea, if it was implemented?<br><br>Without an expiration date, what would urge these companies to stop using this, or urge others to stop using this instead of offering up content natively on v6 to all?<br><br>For the record, I have hosted a large variety of sites (including the official sites for the game Soldat, its related projects, communities, etc) for a few years, including fully dual-stacked DNS and mail infrastructure for over two years with *zero* connectivity issues from any users whatsoever, and that has even been all through a Hurricane Electric tunnel, pushing a significant amount of content over IPv6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am concerned that this idea , if implemented , would stick around for way too long and would actually impede the progress of IPv6 adoption .
I would be much more comfortable with an idea like this if it had an expiration date from the start , e.g .
" this listing mechanism will be considered deprecated after 2 years , and will become unavailable on .
" Without this , I can see it being hard-coded into and depended on by way too many apps , tools , companies , sites etc etc for years to come , and actually inhibiting IPv6 adoption and causing connectivity issues.There are loads of issues with outdated blacklists for spam-fighting , for example , and issues with companies and other bodies using their own out-of-date copies/instances of such lists .
What would keep problems like that from plaguing this idea , if it was implemented ? Without an expiration date , what would urge these companies to stop using this , or urge others to stop using this instead of offering up content natively on v6 to all ? For the record , I have hosted a large variety of sites ( including the official sites for the game Soldat , its related projects , communities , etc ) for a few years , including fully dual-stacked DNS and mail infrastructure for over two years with * zero * connectivity issues from any users whatsoever , and that has even been all through a Hurricane Electric tunnel , pushing a significant amount of content over IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am concerned that this idea, if implemented, would stick around for way too long and would actually impede the progress of IPv6 adoption.
I would be much more comfortable with an idea like this if it had an expiration date from the start, e.g.
"this listing mechanism will be considered deprecated after 2 years, and will become unavailable on .
"  Without this, I can see it being hard-coded into and depended on by way too many apps, tools, companies, sites etc etc for years to come, and actually inhibiting IPv6 adoption and causing connectivity issues.There are loads of issues with outdated blacklists for spam-fighting, for example, and issues with companies and other bodies using their own out-of-date copies/instances of such lists.
What would keep problems like that from plaguing this idea, if it was implemented?Without an expiration date, what would urge these companies to stop using this, or urge others to stop using this instead of offering up content natively on v6 to all?For the record, I have hosted a large variety of sites (including the official sites for the game Soldat, its related projects, communities, etc) for a few years, including fully dual-stacked DNS and mail infrastructure for over two years with *zero* connectivity issues from any users whatsoever, and that has even been all through a Hurricane Electric tunnel, pushing a significant amount of content over IPv6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642254</id>
	<title>Re:How much IPv6 Hardware is there?</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1269681480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that every one of the printers I rented for my event, about 20 or so still don't support IPv6, they are Ricoh multi-function units that would cost thousands the buy. They are supposedly enterprise ready machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that every one of the printers I rented for my event , about 20 or so still do n't support IPv6 , they are Ricoh multi-function units that would cost thousands the buy .
They are supposedly enterprise ready machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that every one of the printers I rented for my event, about 20 or so still don't support IPv6, they are Ricoh multi-function units that would cost thousands the buy.
They are supposedly enterprise ready machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968</id>
	<title>Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice idea</p><p>But</p><p>1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?   Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.<br>2) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us?</p><p>Shame that it ain't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice ideaBut1 ) When are ISP 's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6 ?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.2 ) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us ? Shame that it ai n't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice ideaBut1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.2) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us?Shame that it ain't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930</id>
	<title>ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269714960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If ISPs would get their heads out of their asses "this idea" would not be needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISPs would get their heads out of their asses " this idea " would not be needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISPs would get their heads out of their asses "this idea" would not be needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640890</id>
	<title>Long live...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269714600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE6, Windows XP Pro, and IPv4!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 , Windows XP Pro , and IPv4 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6, Windows XP Pro, and IPv4!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641360</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1269717660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast is <a href="http://www.comcast6.net/" title="comcast6.net">doing an IPv6 trial right now</a> [comcast6.net].   Freenet in France has had IPv6 running using 6RD for quite a long time now.   You can get IPv6 tunnels from <a href="http://he.net/" title="he.net">Hurricane Internet</a> [he.net] and <a href="http://www.sixxs.net/" title="sixxs.net">Sixxs</a> [sixxs.net].   If you are interested in IPv6, go start using it.   Don't just sit there on your (no doubt svelte) ass!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:')</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast is doing an IPv6 trial right now [ comcast6.net ] .
Freenet in France has had IPv6 running using 6RD for quite a long time now .
You can get IPv6 tunnels from Hurricane Internet [ he.net ] and Sixxs [ sixxs.net ] .
If you are interested in IPv6 , go start using it .
Do n't just sit there on your ( no doubt svelte ) ass !
: ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast is doing an IPv6 trial right now [comcast6.net].
Freenet in France has had IPv6 running using 6RD for quite a long time now.
You can get IPv6 tunnels from Hurricane Internet [he.net] and Sixxs [sixxs.net].
If you are interested in IPv6, go start using it.
Don't just sit there on your (no doubt svelte) ass!
:')</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640900</id>
	<title>Single page story link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269714660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pagename=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;site=printpage" title="networkworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pagename=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;site=printpage</a> [networkworld.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi ? pagetosend = /news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pagename = /news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pageurl = http : //www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;site = printpage [ networkworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pagename=/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html&amp;site=printpage [networkworld.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641412</id>
	<title>Oh, really? ;)</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1269718140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4.</p></div><p>Let me guess, those would be IPv6 addresses?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>That obvious joke being made, I will now go read the article as the news blurb is useless, yet sounds interesting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4.Let me guess , those would be IPv6 addresses ?
; ) That obvious joke being made , I will now go read the article as the news blurb is useless , yet sounds interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DNS Whitelist for IPv6 would be used to serve content to these IP addresses via IPv6 rather than through IPv4.Let me guess, those would be IPv6 addresses?
;)That obvious joke being made, I will now go read the article as the news blurb is useless, yet sounds interesting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640952</id>
	<title>Not a "whitelist"</title>
	<author>pem</author>
	<datestamp>1269715080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a whitelist proposal.
<p>
This is the mother of all cookies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a whitelist proposal .
This is the mother of all cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a whitelist proposal.
This is the mother of all cookies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641034</id>
	<title>All it will take...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Google making their new 1Gbps IPv6 only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google making their new 1Gbps IPv6 only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google making their new 1Gbps IPv6 only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641010</id>
	<title>Why do they need a whitelist</title>
	<author>grahammm</author>
	<datestamp>1269715440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is a whitelist needed? If you do not have IPv6 connectivity then why do a DNS lookup for AAAA records? If a service has IPv6 connectivity, why not let anyone who also has IPv6 connectivity connect to it? There should be no need for a whitelist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is a whitelist needed ?
If you do not have IPv6 connectivity then why do a DNS lookup for AAAA records ?
If a service has IPv6 connectivity , why not let anyone who also has IPv6 connectivity connect to it ?
There should be no need for a whitelist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is a whitelist needed?
If you do not have IPv6 connectivity then why do a DNS lookup for AAAA records?
If a service has IPv6 connectivity, why not let anyone who also has IPv6 connectivity connect to it?
There should be no need for a whitelist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641172</id>
	<title>Re:Long live...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE6 and Windows XP both support IPv6</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 and Windows XP both support IPv6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 and Windows XP both support IPv6</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641028</id>
	<title>yeah also if you unplug your modem and forget...</title>
	<author>FuckingNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1269715500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to plug it back in again, you get "a bad experience". Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more? Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to plug it back in again , you get " a bad experience " .
Seriously , whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it does n't work any more ?
Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to plug it back in again, you get "a bad experience".
Seriously, whitelisting just because people smart enough to set up a tunnel forget that it doesn't work any more?
Stop being so damn dishonest and come out and admit why you want this whitelist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642204</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269681120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6? Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Stop blaming the ISPs. <b>The current implementation of IPv6 is for all intents and purposes <i>useless</i> </b>. An IPv6 capable computer cannot talk to an IPv4 capable one. This simple, trivial problem was left totally and utterly unaddressed by the IPv6 designers and as a result, IPv6 is and always will be <i>a downgrade</i> from IPv4 in its current form.</p><p>The current "method" of deploying IPv6 is to make the network support <i>two</i> protocols, IPv4 and IPv6, <i>simultaneously</i>. It's complete and utter nonsense, and ISPs are right not to implement it. Poor as it is, even running NAT through multiple layers makes more sense than the travesty that is the current IPv6.</p><p>Even video games consoles have realised the benefit of backwards compatibility. Yet we can't have it for our fundamental IP protocols because.... . It's incompetence of the highest order and ISPs cannot be expected to put up with it. The moment someone comes up with a backwards compatible IPv6.4 or the like, <b>then</b> ISPs can safely upgrade without damaging or compromising their existing service; and you can be sure they will. Until then, no upgrade is feasible or appropriate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) When are ISP 's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6 ?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.Stop blaming the ISPs .
The current implementation of IPv6 is for all intents and purposes useless .
An IPv6 capable computer can not talk to an IPv4 capable one .
This simple , trivial problem was left totally and utterly unaddressed by the IPv6 designers and as a result , IPv6 is and always will be a downgrade from IPv4 in its current form.The current " method " of deploying IPv6 is to make the network support two protocols , IPv4 and IPv6 , simultaneously .
It 's complete and utter nonsense , and ISPs are right not to implement it .
Poor as it is , even running NAT through multiple layers makes more sense than the travesty that is the current IPv6.Even video games consoles have realised the benefit of backwards compatibility .
Yet we ca n't have it for our fundamental IP protocols because.... . It 's incompetence of the highest order and ISPs can not be expected to put up with it .
The moment someone comes up with a backwards compatible IPv6.4 or the like , then ISPs can safely upgrade without damaging or compromising their existing service ; and you can be sure they will .
Until then , no upgrade is feasible or appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.Stop blaming the ISPs.
The current implementation of IPv6 is for all intents and purposes useless .
An IPv6 capable computer cannot talk to an IPv4 capable one.
This simple, trivial problem was left totally and utterly unaddressed by the IPv6 designers and as a result, IPv6 is and always will be a downgrade from IPv4 in its current form.The current "method" of deploying IPv6 is to make the network support two protocols, IPv4 and IPv6, simultaneously.
It's complete and utter nonsense, and ISPs are right not to implement it.
Poor as it is, even running NAT through multiple layers makes more sense than the travesty that is the current IPv6.Even video games consoles have realised the benefit of backwards compatibility.
Yet we can't have it for our fundamental IP protocols because.... . It's incompetence of the highest order and ISPs cannot be expected to put up with it.
The moment someone comes up with a backwards compatible IPv6.4 or the like, then ISPs can safely upgrade without damaging or compromising their existing service; and you can be sure they will.
Until then, no upgrade is feasible or appropriate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31649978</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1269768180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>An IPv6 capable computer cannot talk to an IPv4 capable one.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Mac I'm using right now is IPv6 capable and IPv4 capable. It is connecting to Slashdot, which is IPv4 only, and to my home server via IPv6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An IPv6 capable computer can not talk to an IPv4 capable one.The Mac I 'm using right now is IPv6 capable and IPv4 capable .
It is connecting to Slashdot , which is IPv4 only , and to my home server via IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An IPv6 capable computer cannot talk to an IPv4 capable one.The Mac I'm using right now is IPv6 capable and IPv4 capable.
It is connecting to Slashdot, which is IPv4 only, and to my home server via IPv6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640986</id>
	<title>I'm sure they have a reason for it...</title>
	<author>pathological liar</author>
	<datestamp>1269715320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article doesn't make it particularly clear what that might be though. The closest I found was:</p><blockquote><div><p>"There's a pretty key reason for whitelisting," Temkin explains. "It's really, really easy for anyone using, for example, Hurricane Electric's tunneling to find that the IPv6 network becomes an island and that it is broken because they didn't update a tunnel...You end up with the customer having a bad experience. They never see the content or they only see the content after a 30-second wait."</p></div></blockquote><p>Which seems like a no-brainer to me: Fix the tunnel. I don't even understand how the whitelist might help that -- if the whitelist says "This user has IPv6 connectivity" and you have a broken tunnel either you don't get the content at all, or you still only see the content after a 30-second wait.</p><p>The real 'island' problem is that IPv6 routing is kind of a mess. If you're on the east coast of North America and want to connect to western Europe, depending on who your provider is it may well decide to send all of your traffic through Korea, if it even makes it to your target at all. I imagine that's a problem that will solve itself as more routes come online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't make it particularly clear what that might be though .
The closest I found was : " There 's a pretty key reason for whitelisting , " Temkin explains .
" It 's really , really easy for anyone using , for example , Hurricane Electric 's tunneling to find that the IPv6 network becomes an island and that it is broken because they did n't update a tunnel...You end up with the customer having a bad experience .
They never see the content or they only see the content after a 30-second wait .
" Which seems like a no-brainer to me : Fix the tunnel .
I do n't even understand how the whitelist might help that -- if the whitelist says " This user has IPv6 connectivity " and you have a broken tunnel either you do n't get the content at all , or you still only see the content after a 30-second wait.The real 'island ' problem is that IPv6 routing is kind of a mess .
If you 're on the east coast of North America and want to connect to western Europe , depending on who your provider is it may well decide to send all of your traffic through Korea , if it even makes it to your target at all .
I imagine that 's a problem that will solve itself as more routes come online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't make it particularly clear what that might be though.
The closest I found was:"There's a pretty key reason for whitelisting," Temkin explains.
"It's really, really easy for anyone using, for example, Hurricane Electric's tunneling to find that the IPv6 network becomes an island and that it is broken because they didn't update a tunnel...You end up with the customer having a bad experience.
They never see the content or they only see the content after a 30-second wait.
"Which seems like a no-brainer to me: Fix the tunnel.
I don't even understand how the whitelist might help that -- if the whitelist says "This user has IPv6 connectivity" and you have a broken tunnel either you don't get the content at all, or you still only see the content after a 30-second wait.The real 'island' problem is that IPv6 routing is kind of a mess.
If you're on the east coast of North America and want to connect to western Europe, depending on who your provider is it may well decide to send all of your traffic through Korea, if it even makes it to your target at all.
I imagine that's a problem that will solve itself as more routes come online.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641280</id>
	<title>Re:Not a "whitelist"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269717060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, a cookie that says you get your connectivity through an ISP that's on the whitelist.   Ooh, scary!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:')</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a cookie that says you get your connectivity through an ISP that 's on the whitelist .
Ooh , scary !
: ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a cookie that says you get your connectivity through an ISP that's on the whitelist.
Ooh, scary!
:')</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641698</id>
	<title>Re:Why do they need a whitelist</title>
	<author>Fastolfe</author>
	<datestamp>1269720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service.  They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right?  Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.</p><p>You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they <em>actually care</em> about IPv6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up " trial " or " beta " IPv6 services for their users , and they do n't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service .
They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days , but nobody cares because it 's just a trial , right ?
Meanwhile , the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com , and they do n't know why , and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem ( because they 're all still on IPv4 ) , they conclude that it 's a problem with Google.You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service.
They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right?
Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641848</id>
	<title>Re:Long live...</title>
	<author>Vancorps</author>
	<datestamp>1269721560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This of course depends on your definition of supports as there is no DHCP client for IPv6. In a lot of setups this is however unnecessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This of course depends on your definition of supports as there is no DHCP client for IPv6 .
In a lot of setups this is however unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This of course depends on your definition of supports as there is no DHCP client for IPv6.
In a lot of setups this is however unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060</id>
	<title>How much IPv6 Hardware is there?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269715740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect one significant impediment to implementation of IPv6 on the part of most ISPs is that it would take wholesale replacement of significant amounts of hardware.</p><p>Sure, the latest model of a router may support IPv6, but the 200 or so that an ISP has may not and there may be no upgrade path for it.  Just like there is no Windows Vista driver for some hardware - too old to bother with - there is plenty of hardware out there that will never support IPv6.  Until this is replaced, IPv6 isn't going to happen.</p><p>I think we have finally reached the point where new hardware supports IPv6, almost universally.  So now we are just waiting until the older hardware is replaced.  I suspect larger ISPs are somewhat reluctant to move out millions (and possibly tens of millions) of dollars worth of hardware before they have to.</p><p>Of course, they could just raise the rates for everyone to cover it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect one significant impediment to implementation of IPv6 on the part of most ISPs is that it would take wholesale replacement of significant amounts of hardware.Sure , the latest model of a router may support IPv6 , but the 200 or so that an ISP has may not and there may be no upgrade path for it .
Just like there is no Windows Vista driver for some hardware - too old to bother with - there is plenty of hardware out there that will never support IPv6 .
Until this is replaced , IPv6 is n't going to happen.I think we have finally reached the point where new hardware supports IPv6 , almost universally .
So now we are just waiting until the older hardware is replaced .
I suspect larger ISPs are somewhat reluctant to move out millions ( and possibly tens of millions ) of dollars worth of hardware before they have to.Of course , they could just raise the rates for everyone to cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect one significant impediment to implementation of IPv6 on the part of most ISPs is that it would take wholesale replacement of significant amounts of hardware.Sure, the latest model of a router may support IPv6, but the 200 or so that an ISP has may not and there may be no upgrade path for it.
Just like there is no Windows Vista driver for some hardware - too old to bother with - there is plenty of hardware out there that will never support IPv6.
Until this is replaced, IPv6 isn't going to happen.I think we have finally reached the point where new hardware supports IPv6, almost universally.
So now we are just waiting until the older hardware is replaced.
I suspect larger ISPs are somewhat reluctant to move out millions (and possibly tens of millions) of dollars worth of hardware before they have to.Of course, they could just raise the rates for everyone to cover it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642622</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1269684420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them.</p></div><p>If you were Google, would you be willing to sacrifice 0.7\% of your users just to be an IPv6 pioneer? They'd be gaining less than 0.01\% of users who are IPv6 only.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them.If you were Google , would you be willing to sacrifice 0.7 \ % of your users just to be an IPv6 pioneer ?
They 'd be gaining less than 0.01 \ % of users who are IPv6 only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them.If you were Google, would you be willing to sacrifice 0.7\% of your users just to be an IPv6 pioneer?
They'd be gaining less than 0.01\% of users who are IPv6 only.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640972</id>
	<title>This doesn't have to last long</title>
	<author>Xipher</author>
	<datestamp>1269715260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any ISP that's not "wild" about the idea should step up and work with the community on actually getting IPv6 connectivity as functional as IPv4. I can see Google/Netflix perspective here. If they don't have some sort of white list they will get a black eye for having poor service when it's not even a result of something they control. Hopefully this will be something very short lived but I can imaging if service providers don't step up and start taking IPv6 seriously it's just going to prolong the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any ISP that 's not " wild " about the idea should step up and work with the community on actually getting IPv6 connectivity as functional as IPv4 .
I can see Google/Netflix perspective here .
If they do n't have some sort of white list they will get a black eye for having poor service when it 's not even a result of something they control .
Hopefully this will be something very short lived but I can imaging if service providers do n't step up and start taking IPv6 seriously it 's just going to prolong the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any ISP that's not "wild" about the idea should step up and work with the community on actually getting IPv6 connectivity as functional as IPv4.
I can see Google/Netflix perspective here.
If they don't have some sort of white list they will get a black eye for having poor service when it's not even a result of something they control.
Hopefully this will be something very short lived but I can imaging if service providers don't step up and start taking IPv6 seriously it's just going to prolong the issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642668</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269684720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points.</p></div><p>But IPv6 <b>is</b> coming whether they like it or not. There's no stopping it, and the closer we get to the available IPv4 pool drying up the less time they'll have to implement IPv6. <br> <br>
Sh!t or get off the pot? It's time to do <b>both</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points.But IPv6 is coming whether they like it or not .
There 's no stopping it , and the closer we get to the available IPv4 pool drying up the less time they 'll have to implement IPv6 .
Sh ! t or get off the pot ?
It 's time to do both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points.But IPv6 is coming whether they like it or not.
There's no stopping it, and the closer we get to the available IPv4 pool drying up the less time they'll have to implement IPv6.
Sh!t or get off the pot?
It's time to do both.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642690</id>
	<title>Re:How much IPv6 Hardware is there?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1269684840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine most backbone hardware installed since 2002 has ipv6 capability, along with any residential neighborhoods wired up since 2005 or so. That makes up something like 30\% of the US population. There are, however, office buildings full of IPv4 fiber equipment that will have to be replaced some day. As the cost comes down, I would imagine the units they replace will have 10x the capacity of those installed in the early-mid 1990s and cost a quarter of the units they are replacing, even adjusting for inflation. There's some math to it, but I would imagine in the next year or two, it will make sense to refit older, lower capacity equipment, rather than lease new space to install the new equipment. We're probably five years away before the beginning of a true transition though, and won't finish until 2020. By that time all new equipment installed in the last 15 years will have been IPv6 compliant, which will probably make up all but the hardiest routers, switches, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine most backbone hardware installed since 2002 has ipv6 capability , along with any residential neighborhoods wired up since 2005 or so .
That makes up something like 30 \ % of the US population .
There are , however , office buildings full of IPv4 fiber equipment that will have to be replaced some day .
As the cost comes down , I would imagine the units they replace will have 10x the capacity of those installed in the early-mid 1990s and cost a quarter of the units they are replacing , even adjusting for inflation .
There 's some math to it , but I would imagine in the next year or two , it will make sense to refit older , lower capacity equipment , rather than lease new space to install the new equipment .
We 're probably five years away before the beginning of a true transition though , and wo n't finish until 2020 .
By that time all new equipment installed in the last 15 years will have been IPv6 compliant , which will probably make up all but the hardiest routers , switches , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine most backbone hardware installed since 2002 has ipv6 capability, along with any residential neighborhoods wired up since 2005 or so.
That makes up something like 30\% of the US population.
There are, however, office buildings full of IPv4 fiber equipment that will have to be replaced some day.
As the cost comes down, I would imagine the units they replace will have 10x the capacity of those installed in the early-mid 1990s and cost a quarter of the units they are replacing, even adjusting for inflation.
There's some math to it, but I would imagine in the next year or two, it will make sense to refit older, lower capacity equipment, rather than lease new space to install the new equipment.
We're probably five years away before the beginning of a true transition though, and won't finish until 2020.
By that time all new equipment installed in the last 15 years will have been IPv6 compliant, which will probably make up all but the hardiest routers, switches, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641248</id>
	<title>DNS (AAAA and PTR -record) syntax, why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I'm looking at the wikipedia page of
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6\_address#IPv6\_addresses\_in\_the\_Domain\_Name\_System" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IPv6 addresses in the Domain Name System</a> [wikipedia.org].

</p><p>The A-record is simply: <tt>something.example.com.    IN    AAAA    fdda:5cc1:23:4::1f</tt> </p><p>But why is the PTR so damn verbose? For example: <tt>f.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.4.0.0.0.3.2.0.0.1.c.c.5.a.d.d.f    IN    PTR   derrick.example.com.</tt> </p><p>Is it some indexing thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I 'm looking at the wikipedia page of IPv6 addresses in the Domain Name System [ wikipedia.org ] .
The A-record is simply : something.example.com .
IN AAAA fdda : 5cc1 : 23 : 4 : : 1f But why is the PTR so damn verbose ?
For example : f.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.4.0.0.0.3.2.0.0.1.c.c.5.a.d.d.f IN PTR derrick.example.com .
Is it some indexing thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I'm looking at the wikipedia page of
IPv6 addresses in the Domain Name System [wikipedia.org].
The A-record is simply: something.example.com.
IN    AAAA    fdda:5cc1:23:4::1f But why is the PTR so damn verbose?
For example: f.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.4.0.0.0.3.2.0.0.1.c.c.5.a.d.d.f    IN    PTR   derrick.example.com.
Is it some indexing thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31648664</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1269801960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6? Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.</p><p>I don't know where you live, but I know Comcast is doing customer trials</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 1 ) When are ISP 's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6 ?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.I do n't know where you live , but I know Comcast is doing customer trials</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.I don't know where you live, but I know Comcast is doing customer trials</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645862</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269809880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why the content providers don't just have nameservers that only serve up the AAAA and are reachable only through IPv6. This works for me currently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the content providers do n't just have nameservers that only serve up the AAAA and are reachable only through IPv6 .
This works for me currently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the content providers don't just have nameservers that only serve up the AAAA and are reachable only through IPv6.
This works for me currently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642316</id>
	<title>Re:Why do they need a whitelist</title>
	<author>FireFury03</author>
	<datestamp>1269681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service.  They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right?  Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.</p><p>You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they <em>actually care</em> about IPv6.</p></div><p>The ISP shouldn't be handing out IPv6 addresses to normal end-users unless they plan on dealing with outages like they would for IPv4.  If they want to "trial" a service that won't remain stable then they need to make sure they only hand out IPv6 addresses to people who have explicitly said they want to be on the trial (i.e. people who understand that they may get poor service, probably people who understand how to drop the IPv6 routes themselves if there is a prolonged outage).</p><p>Rather than this "whitelist" idea, a better solution is simply to make more major services available via IPv6.  If everyone on a certain ISP regularly can't access google, youtube, bing and facebook for days at a time, that ISP is either going to get their finger out and treat it more seriously, or they are going to lose all their customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up " trial " or " beta " IPv6 services for their users , and they do n't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service .
They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days , but nobody cares because it 's just a trial , right ?
Meanwhile , the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com , and they do n't know why , and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem ( because they 're all still on IPv4 ) , they conclude that it 's a problem with Google.You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6.The ISP should n't be handing out IPv6 addresses to normal end-users unless they plan on dealing with outages like they would for IPv4 .
If they want to " trial " a service that wo n't remain stable then they need to make sure they only hand out IPv6 addresses to people who have explicitly said they want to be on the trial ( i.e .
people who understand that they may get poor service , probably people who understand how to drop the IPv6 routes themselves if there is a prolonged outage ) .Rather than this " whitelist " idea , a better solution is simply to make more major services available via IPv6 .
If everyone on a certain ISP regularly ca n't access google , youtube , bing and facebook for days at a time , that ISP is either going to get their finger out and treat it more seriously , or they are going to lose all their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service.
They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right?
Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6.The ISP shouldn't be handing out IPv6 addresses to normal end-users unless they plan on dealing with outages like they would for IPv4.
If they want to "trial" a service that won't remain stable then they need to make sure they only hand out IPv6 addresses to people who have explicitly said they want to be on the trial (i.e.
people who understand that they may get poor service, probably people who understand how to drop the IPv6 routes themselves if there is a prolonged outage).Rather than this "whitelist" idea, a better solution is simply to make more major services available via IPv6.
If everyone on a certain ISP regularly can't access google, youtube, bing and facebook for days at a time, that ISP is either going to get their finger out and treat it more seriously, or they are going to lose all their customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642928</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Try but...</title>
	<author>Matt\_R</author>
	<datestamp>1269686940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nice idea</p><p>But</p><p>1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?   Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.</p></div><p>Mine <a href="http://ipv6.internode.on.net/" title="on.net">already has</a> [on.net]. I get Google and Youtube via IPv6.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us?</p><p>Shame that it ain't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world.</p></div><p>I'm running native ipv6 over ADSL PPPoE right now (sure, it's a cisco 877..). But there's an <a href="http://www.andy.id.au/Home/openwrt/custom-builds" title="andy.id.au">OpenWRT custom build</a> [andy.id.au] that does the exact same thing if you have a modem to run in bridge mode. There seems to be an all-in-one router on the way: <a href="http://twitter.com/bigjsl/status/11082108182" title="twitter.com">http://twitter.com/bigjsl/status/11082108182</a> [twitter.com]</p><p>The only problem I've had so far has been Windows 7 not liking newer versions of Cisco IOS - 12.4-24T and 15.0 both have some issue with route advertisment. Funnily enough, there's no problem with WinXP, Linux, or FreeBSD. Only Win7 (and possibly Vista, which I don't have).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice ideaBut1 ) When are ISP 's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6 ?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.Mine already has [ on.net ] .
I get Google and Youtube via IPv6.2 ) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us ? Shame that it ai n't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world.I 'm running native ipv6 over ADSL PPPoE right now ( sure , it 's a cisco 877.. ) .
But there 's an OpenWRT custom build [ andy.id.au ] that does the exact same thing if you have a modem to run in bridge mode .
There seems to be an all-in-one router on the way : http : //twitter.com/bigjsl/status/11082108182 [ twitter.com ] The only problem I 've had so far has been Windows 7 not liking newer versions of Cisco IOS - 12.4-24T and 15.0 both have some issue with route advertisment .
Funnily enough , there 's no problem with WinXP , Linux , or FreeBSD .
Only Win7 ( and possibly Vista , which I do n't have ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice ideaBut1) When are ISP's going to get off their Fat backsides and implement IPV6?
Most in my part of the world have no plans to do this for 1-2 years.Mine already has [on.net].
I get Google and Youtube via IPv6.2) When are the DSL Modem makers going to implement IPV6 in the devices that are sold to the majority of us?Shame that it ain't going to get a lot of use outside the corporate world.I'm running native ipv6 over ADSL PPPoE right now (sure, it's a cisco 877..).
But there's an OpenWRT custom build [andy.id.au] that does the exact same thing if you have a modem to run in bridge mode.
There seems to be an all-in-one router on the way: http://twitter.com/bigjsl/status/11082108182 [twitter.com]The only problem I've had so far has been Windows 7 not liking newer versions of Cisco IOS - 12.4-24T and 15.0 both have some issue with route advertisment.
Funnily enough, there's no problem with WinXP, Linux, or FreeBSD.
Only Win7 (and possibly Vista, which I don't have).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1269716940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's not the ISPs they're referring to who have their heads in their asses.   Indeed, I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points.   From the perspective of IPv6 deployment, the whitelists suck, because mostly they prevent people who are trying to use IPv6 from using it--you have to be on the whitelist before you can get AAAA records from these online services.   It's very hard to get on the whitelist, and very easy to get knocked off of it.</p><p>ISPs who are deploying IPv6 want to just get the AAAA records, and not have to jump through hoops to get on a whitelist.   But the providers worry about people who have crappy home gateways that fall over and die when they get AAAA records, and also about people who have devices on their networks advertising IPv6 connectivity, when they don't actually have it.   One presentation in that meeting set the number at about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.8\% of users, which they felt was too many.</p><p>Personally, I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them.   But it's a rough tradeoff--IPv6 has at times gotten a bad rep for being the cause of network problems, and so network no-nothings tend to tell you "IPv6 is the problem" when in fact it's bad code on embedded devices that's the problem.   Since disabling IPv6 "fixes" it, IPv6 gets the blame.   That's the rationale for the whitelists, and as much as I hate them, I can't say that this rationale is completely wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's not the ISPs they 're referring to who have their heads in their asses .
Indeed , I do n't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points .
From the perspective of IPv6 deployment , the whitelists suck , because mostly they prevent people who are trying to use IPv6 from using it--you have to be on the whitelist before you can get AAAA records from these online services .
It 's very hard to get on the whitelist , and very easy to get knocked off of it.ISPs who are deploying IPv6 want to just get the AAAA records , and not have to jump through hoops to get on a whitelist .
But the providers worry about people who have crappy home gateways that fall over and die when they get AAAA records , and also about people who have devices on their networks advertising IPv6 connectivity , when they do n't actually have it .
One presentation in that meeting set the number at about .8 \ % of users , which they felt was too many.Personally , I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them .
But it 's a rough tradeoff--IPv6 has at times gotten a bad rep for being the cause of network problems , and so network no-nothings tend to tell you " IPv6 is the problem " when in fact it 's bad code on embedded devices that 's the problem .
Since disabling IPv6 " fixes " it , IPv6 gets the blame .
That 's the rationale for the whitelists , and as much as I hate them , I ca n't say that this rationale is completely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's not the ISPs they're referring to who have their heads in their asses.
Indeed, I don't think anybody has their heads in their asses on this one--each side of the discussion has legitimate points.
From the perspective of IPv6 deployment, the whitelists suck, because mostly they prevent people who are trying to use IPv6 from using it--you have to be on the whitelist before you can get AAAA records from these online services.
It's very hard to get on the whitelist, and very easy to get knocked off of it.ISPs who are deploying IPv6 want to just get the AAAA records, and not have to jump through hoops to get on a whitelist.
But the providers worry about people who have crappy home gateways that fall over and die when they get AAAA records, and also about people who have devices on their networks advertising IPv6 connectivity, when they don't actually have it.
One presentation in that meeting set the number at about .8\% of users, which they felt was too many.Personally, I think they should just turn on the AAAA records and let the customers who have broken routers see that their routers are broken and fix them.
But it's a rough tradeoff--IPv6 has at times gotten a bad rep for being the cause of network problems, and so network no-nothings tend to tell you "IPv6 is the problem" when in fact it's bad code on embedded devices that's the problem.
Since disabling IPv6 "fixes" it, IPv6 gets the blame.
That's the rationale for the whitelists, and as much as I hate them, I can't say that this rationale is completely wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645176</id>
	<title>Re:ISPs are not wild about the idea.</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1269712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many ISPs still have head routers with internal IP addressing like 192.168.0.10, 11, 12</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many ISPs still have head routers with internal IP addressing like 192.168.0.10 , 11 , 12</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many ISPs still have head routers with internal IP addressing like 192.168.0.10, 11, 12</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31649978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_161231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31648664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31645862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_161231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31640968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31648664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31642204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31649978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_161231.31641360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
