<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_1417201</id>
	<title>Comcast To Bring IPv6 To Residential US In 2010</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245335700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>darthcamaro writes <i>"We all know that <a href="//it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/2225218&amp;tid=95">IPv4 address space is almost gone</a> &mdash; but we also know that no major US carrier has yet migrated its consumer base, either. Comcast is now upping the ante a bit and has now said that they are seriously <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.phpr/3825696/Comcast+Embraces+IPv6.htm">gearing up for IPv6 residential broadband deployment</a> soon. 'Comcast plans to enter into broadband IPv6 technical trials later this year and into 2010,' Barry Tishgart, VP of Internet Services for Comcast said. 'Planning for general deployment is underway.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>darthcamaro writes " We all know that IPv4 address space is almost gone    but we also know that no major US carrier has yet migrated its consumer base , either .
Comcast is now upping the ante a bit and has now said that they are seriously gearing up for IPv6 residential broadband deployment soon .
'Comcast plans to enter into broadband IPv6 technical trials later this year and into 2010, ' Barry Tishgart , VP of Internet Services for Comcast said .
'Planning for general deployment is underway .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>darthcamaro writes "We all know that IPv4 address space is almost gone — but we also know that no major US carrier has yet migrated its consumer base, either.
Comcast is now upping the ante a bit and has now said that they are seriously gearing up for IPv6 residential broadband deployment soon.
'Comcast plans to enter into broadband IPv6 technical trials later this year and into 2010,' Barry Tishgart, VP of Internet Services for Comcast said.
'Planning for general deployment is underway.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375511</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245346020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not me. I have a 5-minute to 1-hour outage about once a month. I also have funny DNS issues, and sometimes routing issues, that usually last from 5 mintues to an hour.  One other thing: I have UPSs for my home computers - but Comcast doesn't have UPSs or generators for any of their network equipment (at least in my area), so power outages kill my connection even though my equipment stays up.</p><p>I'd switch to DSL in a heartbeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not me .
I have a 5-minute to 1-hour outage about once a month .
I also have funny DNS issues , and sometimes routing issues , that usually last from 5 mintues to an hour .
One other thing : I have UPSs for my home computers - but Comcast does n't have UPSs or generators for any of their network equipment ( at least in my area ) , so power outages kill my connection even though my equipment stays up.I 'd switch to DSL in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not me.
I have a 5-minute to 1-hour outage about once a month.
I also have funny DNS issues, and sometimes routing issues, that usually last from 5 mintues to an hour.
One other thing: I have UPSs for my home computers - but Comcast doesn't have UPSs or generators for any of their network equipment (at least in my area), so power outages kill my connection even though my equipment stays up.I'd switch to DSL in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035</id>
	<title>REPENT!!</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1245340020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bbrrrriiiing. Bbrrrriiiing.</i></p><p><b>You:</b> Hello?</p><p><b>Dependant Relative:</b> My internet isn't working!</p><p><b>You:</b> Is the modem turned on?</p><p><b>Dependant Relative:</b> Yes it <i>IS</i>!! It even says I'm connected with eye-pee-vee-six now. But now none of my programs work!! The man from Comcast said it was an upgrade from than eye-pee-vee-four. I thought six was better than four!? Is it because I'm using Windows 7? Do I need to get Windows 6? And my internet is explorer 8? Can I still get emails? And the computer is really slow! Can you come over?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>etc. etc.</i></p><p><b>You:</b> Curse you Comcast. <i>Curse you!!!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bbrrrriiiing .
Bbrrrriiiing.You : Hello ? Dependant Relative : My internet is n't working ! You : Is the modem turned on ? Dependant Relative : Yes it IS ! !
It even says I 'm connected with eye-pee-vee-six now .
But now none of my programs work ! !
The man from Comcast said it was an upgrade from than eye-pee-vee-four .
I thought six was better than four ! ?
Is it because I 'm using Windows 7 ?
Do I need to get Windows 6 ?
And my internet is explorer 8 ?
Can I still get emails ?
And the computer is really slow !
Can you come over ?
... etc .
etc.You : Curse you Comcast .
Curse you ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bbrrrriiiing.
Bbrrrriiiing.You: Hello?Dependant Relative: My internet isn't working!You: Is the modem turned on?Dependant Relative: Yes it IS!!
It even says I'm connected with eye-pee-vee-six now.
But now none of my programs work!!
The man from Comcast said it was an upgrade from than eye-pee-vee-four.
I thought six was better than four!?
Is it because I'm using Windows 7?
Do I need to get Windows 6?
And my internet is explorer 8?
Can I still get emails?
And the computer is really slow!
Can you come over?
... etc.
etc.You: Curse you Comcast.
Curse you!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376167</id>
	<title>Re:Really? I wonder...</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1245348420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder: Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release\renew to see if you get a new address?</p></div><p>Your comments imply you don't know very much about IPv6. Practically noone plans to do stateful DHCP for IPv6. Release/renew won't do a thing, because the address is generated by your computer, not the DHCP server. You can change the address by changing the MAC address of your NIC or simply by picking any address you want in that subnet.</p><p>Tracking is dead easy with IPv4. Modern high-performance deep packet inspection can do practically anything you imagine except decrypt encrypted traffic (but it can do traffic type analysis even on encrypted traffic). Making the DHCP server tell the analysis servers (or the inspection engines) which IP addresses match with which MAC addresses at which times is trivial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder : Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release \ renew to see if you get a new address ? Your comments imply you do n't know very much about IPv6 .
Practically noone plans to do stateful DHCP for IPv6 .
Release/renew wo n't do a thing , because the address is generated by your computer , not the DHCP server .
You can change the address by changing the MAC address of your NIC or simply by picking any address you want in that subnet.Tracking is dead easy with IPv4 .
Modern high-performance deep packet inspection can do practically anything you imagine except decrypt encrypted traffic ( but it can do traffic type analysis even on encrypted traffic ) .
Making the DHCP server tell the analysis servers ( or the inspection engines ) which IP addresses match with which MAC addresses at which times is trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder: Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release\renew to see if you get a new address?Your comments imply you don't know very much about IPv6.
Practically noone plans to do stateful DHCP for IPv6.
Release/renew won't do a thing, because the address is generated by your computer, not the DHCP server.
You can change the address by changing the MAC address of your NIC or simply by picking any address you want in that subnet.Tracking is dead easy with IPv4.
Modern high-performance deep packet inspection can do practically anything you imagine except decrypt encrypted traffic (but it can do traffic type analysis even on encrypted traffic).
Making the DHCP server tell the analysis servers (or the inspection engines) which IP addresses match with which MAC addresses at which times is trivial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375961</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>Kadin2048</author>
	<datestamp>1245347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.</p><p>IPv6 probably will, by virtue -- ironically -- of having more complex addresses.  Since you can't reasonably expect people to remember a 128-bit value, even when expressed in hex (hell even if you used Base-64), there will be a far greater reliance on automatic addressing schemes under IPv6 than under IPv4.  That's a good thing; Appleshare had the right idea in 1984, and the adoption of IP was a step backwards in this regard (although IP is superior in just about every other way, don't get me wrong, and Appleshare wouldn't have scaled like IP).  The length of the IP address shouldn't matter, because the user should never encounter them anyway.  With IPv4, doing this automatically was optional because manual addressing was, although inconvenient, admittedly practical.  With IPv6 it won't be except in real edge cases, and we'll finally be able to start ignoring IP addresses the same way we basically ignore Ethernet MACs.  (Quick! What's your Ethernet MAC?  You don't know, more than likely, and <i>it doesn't matter at all</i>.  That's how IP should be as well.)</p><p>And unlike IPv4, those addresses will be end-to-end routable, which means a lot less fussing around with port forwarding.  Plus, the huge number of addresses ought to get rid of dynamic addressing completely, at least the sort of addresses that change themselves automatically from time to time when you disconnect and reconnect.  (The addresses will still be "dynamic" in the sense that they're comprised of some part handed down from upstream and some part that's specific to the device, but they won't need to be doled out from some small pool with short leases.)  That means no more dyndns.org and abnormally short TTLs to get a usable DNS.</p><p>VoIP will be far simpler as well.  VoIP over IPv4 is a total pain in the ass, and there are a lot of ugly hacks (STUN, I'm looking at you) in order to try and make it work.  In many cases, consumer VoIP equipment tries to avoid the whole mess by forcing you to attach it directly to your WAN uplink, ahead of your router -- which can often be nowhere near where you want it, either in terms of physical location or network topology.  The hope of VoIP that comes closer to "just working" in the same way that POTS does would be enough to sell me on IPv6, long addresses be damned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.IPv6 probably will , by virtue -- ironically -- of having more complex addresses .
Since you ca n't reasonably expect people to remember a 128-bit value , even when expressed in hex ( hell even if you used Base-64 ) , there will be a far greater reliance on automatic addressing schemes under IPv6 than under IPv4 .
That 's a good thing ; Appleshare had the right idea in 1984 , and the adoption of IP was a step backwards in this regard ( although IP is superior in just about every other way , do n't get me wrong , and Appleshare would n't have scaled like IP ) .
The length of the IP address should n't matter , because the user should never encounter them anyway .
With IPv4 , doing this automatically was optional because manual addressing was , although inconvenient , admittedly practical .
With IPv6 it wo n't be except in real edge cases , and we 'll finally be able to start ignoring IP addresses the same way we basically ignore Ethernet MACs .
( Quick ! What 's your Ethernet MAC ?
You do n't know , more than likely , and it does n't matter at all .
That 's how IP should be as well .
) And unlike IPv4 , those addresses will be end-to-end routable , which means a lot less fussing around with port forwarding .
Plus , the huge number of addresses ought to get rid of dynamic addressing completely , at least the sort of addresses that change themselves automatically from time to time when you disconnect and reconnect .
( The addresses will still be " dynamic " in the sense that they 're comprised of some part handed down from upstream and some part that 's specific to the device , but they wo n't need to be doled out from some small pool with short leases .
) That means no more dyndns.org and abnormally short TTLs to get a usable DNS.VoIP will be far simpler as well .
VoIP over IPv4 is a total pain in the ass , and there are a lot of ugly hacks ( STUN , I 'm looking at you ) in order to try and make it work .
In many cases , consumer VoIP equipment tries to avoid the whole mess by forcing you to attach it directly to your WAN uplink , ahead of your router -- which can often be nowhere near where you want it , either in terms of physical location or network topology .
The hope of VoIP that comes closer to " just working " in the same way that POTS does would be enough to sell me on IPv6 , long addresses be damned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.IPv6 probably will, by virtue -- ironically -- of having more complex addresses.
Since you can't reasonably expect people to remember a 128-bit value, even when expressed in hex (hell even if you used Base-64), there will be a far greater reliance on automatic addressing schemes under IPv6 than under IPv4.
That's a good thing; Appleshare had the right idea in 1984, and the adoption of IP was a step backwards in this regard (although IP is superior in just about every other way, don't get me wrong, and Appleshare wouldn't have scaled like IP).
The length of the IP address shouldn't matter, because the user should never encounter them anyway.
With IPv4, doing this automatically was optional because manual addressing was, although inconvenient, admittedly practical.
With IPv6 it won't be except in real edge cases, and we'll finally be able to start ignoring IP addresses the same way we basically ignore Ethernet MACs.
(Quick! What's your Ethernet MAC?
You don't know, more than likely, and it doesn't matter at all.
That's how IP should be as well.
)And unlike IPv4, those addresses will be end-to-end routable, which means a lot less fussing around with port forwarding.
Plus, the huge number of addresses ought to get rid of dynamic addressing completely, at least the sort of addresses that change themselves automatically from time to time when you disconnect and reconnect.
(The addresses will still be "dynamic" in the sense that they're comprised of some part handed down from upstream and some part that's specific to the device, but they won't need to be doled out from some small pool with short leases.
)  That means no more dyndns.org and abnormally short TTLs to get a usable DNS.VoIP will be far simpler as well.
VoIP over IPv4 is a total pain in the ass, and there are a lot of ugly hacks (STUN, I'm looking at you) in order to try and make it work.
In many cases, consumer VoIP equipment tries to avoid the whole mess by forcing you to attach it directly to your WAN uplink, ahead of your router -- which can often be nowhere near where you want it, either in terms of physical location or network topology.
The hope of VoIP that comes closer to "just working" in the same way that POTS does would be enough to sell me on IPv6, long addresses be damned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374367</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1245341400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me</p></div><p>Agreed. What I'd <i>really</i> like to see is some kind of naming protocol so I don't have to remember all these long strings of numbers separated by dots. It would be awesome if internet addresses were identified by an alphanumeric name, then when I use that name there is a server somewhere that figures out what IP address that name is really pointing to.</p><p>I bet if everyone here at 216.34.181.45 put their minds to it we could even come up with something here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for meAgreed .
What I 'd really like to see is some kind of naming protocol so I do n't have to remember all these long strings of numbers separated by dots .
It would be awesome if internet addresses were identified by an alphanumeric name , then when I use that name there is a server somewhere that figures out what IP address that name is really pointing to.I bet if everyone here at 216.34.181.45 put their minds to it we could even come up with something here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for meAgreed.
What I'd really like to see is some kind of naming protocol so I don't have to remember all these long strings of numbers separated by dots.
It would be awesome if internet addresses were identified by an alphanumeric name, then when I use that name there is a server somewhere that figures out what IP address that name is really pointing to.I bet if everyone here at 216.34.181.45 put their minds to it we could even come up with something here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374983</id>
	<title>Re:Time Warner is already doing this in Brooklyn/N</title>
	<author>quazee</author>
	<datestamp>1245343860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because you are using an IPv6 address in the 6to4 address space, not a native IPv6 address.<br>
And according to trace, your ISP doesn't have their own 6to4 router deployed, so the traffic gets sent to whoever announces the shortest route to 192.88.99.1 route via BGP.<br>
(192.88.99.1 is a special IP which means 'any 6to4 router')</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because you are using an IPv6 address in the 6to4 address space , not a native IPv6 address .
And according to trace , your ISP does n't have their own 6to4 router deployed , so the traffic gets sent to whoever announces the shortest route to 192.88.99.1 route via BGP .
( 192.88.99.1 is a special IP which means 'any 6to4 router ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because you are using an IPv6 address in the 6to4 address space, not a native IPv6 address.
And according to trace, your ISP doesn't have their own 6to4 router deployed, so the traffic gets sent to whoever announces the shortest route to 192.88.99.1 route via BGP.
(192.88.99.1 is a special IP which means 'any 6to4 router')</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925</id>
	<title>Good news..</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1245339600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great news for the people within the trial area. They will have much more free time to, you know, go out and meet women. Since now a ton of web-sites break when they attempt to visit them.</p><p>If it was just a matter of software updates, but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.</p><p>IPv6 is the new Y2K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great news for the people within the trial area .
They will have much more free time to , you know , go out and meet women .
Since now a ton of web-sites break when they attempt to visit them.If it was just a matter of software updates , but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.IPv6 is the new Y2K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great news for the people within the trial area.
They will have much more free time to, you know, go out and meet women.
Since now a ton of web-sites break when they attempt to visit them.If it was just a matter of software updates, but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.IPv6 is the new Y2K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374651</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245342600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista has Teredo adapters that allow IPV6 over IPV4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista has Teredo adapters that allow IPV6 over IPV4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista has Teredo adapters that allow IPV6 over IPV4</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385445</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245347760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody loves stateless autoconfig until they want to hit their favorite web site and realize they don't know its IP address.</p><p>DHCPv6 is just as necessary for IPv6 networks as DHCP is for IPv4 network.  No big improvement there.  Now you can get your IP via stateless autoconfig and your DNS servers via DHCP; in the IPv4 world, we only had to use one protocol, DHCP, to get both.</p><p>Also, I don't need 2^64 publicly-accessible IP addresses.  Most people don't even want 1 publicly-accessible IP address.  For 99\% of subscribers, there is no legitimate Internet-initiated traffic they want to receive.</p><p>IPv6 was a neat idea 15 years ago.  It is looking like a silly idea in search of a problem now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody loves stateless autoconfig until they want to hit their favorite web site and realize they do n't know its IP address.DHCPv6 is just as necessary for IPv6 networks as DHCP is for IPv4 network .
No big improvement there .
Now you can get your IP via stateless autoconfig and your DNS servers via DHCP ; in the IPv4 world , we only had to use one protocol , DHCP , to get both.Also , I do n't need 2 ^ 64 publicly-accessible IP addresses .
Most people do n't even want 1 publicly-accessible IP address .
For 99 \ % of subscribers , there is no legitimate Internet-initiated traffic they want to receive.IPv6 was a neat idea 15 years ago .
It is looking like a silly idea in search of a problem now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody loves stateless autoconfig until they want to hit their favorite web site and realize they don't know its IP address.DHCPv6 is just as necessary for IPv6 networks as DHCP is for IPv4 network.
No big improvement there.
Now you can get your IP via stateless autoconfig and your DNS servers via DHCP; in the IPv4 world, we only had to use one protocol, DHCP, to get both.Also, I don't need 2^64 publicly-accessible IP addresses.
Most people don't even want 1 publicly-accessible IP address.
For 99\% of subscribers, there is no legitimate Internet-initiated traffic they want to receive.IPv6 was a neat idea 15 years ago.
It is looking like a silly idea in search of a problem now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381389</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245322620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Trying to get "what's your ip address?" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish.</p></div><p>So you're saying it'll be no worse than now? My IP address is 127.0.0.1.</p><p>No, that's the wrong one. Do you see another one?</p><p>OH, you're so right, it's 255.255.255.0</p><p>Let's try again, that was your netmask.</p><p>Let's see, there's 10.1.1.255...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to get " what 's your ip address ?
" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish.So you 're saying it 'll be no worse than now ?
My IP address is 127.0.0.1.No , that 's the wrong one .
Do you see another one ? OH , you 're so right , it 's 255.255.255.0Let 's try again , that was your netmask.Let 's see , there 's 10.1.1.255.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to get "what's your ip address?
" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish.So you're saying it'll be no worse than now?
My IP address is 127.0.0.1.No, that's the wrong one.
Do you see another one?OH, you're so right, it's 255.255.255.0Let's try again, that was your netmask.Let's see, there's 10.1.1.255...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377885</id>
	<title>Re:Good news..</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1245354360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't make sense. If you have IPv6, DNS will first look for an IPv6 address for a given name. If it is found, it is used. If the name cannot be resolved to an IPv6 address, IPv4 will be checked. If a v4 address is found, it is  used. If it does not resolve, you get the usual error.</p><p>The only way for something like what you describe to happen is if v6 DNS was setup, but the http server was not setup for IPv6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't make sense .
If you have IPv6 , DNS will first look for an IPv6 address for a given name .
If it is found , it is used .
If the name can not be resolved to an IPv6 address , IPv4 will be checked .
If a v4 address is found , it is used .
If it does not resolve , you get the usual error.The only way for something like what you describe to happen is if v6 DNS was setup , but the http server was not setup for IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't make sense.
If you have IPv6, DNS will first look for an IPv6 address for a given name.
If it is found, it is used.
If the name cannot be resolved to an IPv6 address, IPv4 will be checked.
If a v4 address is found, it is  used.
If it does not resolve, you get the usual error.The only way for something like what you describe to happen is if v6 DNS was setup, but the http server was not setup for IPv6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374867</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245343380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.</p></div><p>How often do you enter IP addresses directly?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.</p></div><p>How so?  I'd be surprised if most consumers ever noticed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is like the phone company saying , hey , we have a ( aaa ) eee-nnnn system does n't have enough room , so let 's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.How often do you enter IP addresses directly ? It just sucks to use for consumers , making everyone else 's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.How so ?
I 'd be surprised if most consumers ever noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.How often do you enter IP addresses directly?It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.How so?
I'd be surprised if most consumers ever noticed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375307</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1245345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got that right!</p><p>May NAT die a horrible and torturous death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got that right ! May NAT die a horrible and torturous death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got that right!May NAT die a horrible and torturous death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376093</id>
	<title>No DHCP</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1245348120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIUC, with IPv6 you don't have to run a DHCP server that keeps track of all assigned addresses.  Instead you just have a server that periodically announces the network's link address.</p><p>But I think you are right.  From the user's perspective, IPv6 won't change anything(*) just like from the user's perspective moving from 16-bit to 32-bit didn't really change anything.</p><p>(*) The one killer-app I've heard of for IPv6 is IPSec, but SSL, TLS, IPSec-on-IPv4 have kind of taken the winds out of that sail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIUC , with IPv6 you do n't have to run a DHCP server that keeps track of all assigned addresses .
Instead you just have a server that periodically announces the network 's link address.But I think you are right .
From the user 's perspective , IPv6 wo n't change anything ( * ) just like from the user 's perspective moving from 16-bit to 32-bit did n't really change anything .
( * ) The one killer-app I 've heard of for IPv6 is IPSec , but SSL , TLS , IPSec-on-IPv4 have kind of taken the winds out of that sail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIUC, with IPv6 you don't have to run a DHCP server that keeps track of all assigned addresses.
Instead you just have a server that periodically announces the network's link address.But I think you are right.
From the user's perspective, IPv6 won't change anything(*) just like from the user's perspective moving from 16-bit to 32-bit didn't really change anything.
(*) The one killer-app I've heard of for IPv6 is IPSec, but SSL, TLS, IPSec-on-IPv4 have kind of taken the winds out of that sail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375389</id>
	<title>That is great.....</title>
	<author>wpiman</author>
	<datestamp>1245345540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but when are they going to bring a stable version of their IPV4 offering.  My connection goes down quite often.  And their TV boxes are even worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but when are they going to bring a stable version of their IPV4 offering .
My connection goes down quite often .
And their TV boxes are even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but when are they going to bring a stable version of their IPV4 offering.
My connection goes down quite often.
And their TV boxes are even worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374575</id>
	<title>Really? I wonder...</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245342240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would have NOTHING to do with monitoring and shaping your network traffic. None at all. ISPs don't do that.</p><p>And they won't be sending you:</p><p>"We have observed an unusual amount of encrypted traffic originating from your IP address" email implying that using encryption will get you disconnected.</p><p>Nope never will happen. They won't be injecting packets either to kill you VPN connections because that can't figure out what traffic you are sending. They would never do that, at least until your employers get involved asking why they were tampering with a secure connection to a financial institution. Nope not at all. Hamachi works great when it doesn't mysteriously die...</p><p>And they'll never send you a "Friendly Reminder" warning that using Tor to hide software piracy is still illegal, even if you are chatting with people in China on the annaversary of Tieniman.</p><p>Because they never inspect your traffic in order to identify what you are doing on their connecition.</p><p>They also don't send "friendly reminders" when you use PGP encrypted email that they are simply checking in on "unusual activity on their email server."</p><p>Nope, no motivation at all for switching on and using IP6 except perhaps the ability to assign static IP address for better tracking...</p><p>I wonder: Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release\renew to see if you get a new address?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would have NOTHING to do with monitoring and shaping your network traffic .
None at all .
ISPs do n't do that.And they wo n't be sending you : " We have observed an unusual amount of encrypted traffic originating from your IP address " email implying that using encryption will get you disconnected.Nope never will happen .
They wo n't be injecting packets either to kill you VPN connections because that ca n't figure out what traffic you are sending .
They would never do that , at least until your employers get involved asking why they were tampering with a secure connection to a financial institution .
Nope not at all .
Hamachi works great when it does n't mysteriously die...And they 'll never send you a " Friendly Reminder " warning that using Tor to hide software piracy is still illegal , even if you are chatting with people in China on the annaversary of Tieniman.Because they never inspect your traffic in order to identify what you are doing on their connecition.They also do n't send " friendly reminders " when you use PGP encrypted email that they are simply checking in on " unusual activity on their email server .
" Nope , no motivation at all for switching on and using IP6 except perhaps the ability to assign static IP address for better tracking...I wonder : Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release \ renew to see if you get a new address ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would have NOTHING to do with monitoring and shaping your network traffic.
None at all.
ISPs don't do that.And they won't be sending you:"We have observed an unusual amount of encrypted traffic originating from your IP address" email implying that using encryption will get you disconnected.Nope never will happen.
They won't be injecting packets either to kill you VPN connections because that can't figure out what traffic you are sending.
They would never do that, at least until your employers get involved asking why they were tampering with a secure connection to a financial institution.
Nope not at all.
Hamachi works great when it doesn't mysteriously die...And they'll never send you a "Friendly Reminder" warning that using Tor to hide software piracy is still illegal, even if you are chatting with people in China on the annaversary of Tieniman.Because they never inspect your traffic in order to identify what you are doing on their connecition.They also don't send "friendly reminders" when you use PGP encrypted email that they are simply checking in on "unusual activity on their email server.
"Nope, no motivation at all for switching on and using IP6 except perhaps the ability to assign static IP address for better tracking...I wonder: Anyone out there with a brand new shiney IP6 address try a release\renew to see if you get a new address?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</id>
	<title>I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.</p><p>It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.</p><p>I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is like the phone company saying , hey , we have a ( aaa ) eee-nnnn system does n't have enough room , so let 's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.It just sucks to use for consumers , making everyone else 's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375265</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the machine is internet-facing and the IPv6 address starts with 2002, that IP was automatically configured. If your IPv6 starts with 2001:, then it's most likely Teredo, (assumed-- since you said you didn't configure anything..either way it has nothing to do with Comcast and everything to do with IPv6 technologies in the Windows operating system. Thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the machine is internet-facing and the IPv6 address starts with 2002 , that IP was automatically configured .
If your IPv6 starts with 2001 : , then it 's most likely Teredo , ( assumed-- since you said you did n't configure anything..either way it has nothing to do with Comcast and everything to do with IPv6 technologies in the Windows operating system .
Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the machine is internet-facing and the IPv6 address starts with 2002, that IP was automatically configured.
If your IPv6 starts with 2001:, then it's most likely Teredo, (assumed-- since you said you didn't configure anything..either way it has nothing to do with Comcast and everything to do with IPv6 technologies in the Windows operating system.
Thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375179</id>
	<title>Re:You've got the protcol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245344700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, for heaven's sake.</p><p>Just say, "There's no place like localhost."</p><p>You have an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts file for a *reason*, you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , for heaven 's sake.Just say , " There 's no place like localhost .
" You have an /etc/hosts file for a * reason * , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, for heaven's sake.Just say, "There's no place like localhost.
"You have an /etc/hosts file for a *reason*, you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376189</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>thegameiam</author>
	<datestamp>1245348480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, if you want DNS server addresses, you need DHCPv6 as well as SLAAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , if you want DNS server addresses , you need DHCPv6 as well as SLAAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, if you want DNS server addresses, you need DHCPv6 as well as SLAAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373933</id>
	<title>As a user, what do I care?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245339660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as DNS works fine, and I can access all my favorite porn sites, I don't care what is going on under the covers.</p><p>For all I know, it could be hamsters squeaking in HyperCard. As a user, it really doesn't matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as DNS works fine , and I can access all my favorite porn sites , I do n't care what is going on under the covers.For all I know , it could be hamsters squeaking in HyperCard .
As a user , it really does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as DNS works fine, and I can access all my favorite porn sites, I don't care what is going on under the covers.For all I know, it could be hamsters squeaking in HyperCard.
As a user, it really doesn't matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373979</id>
	<title>You've got the protcol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now buy the T-shirt.<br>There's no place like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::1 (0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now buy the T-shirt.There 's no place like : : 1 ( 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 1 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now buy the T-shirt.There's no place like ::1 (0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>scubamage</author>
	<datestamp>1245343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, IPv6 is still a draft standard(s) to my knowledge. Many pieces of equipment aren't interoperable because of conflicting draft standard revisions. Further, the IPv6 stack gets updated in windows updates, and suddenly everything is broken. We have had this happen for a bank who tried upgrading to IPv6. The deployment went smoothly, until a windows update changed the IPv6 stack to use a different standard from the standard being used by the networking hardware. Suddenly they lost connectivity with all branch offices and had to pull back the update. A day's worth of productivity ruined because of this.

Further, how are they going to solve the other issues with IPv6? Dual stack, teredo tunneling - none of these things are standards. They could handle all of it on the network shy of the last mile with teredo tunneling, but then the clients are still limited to IPv4 addresses.

This is like someone saying "hey, we want all of you to use this thing we're not sure will work yet." It's foolhardy. Let the IEEE do their work and roll crap out when it's finished. Using your paying customers as beta testers is foolish - nay - freaking retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , IPv6 is still a draft standard ( s ) to my knowledge .
Many pieces of equipment are n't interoperable because of conflicting draft standard revisions .
Further , the IPv6 stack gets updated in windows updates , and suddenly everything is broken .
We have had this happen for a bank who tried upgrading to IPv6 .
The deployment went smoothly , until a windows update changed the IPv6 stack to use a different standard from the standard being used by the networking hardware .
Suddenly they lost connectivity with all branch offices and had to pull back the update .
A day 's worth of productivity ruined because of this .
Further , how are they going to solve the other issues with IPv6 ?
Dual stack , teredo tunneling - none of these things are standards .
They could handle all of it on the network shy of the last mile with teredo tunneling , but then the clients are still limited to IPv4 addresses .
This is like someone saying " hey , we want all of you to use this thing we 're not sure will work yet .
" It 's foolhardy .
Let the IEEE do their work and roll crap out when it 's finished .
Using your paying customers as beta testers is foolish - nay - freaking retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, IPv6 is still a draft standard(s) to my knowledge.
Many pieces of equipment aren't interoperable because of conflicting draft standard revisions.
Further, the IPv6 stack gets updated in windows updates, and suddenly everything is broken.
We have had this happen for a bank who tried upgrading to IPv6.
The deployment went smoothly, until a windows update changed the IPv6 stack to use a different standard from the standard being used by the networking hardware.
Suddenly they lost connectivity with all branch offices and had to pull back the update.
A day's worth of productivity ruined because of this.
Further, how are they going to solve the other issues with IPv6?
Dual stack, teredo tunneling - none of these things are standards.
They could handle all of it on the network shy of the last mile with teredo tunneling, but then the clients are still limited to IPv4 addresses.
This is like someone saying "hey, we want all of you to use this thing we're not sure will work yet.
" It's foolhardy.
Let the IEEE do their work and roll crap out when it's finished.
Using your paying customers as beta testers is foolish - nay - freaking retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373923</id>
	<title>Comcast Need to Suck My Dick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245339600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get on your knees. You know what to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get on your knees .
You know what to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get on your knees.
You know what to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28383687</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>SpazmodeusG</author>
	<datestamp>1245332940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where do you live?<br>
If you live in America then please shut the fuck up. Those of use in the rest of the world are starting to be allocated private addresses that are being NATed via our ISPs. This means we can't do port forwarding or use our connections for anything other than browsing on port 80.<br> <br>
<a href="http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/981410.html" title="whirlpool.net.au">http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/981410.html</a> [whirlpool.net.au]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you live ?
If you live in America then please shut the fuck up .
Those of use in the rest of the world are starting to be allocated private addresses that are being NATed via our ISPs .
This means we ca n't do port forwarding or use our connections for anything other than browsing on port 80 . http : //forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/981410.html [ whirlpool.net.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you live?
If you live in America then please shut the fuck up.
Those of use in the rest of the world are starting to be allocated private addresses that are being NATed via our ISPs.
This means we can't do port forwarding or use our connections for anything other than browsing on port 80. 
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/981410.html [whirlpool.net.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375913</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Dahan</author>
	<datestamp>1245347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv6 was published as a standard in December 1998; it's definitely long past the draft stage. And the IEEE doesn't have anything to do with IP standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 was published as a standard in December 1998 ; it 's definitely long past the draft stage .
And the IEEE does n't have anything to do with IP standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 was published as a standard in December 1998; it's definitely long past the draft stage.
And the IEEE doesn't have anything to do with IP standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375053</id>
	<title>But there's so much space for stuff like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245344160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...IP addresses that spell things out with the
available characters and number.</p><p>When I was messing around with the tunnel brokers
 a few years ago to develop some stuff that was supposed
to be IPv6 ready, I saw plenty of addresses that had dead:feed
and of course, the ever popular dead:beef in the logs.</p><p>Besides, how often do you put IPs in anyway?</p><p>If you absolutely must use an IP, of course you still
need to remember the subnet, but after that it's a blank
slate for your mnemonic license-plate style amusement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...IP addresses that spell things out with the available characters and number.When I was messing around with the tunnel brokers a few years ago to develop some stuff that was supposed to be IPv6 ready , I saw plenty of addresses that had dead : feed and of course , the ever popular dead : beef in the logs.Besides , how often do you put IPs in anyway ? If you absolutely must use an IP , of course you still need to remember the subnet , but after that it 's a blank slate for your mnemonic license-plate style amusement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...IP addresses that spell things out with the
available characters and number.When I was messing around with the tunnel brokers
 a few years ago to develop some stuff that was supposed
to be IPv6 ready, I saw plenty of addresses that had dead:feed
and of course, the ever popular dead:beef in the logs.Besides, how often do you put IPs in anyway?If you absolutely must use an IP, of course you still
need to remember the subnet, but after that it's a blank
slate for your mnemonic license-plate style amusement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28423305</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1245689400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't have Teredo tunneling turned on you will get what is called a Link Local scoped IPv6 address. If Teredo is on then you are on a 6to4 tunnel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't have Teredo tunneling turned on you will get what is called a Link Local scoped IPv6 address .
If Teredo is on then you are on a 6to4 tunnel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't have Teredo tunneling turned on you will get what is called a Link Local scoped IPv6 address.
If Teredo is on then you are on a 6to4 tunnel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374425</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1245341640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.</p></div><p>That's why we will be unprepared when it finally happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are " almost gone " for maybe 10 years now.That 's why we will be unprepared when it finally happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.That's why we will be unprepared when it finally happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376197</id>
	<title>Re:OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1245348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your last sentence claims that we'll never have to upgrade from v4 since we can use address translation, because it's a flexible approach.  Yet these techniques fall apart when a remote destination wishes to establish communication with a translated address.  Horrible technologies like STUN enter the picture, requiring a third node with a public address to establish the network parameters for translated hosts.  What would occur when we can no longer even provide addresses to these intermediaries?  This is to say nothing of the knowledge higher-level protocols must have of those layers beneath, which is unwholesome and breaks the abstract nature that once facilitated development.  Metaphorically, your postman has to know what's inside the box in order to deliver it.  Is this the flexibility you laud?  This is why I don't like it.  Am I misinformed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your last sentence claims that we 'll never have to upgrade from v4 since we can use address translation , because it 's a flexible approach .
Yet these techniques fall apart when a remote destination wishes to establish communication with a translated address .
Horrible technologies like STUN enter the picture , requiring a third node with a public address to establish the network parameters for translated hosts .
What would occur when we can no longer even provide addresses to these intermediaries ?
This is to say nothing of the knowledge higher-level protocols must have of those layers beneath , which is unwholesome and breaks the abstract nature that once facilitated development .
Metaphorically , your postman has to know what 's inside the box in order to deliver it .
Is this the flexibility you laud ?
This is why I do n't like it .
Am I misinformed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your last sentence claims that we'll never have to upgrade from v4 since we can use address translation, because it's a flexible approach.
Yet these techniques fall apart when a remote destination wishes to establish communication with a translated address.
Horrible technologies like STUN enter the picture, requiring a third node with a public address to establish the network parameters for translated hosts.
What would occur when we can no longer even provide addresses to these intermediaries?
This is to say nothing of the knowledge higher-level protocols must have of those layers beneath, which is unwholesome and breaks the abstract nature that once facilitated development.
Metaphorically, your postman has to know what's inside the box in order to deliver it.
Is this the flexibility you laud?
This is why I don't like it.
Am I misinformed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377475</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tomato doesn't support IPv6 yet, genius.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tomato does n't support IPv6 yet , genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tomato doesn't support IPv6 yet, genius.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380903</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder how this will integrate with local DHC</title>
	<author>Cajal</author>
	<datestamp>1245320580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will possibly use DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to configure your home router's DHCPv6 server. DHCPv6-PD is one of the more useful aspects of DHCPv6.</p><p>Also, Comcast will deploy IPv6 alongside IPv4, so your IPv4-only devices will continue to work just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will possibly use DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to configure your home router 's DHCPv6 server .
DHCPv6-PD is one of the more useful aspects of DHCPv6.Also , Comcast will deploy IPv6 alongside IPv4 , so your IPv4-only devices will continue to work just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will possibly use DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to configure your home router's DHCPv6 server.
DHCPv6-PD is one of the more useful aspects of DHCPv6.Also, Comcast will deploy IPv6 alongside IPv4, so your IPv4-only devices will continue to work just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375319</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just pulled this from my Linux server, which sits directly behind the Comcast Cable modem. (redacted where appropriate)<br> <br>
<tt>
$ ifconfig<br>
Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:**:**:**:**:**  <br>
inet addr:67.***.***.**  Bcast:255.255.255.255  Mask:255.255.240.0<br>
inet6 addr: fe80::***:****:****:****/64 Scope:Link<br>
</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just pulled this from my Linux server , which sits directly behind the Comcast Cable modem .
( redacted where appropriate ) $ ifconfig Link encap : Ethernet HWaddr 00 : * * : * * : * * : * * : * * inet addr : 67. * * * . * * * .
* * Bcast : 255.255.255.255 Mask : 255.255.240.0 inet6 addr : fe80 : : * * * : * * * * : * * * * : * * * * /64 Scope : Link</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just pulled this from my Linux server, which sits directly behind the Comcast Cable modem.
(redacted where appropriate) 

$ ifconfig
Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:**:**:**:**:**  
inet addr:67.***.***.
**  Bcast:255.255.255.255  Mask:255.255.240.0
inet6 addr: fe80::***:****:****:****/64 Scope:Link
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397</id>
	<title>Time Warner is already doing this in Brooklyn/NYC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>However, they're being really evil and routing all their traffic through SWIP's 6 network... Which means everything gets routed over to Amsterdam and then back.&nbsp; e.g.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; C:\Users\Mike&gt;tracert -6 ipv6.google.com<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; Tracing route to ipv6.l.google.com [2001:4860:b004::68] over a maximum of 30 hops:<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;1 ms&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;1 ms&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;1 ms&nbsp; 2002:185a:90f:1234::1<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; 2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;*&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Request timed out.<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; 3&nbsp; &nbsp;109 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;107 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;109 ms&nbsp; ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net [2a00:800:0:1::1:1]<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; &nbsp;110 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;110 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;109 ms&nbsp; ams16-core-1.gigabiteth4-0-0.swip.net [2a00:800:0:1::2b:1]<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; &nbsp;105 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;109 ms&nbsp; &nbsp;107 ms&nbsp; pr61.ams04.net.google.com [2001:7f8:1::a501:5169:1]<br><br>Well googles local AMS server handles it but you get the idea.&nbsp; It's slower and you have to wonder how long before SWIP gets pissed.<br><br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they 're being really evil and routing all their traffic through SWIP 's 6 network... Which means everything gets routed over to Amsterdam and then back.   e.g .
:     C : \ Users \ Mike &gt; tracert -6 ipv6.google.com     Tracing route to ipv6.l.google.com [ 2001 : 4860 : b004 : : 68 ] over a maximum of 30 hops :     1         2       *         *         *       Request timed out.     3     109 ms     107 ms     109 ms   ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net [ 2a00 : 800 : 0 : 1 : : 1 : 1 ]     4     110 ms     110 ms     109 ms   ams16-core-1.gigabiteth4-0-0.swip.net [ 2a00 : 800 : 0 : 1 : : 2b : 1 ]     5     105 ms     109 ms     107 ms   pr61.ams04.net.google.com [ 2001 : 7f8 : 1 : : a501 : 5169 : 1 ] Well googles local AMS server handles it but you get the idea.   It 's slower and you have to wonder how long before SWIP gets pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, they're being really evil and routing all their traffic through SWIP's 6 network... Which means everything gets routed over to Amsterdam and then back.  e.g.
:    C:\Users\Mike&gt;tracert -6 ipv6.google.com    Tracing route to ipv6.l.google.com [2001:4860:b004::68] over a maximum of 30 hops:    1        2     *        *        *     Request timed out.    3   109 ms   107 ms   109 ms  ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net [2a00:800:0:1::1:1]    4   110 ms   110 ms   109 ms  ams16-core-1.gigabiteth4-0-0.swip.net [2a00:800:0:1::2b:1]    5   105 ms   109 ms   107 ms  pr61.ams04.net.google.com [2001:7f8:1::a501:5169:1]Well googles local AMS server handles it but you get the idea.  It's slower and you have to wonder how long before SWIP gets pissed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375441</id>
	<title>Re:REPENT!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245345720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heres the thing.... I'm a mac user, use linux and osx at work, and haven't touched windows in years- and even when I did it was just a company pc for email and such.</p><p>I converted a few relatives to Macs, before I realized... these people don't understand computers of any kind. They'll always hassle 24/7 no matter what. They may have fewer questions if they have a Mac, but if they stick to windows I can honestly tell them I have no idea and they should try calling Dell or MS for answers. If I'm the one that convinced them to switch- I'm on the hook for the rest of eternity when they go into walmart and buy the crapware of the day and it doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heres the thing.... I 'm a mac user , use linux and osx at work , and have n't touched windows in years- and even when I did it was just a company pc for email and such.I converted a few relatives to Macs , before I realized... these people do n't understand computers of any kind .
They 'll always hassle 24/7 no matter what .
They may have fewer questions if they have a Mac , but if they stick to windows I can honestly tell them I have no idea and they should try calling Dell or MS for answers .
If I 'm the one that convinced them to switch- I 'm on the hook for the rest of eternity when they go into walmart and buy the crapware of the day and it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heres the thing.... I'm a mac user, use linux and osx at work, and haven't touched windows in years- and even when I did it was just a company pc for email and such.I converted a few relatives to Macs, before I realized... these people don't understand computers of any kind.
They'll always hassle 24/7 no matter what.
They may have fewer questions if they have a Mac, but if they stick to windows I can honestly tell them I have no idea and they should try calling Dell or MS for answers.
If I'm the one that convinced them to switch- I'm on the hook for the rest of eternity when they go into walmart and buy the crapware of the day and it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</id>
	<title>Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>csnydermvpsoft</author>
	<datestamp>1245339420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad that I'm a Comcast customer!</p><p>(Please excuse me while I go wash out my mouth with soap)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never thought I 'd say this , but I 'm glad that I 'm a Comcast customer !
( Please excuse me while I go wash out my mouth with soap )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad that I'm a Comcast customer!
(Please excuse me while I go wash out my mouth with soap)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374609</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>Fallon</author>
	<datestamp>1245342420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to say it, but I agree. As bad as all the trash talking on Comcast is, I've never had a problem. Setup was easy. The 15-20 minute call to swap out my modem for a $15 one I found at a thrift store was straight forward and easy. The only 2 real problems I had was figuring out the modem will only send out DHCP for 1 device (when you put in your firewall/router, you just need to power cycle the modem so it forgets about your PC), and the fact my dam $1,000 Cisco 1760 was the bottleneck in my network connection (replaced with a !#@$* $150 Linksys). And only one of those can remotely be called a Comcast issue.<br><br>I've never had a single connection issue in the 4 odd months I've had the service. And now I'm looking forward to messing with IPv6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it , but I agree .
As bad as all the trash talking on Comcast is , I 've never had a problem .
Setup was easy .
The 15-20 minute call to swap out my modem for a $ 15 one I found at a thrift store was straight forward and easy .
The only 2 real problems I had was figuring out the modem will only send out DHCP for 1 device ( when you put in your firewall/router , you just need to power cycle the modem so it forgets about your PC ) , and the fact my dam $ 1,000 Cisco 1760 was the bottleneck in my network connection ( replaced with a ! # @ $ * $ 150 Linksys ) .
And only one of those can remotely be called a Comcast issue.I 've never had a single connection issue in the 4 odd months I 've had the service .
And now I 'm looking forward to messing with IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it, but I agree.
As bad as all the trash talking on Comcast is, I've never had a problem.
Setup was easy.
The 15-20 minute call to swap out my modem for a $15 one I found at a thrift store was straight forward and easy.
The only 2 real problems I had was figuring out the modem will only send out DHCP for 1 device (when you put in your firewall/router, you just need to power cycle the modem so it forgets about your PC), and the fact my dam $1,000 Cisco 1760 was the bottleneck in my network connection (replaced with a !#@$* $150 Linksys).
And only one of those can remotely be called a Comcast issue.I've never had a single connection issue in the 4 odd months I've had the service.
And now I'm looking forward to messing with IPv6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374537</id>
	<title>Re:services?</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1245342060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. They'll get one address. And they still will not be able to run services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
They 'll get one address .
And they still will not be able to run services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
They'll get one address.
And they still will not be able to run services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374415</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try going to Sixxs.net (IPv6 ready) and see if you connect with a Global IPv6 address or not. Local-Link IPv6 is just your standard IPv6 that comes with Windows XP/Vista, it is not good for anything that I know of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try going to Sixxs.net ( IPv6 ready ) and see if you connect with a Global IPv6 address or not .
Local-Link IPv6 is just your standard IPv6 that comes with Windows XP/Vista , it is not good for anything that I know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try going to Sixxs.net (IPv6 ready) and see if you connect with a Global IPv6 address or not.
Local-Link IPv6 is just your standard IPv6 that comes with Windows XP/Vista, it is not good for anything that I know of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374205</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1245340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It's an Illuminati conspiracy tied into fusion research (and holographic storage).  Just watch the obituaries.  You'll eventually see the pattern.  By then it will be too late - another 10 years.<br> <br>
(I'm sure I read it somewhere around here).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are " almost gone " for maybe 10 years now .
It 's an Illuminati conspiracy tied into fusion research ( and holographic storage ) .
Just watch the obituaries .
You 'll eventually see the pattern .
By then it will be too late - another 10 years .
( I 'm sure I read it somewhere around here ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.
It's an Illuminati conspiracy tied into fusion research (and holographic storage).
Just watch the obituaries.
You'll eventually see the pattern.
By then it will be too late - another 10 years.
(I'm sure I read it somewhere around here).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378057</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1245354780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Everybody will get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64</i></p><p>Actually, the policy from ARIN recommends everyone get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48, i.e. 64K *networks* (with, for practical purposes, unlimited addresses per network, one change of mindset is to stop thinking in terms of addresses, but in terms of networks).  At the small regional ISP I work for, we've got IPv6 up in experimental mode now and starting to plan for full support --- with this kind of space and some other factors of ipv6, it makes some aspects of life a lot nicer (particularly the breathing room), others a little more complicated (namely making sure your firewalls are all setup).</p><p>As for "we've been running out for 10 years", if it weren't for NAT, we *would* have hit the wall already, as it is, it's about 2-3 years out (though more intensive use of NAT could push it out more, but that'll be a royal pain for those doing it) and much of the traffic on the ARIN lists for some time now has been preparing for that end.</p><p>Another factor is that people *are* starting to deploy, and if you don't support IPv6, you're slowly going to find places you can't get to, though it'll likely be a number of years before that's significant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody will get a /64Actually , the policy from ARIN recommends everyone get a /48 , i.e .
64K * networks * ( with , for practical purposes , unlimited addresses per network , one change of mindset is to stop thinking in terms of addresses , but in terms of networks ) .
At the small regional ISP I work for , we 've got IPv6 up in experimental mode now and starting to plan for full support --- with this kind of space and some other factors of ipv6 , it makes some aspects of life a lot nicer ( particularly the breathing room ) , others a little more complicated ( namely making sure your firewalls are all setup ) .As for " we 've been running out for 10 years " , if it were n't for NAT , we * would * have hit the wall already , as it is , it 's about 2-3 years out ( though more intensive use of NAT could push it out more , but that 'll be a royal pain for those doing it ) and much of the traffic on the ARIN lists for some time now has been preparing for that end.Another factor is that people * are * starting to deploy , and if you do n't support IPv6 , you 're slowly going to find places you ca n't get to , though it 'll likely be a number of years before that 's significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody will get a /64Actually, the policy from ARIN recommends everyone get a /48, i.e.
64K *networks* (with, for practical purposes, unlimited addresses per network, one change of mindset is to stop thinking in terms of addresses, but in terms of networks).
At the small regional ISP I work for, we've got IPv6 up in experimental mode now and starting to plan for full support --- with this kind of space and some other factors of ipv6, it makes some aspects of life a lot nicer (particularly the breathing room), others a little more complicated (namely making sure your firewalls are all setup).As for "we've been running out for 10 years", if it weren't for NAT, we *would* have hit the wall already, as it is, it's about 2-3 years out (though more intensive use of NAT could push it out more, but that'll be a royal pain for those doing it) and much of the traffic on the ARIN lists for some time now has been preparing for that end.Another factor is that people *are* starting to deploy, and if you don't support IPv6, you're slowly going to find places you can't get to, though it'll likely be a number of years before that's significant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380953</id>
	<title>Re:Good news..</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245320820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if the service is v6 only (doubtful for a trial) or the site is stupid enough to publish a bogus AAAA record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if the service is v6 only ( doubtful for a trial ) or the site is stupid enough to publish a bogus AAAA record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if the service is v6 only (doubtful for a trial) or the site is stupid enough to publish a bogus AAAA record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28398357</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>slashtivus</author>
	<datestamp>1245422700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I appear to have both. <br>My "Local Link IPv6" starts with "fe80::34cb:18f0" etc , that does not appear to be a 2002 address.<br>However,<br> I also appear to have a tunnel adapter that starts with 2002 as you mention.  <br> <br>I'm using Vista, I am connected directly to my cable modem PDX area.<br> <br>Thanks for the reply I might have learned something new today.  I'm not a networking person.  Does that mean I'm still in translation mode?<br> <br>I also have an IPv4 address listed below the IPv6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I appear to have both .
My " Local Link IPv6 " starts with " fe80 : : 34cb : 18f0 " etc , that does not appear to be a 2002 address.However , I also appear to have a tunnel adapter that starts with 2002 as you mention .
I 'm using Vista , I am connected directly to my cable modem PDX area .
Thanks for the reply I might have learned something new today .
I 'm not a networking person .
Does that mean I 'm still in translation mode ?
I also have an IPv4 address listed below the IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appear to have both.
My "Local Link IPv6" starts with "fe80::34cb:18f0" etc , that does not appear to be a 2002 address.However, I also appear to have a tunnel adapter that starts with 2002 as you mention.
I'm using Vista, I am connected directly to my cable modem PDX area.
Thanks for the reply I might have learned something new today.
I'm not a networking person.
Does that mean I'm still in translation mode?
I also have an IPv4 address listed below the IPv6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375959</id>
	<title>Re:Asprin</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1245347700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?</p></div><p>What headaches are those?  Have you dealt with IPv6 at all?  It's very easy to work with, and co-exists perfectly well with IPv4.  I set up IPv6 in my house with a tunnel and it was amazing how smooth it was.  I set up the IPv6 tunnel and addresses on my router (that was a little tricky -- but no more than any other router configuration), started up radvd, which periodically broadcasts an announcement about what the local IPv6 router is, and instantly every machine on the network -- Linux, Mac and Windows -- had an IPv6 address in addition to their private IPv4 address (10.x.x.x).  Of course, the typical home user couldn't do any of that stuff, but they don't have to if the v6 service comes directly from their ISP.

</p><p>What's more, I was surprised to note that as soon as all my computers had v6 adresses, they started using them!  IPv6 DNS is in place, and all decent applications do an IPv6 name lookup in parallel with the IPv4, and if they get an IPv6 answer, they connect via v6.  I know Firefox does because I have a Firefox add-on that shows the IP of the web server in the status bar, and sometimes I come across sites for which it shows a v6 address.

</p><p>About the only part of the infrastructure that really isn't ready, as far as I can tell, is everyone's home routers.  Those ubiquitous Linksys boxes mostly don't support v6 unless you put third-party firmware on them (which I did, but most people obviously wouldn't do).  But I'm sure the next generation or two of home routers will come with IPv6 support enabled and it will Just Work.  Oh, and they'll also be configured by default to reject externally-originated connections, so that Joe Sixpack will still have the same level of firewalling he has with NAT -- but with lower overhead and fewer limitations.   Until those routers are widely available, v6 and v4 can coexist quite nicely.

</p><p>I predict that this will be relatively painless for Comcast's techs, and completely transparent to their customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this 'll cause ? What headaches are those ?
Have you dealt with IPv6 at all ?
It 's very easy to work with , and co-exists perfectly well with IPv4 .
I set up IPv6 in my house with a tunnel and it was amazing how smooth it was .
I set up the IPv6 tunnel and addresses on my router ( that was a little tricky -- but no more than any other router configuration ) , started up radvd , which periodically broadcasts an announcement about what the local IPv6 router is , and instantly every machine on the network -- Linux , Mac and Windows -- had an IPv6 address in addition to their private IPv4 address ( 10.x.x.x ) .
Of course , the typical home user could n't do any of that stuff , but they do n't have to if the v6 service comes directly from their ISP .
What 's more , I was surprised to note that as soon as all my computers had v6 adresses , they started using them !
IPv6 DNS is in place , and all decent applications do an IPv6 name lookup in parallel with the IPv4 , and if they get an IPv6 answer , they connect via v6 .
I know Firefox does because I have a Firefox add-on that shows the IP of the web server in the status bar , and sometimes I come across sites for which it shows a v6 address .
About the only part of the infrastructure that really is n't ready , as far as I can tell , is everyone 's home routers .
Those ubiquitous Linksys boxes mostly do n't support v6 unless you put third-party firmware on them ( which I did , but most people obviously would n't do ) .
But I 'm sure the next generation or two of home routers will come with IPv6 support enabled and it will Just Work .
Oh , and they 'll also be configured by default to reject externally-originated connections , so that Joe Sixpack will still have the same level of firewalling he has with NAT -- but with lower overhead and fewer limitations .
Until those routers are widely available , v6 and v4 can coexist quite nicely .
I predict that this will be relatively painless for Comcast 's techs , and completely transparent to their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?What headaches are those?
Have you dealt with IPv6 at all?
It's very easy to work with, and co-exists perfectly well with IPv4.
I set up IPv6 in my house with a tunnel and it was amazing how smooth it was.
I set up the IPv6 tunnel and addresses on my router (that was a little tricky -- but no more than any other router configuration), started up radvd, which periodically broadcasts an announcement about what the local IPv6 router is, and instantly every machine on the network -- Linux, Mac and Windows -- had an IPv6 address in addition to their private IPv4 address (10.x.x.x).
Of course, the typical home user couldn't do any of that stuff, but they don't have to if the v6 service comes directly from their ISP.
What's more, I was surprised to note that as soon as all my computers had v6 adresses, they started using them!
IPv6 DNS is in place, and all decent applications do an IPv6 name lookup in parallel with the IPv4, and if they get an IPv6 answer, they connect via v6.
I know Firefox does because I have a Firefox add-on that shows the IP of the web server in the status bar, and sometimes I come across sites for which it shows a v6 address.
About the only part of the infrastructure that really isn't ready, as far as I can tell, is everyone's home routers.
Those ubiquitous Linksys boxes mostly don't support v6 unless you put third-party firmware on them (which I did, but most people obviously wouldn't do).
But I'm sure the next generation or two of home routers will come with IPv6 support enabled and it will Just Work.
Oh, and they'll also be configured by default to reject externally-originated connections, so that Joe Sixpack will still have the same level of firewalling he has with NAT -- but with lower overhead and fewer limitations.
Until those routers are widely available, v6 and v4 can coexist quite nicely.
I predict that this will be relatively painless for Comcast's techs, and completely transparent to their customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374117</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245340440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon has IP6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon has IP6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon has IP6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375239</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1245344940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe this already exists for cable systems w/o IP Multicast - It's called switched digital video.</p><p>That said, if they implemented multicast out to and through the backbone, it could save a LOT of upstream bandwidth from user P2P apps.</p><p>Imagine if all subscribers to a torrent could receive multicast from the seeder, as opposed to now where the seeder gives peers content and they forward it on.  Most P2P is effectively "ghetto multicast", with lack of backbone participation severely reducing efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this already exists for cable systems w/o IP Multicast - It 's called switched digital video.That said , if they implemented multicast out to and through the backbone , it could save a LOT of upstream bandwidth from user P2P apps.Imagine if all subscribers to a torrent could receive multicast from the seeder , as opposed to now where the seeder gives peers content and they forward it on .
Most P2P is effectively " ghetto multicast " , with lack of backbone participation severely reducing efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this already exists for cable systems w/o IP Multicast - It's called switched digital video.That said, if they implemented multicast out to and through the backbone, it could save a LOT of upstream bandwidth from user P2P apps.Imagine if all subscribers to a torrent could receive multicast from the seeder, as opposed to now where the seeder gives peers content and they forward it on.
Most P2P is effectively "ghetto multicast", with lack of backbone participation severely reducing efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375725</id>
	<title>OMG, someone made me laugh..</title>
	<author>geoncic</author>
	<datestamp>1245346920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very rarely can I say "LOL" and mean it! That is just gold... thank you</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very rarely can I say " LOL " and mean it !
That is just gold... thank you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very rarely can I say "LOL" and mean it!
That is just gold... thank you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381141</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1245321480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be reading alarmist press. The more level headed have been saying they will run out one day. Then the word was they won't last long into the next decade. A year or two the estimate was 2012. This year the estimate is still 2012.</p><p>Just because you can see the train coming from 10 miles away doesn't mean you should wait until the engineer is frantically sounding  the horn and locking up the brakes to step off of the tracks and it sure doesn't mean that when he does he's just being an alarmist. (yeah, yeah, there's been a train coming and we haven't been hit YET!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be reading alarmist press .
The more level headed have been saying they will run out one day .
Then the word was they wo n't last long into the next decade .
A year or two the estimate was 2012 .
This year the estimate is still 2012.Just because you can see the train coming from 10 miles away does n't mean you should wait until the engineer is frantically sounding the horn and locking up the brakes to step off of the tracks and it sure does n't mean that when he does he 's just being an alarmist .
( yeah , yeah , there 's been a train coming and we have n't been hit YET !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be reading alarmist press.
The more level headed have been saying they will run out one day.
Then the word was they won't last long into the next decade.
A year or two the estimate was 2012.
This year the estimate is still 2012.Just because you can see the train coming from 10 miles away doesn't mean you should wait until the engineer is frantically sounding  the horn and locking up the brakes to step off of the tracks and it sure doesn't mean that when he does he's just being an alarmist.
(yeah, yeah, there's been a train coming and we haven't been hit YET!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376275</id>
	<title>Re:Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>j h woodyatt</author>
	<datestamp>1245348900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  We are serious this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
We are serious this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
We are serious this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1245340980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's slightly worse. It's more like the phone company going "we can only handle phone numbers from (000)000-0000 to (255)255-2555" and instead of going "Hey.. let's try making go up to (999) 999-9999 and maintain the pattern everyone knows, or even say adding another set of numbers to make 255(255)255-2555 available, let's change it all up into some long string people can only half pronounce and you have to be a telephone repairman to understand... your new phone number is now ab823:fff::324223 and your neighbor is ab823:fff:731:823:324223". Can you imagine the confusion?
<br> <br>

I never liked ipv6 is you end up with addresses like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 that can also be written as 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334.
Trying to get "what's your ip address?" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish. Not just from the fact it's now a long hex string, but also from a complete lack of understanding by users, much less some level 1's I've dealt with.
<br> <br>
Heck, just try diagnosing a user who "can't get to the internet" and it turns out to be a wrong dns server entry. It's hard enough to get them to go to google's ip now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's slightly worse .
It 's more like the phone company going " we can only handle phone numbers from ( 000 ) 000-0000 to ( 255 ) 255-2555 " and instead of going " Hey.. let 's try making go up to ( 999 ) 999-9999 and maintain the pattern everyone knows , or even say adding another set of numbers to make 255 ( 255 ) 255-2555 available , let 's change it all up into some long string people can only half pronounce and you have to be a telephone repairman to understand... your new phone number is now ab823 : fff : : 324223 and your neighbor is ab823 : fff : 731 : 823 : 324223 " .
Can you imagine the confusion ?
I never liked ipv6 is you end up with addresses like 2001 : 0db8 : 85a3 : 0000 : 0000 : 8a2e : 0370 : 7334 that can also be written as 2001 : db8 : 85a3 : : 8a2e : 370 : 7334 .
Trying to get " what 's your ip address ?
" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish .
Not just from the fact it 's now a long hex string , but also from a complete lack of understanding by users , much less some level 1 's I 've dealt with .
Heck , just try diagnosing a user who " ca n't get to the internet " and it turns out to be a wrong dns server entry .
It 's hard enough to get them to go to google 's ip now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's slightly worse.
It's more like the phone company going "we can only handle phone numbers from (000)000-0000 to (255)255-2555" and instead of going "Hey.. let's try making go up to (999) 999-9999 and maintain the pattern everyone knows, or even say adding another set of numbers to make 255(255)255-2555 available, let's change it all up into some long string people can only half pronounce and you have to be a telephone repairman to understand... your new phone number is now ab823:fff::324223 and your neighbor is ab823:fff:731:823:324223".
Can you imagine the confusion?
I never liked ipv6 is you end up with addresses like 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 that can also be written as 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334.
Trying to get "what's your ip address?
" when doing telephone technical support is going to be nightmarish.
Not just from the fact it's now a long hex string, but also from a complete lack of understanding by users, much less some level 1's I've dealt with.
Heck, just try diagnosing a user who "can't get to the internet" and it turns out to be a wrong dns server entry.
It's hard enough to get them to go to google's ip now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375911</id>
	<title>Re:REPENT!!</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1245347580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's strange that your neighbours and in-laws call you up so frequently for tech help. How often do they really call you?<br><br>My friends and relatives don't bother me with IT problems every day. I think they're not that unfortunate to experience IT problems that often.<br><br>Heck my dad only checks his email once a week (or even less often), so even if he has email problems, he'd only bother me once a week at most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).<br><br>Anyway, I think my friends and relatives would help me too if I had problems they could help with. But I don't ask for free help every day, nor do they.<br><br>As the golden rule goes: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And apply the golden rule to others as you would have others apply the golden rule to you - e.g. not a stupid literal way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's strange that your neighbours and in-laws call you up so frequently for tech help .
How often do they really call you ? My friends and relatives do n't bother me with IT problems every day .
I think they 're not that unfortunate to experience IT problems that often.Heck my dad only checks his email once a week ( or even less often ) , so even if he has email problems , he 'd only bother me once a week at most ; ) .Anyway , I think my friends and relatives would help me too if I had problems they could help with .
But I do n't ask for free help every day , nor do they.As the golden rule goes : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you .
And apply the golden rule to others as you would have others apply the golden rule to you - e.g .
not a stupid literal way ; ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's strange that your neighbours and in-laws call you up so frequently for tech help.
How often do they really call you?My friends and relatives don't bother me with IT problems every day.
I think they're not that unfortunate to experience IT problems that often.Heck my dad only checks his email once a week (or even less often), so even if he has email problems, he'd only bother me once a week at most ;).Anyway, I think my friends and relatives would help me too if I had problems they could help with.
But I don't ask for free help every day, nor do they.As the golden rule goes: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
And apply the golden rule to others as you would have others apply the golden rule to you - e.g.
not a stupid literal way ;).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375051</id>
	<title>Re:Time Warner is already doing this in Brooklyn/N</title>
	<author>Movi</author>
	<datestamp>1245344160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Nope, not really<br><br> 1&nbsp; [My IPv6]&nbsp; 1.421 ms&nbsp; 1.087 ms&nbsp; 2.245 ms<br> 2&nbsp; [My Tunnel]&nbsp; 35.730 ms&nbsp; 38.181 ms&nbsp; 34.940 ms<br> 3&nbsp; gige-g2-4.core1.fra1.he.net&nbsp; 33.940 ms&nbsp; 34.452 ms&nbsp; 33.944 ms<br> 4&nbsp; de-cix20.net.google.com&nbsp; 45.923 ms&nbsp; 43.556 ms&nbsp; 39.865 ms<br> 5&nbsp; * * *<br> 6&nbsp; fx-in-x68.google.com&nbsp; 56.283 ms&nbsp; 50.369 ms&nbsp; 36.717 ms</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , not really 1   [ My IPv6 ]   1.421 ms   1.087 ms   2.245 ms 2   [ My Tunnel ]   35.730 ms   38.181 ms   34.940 ms 3   gige-g2-4.core1.fra1.he.net   33.940 ms   34.452 ms   33.944 ms 4   de-cix20.net.google.com   45.923 ms   43.556 ms   39.865 ms 5   * * * 6   fx-in-x68.google.com   56.283 ms   50.369 ms   36.717 ms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, not really 1  [My IPv6]  1.421 ms  1.087 ms  2.245 ms 2  [My Tunnel]  35.730 ms  38.181 ms  34.940 ms 3  gige-g2-4.core1.fra1.he.net  33.940 ms  34.452 ms  33.944 ms 4  de-cix20.net.google.com  45.923 ms  43.556 ms  39.865 ms 5  * * * 6  fx-in-x68.google.com  56.283 ms  50.369 ms  36.717 ms</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374919</id>
	<title>Re:REPENT!!</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1245343620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy the Dependant Relative a Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy the Dependant Relative a Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy the Dependant Relative a Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376969</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1245351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>255(255)255-2555</p></div><p>Who would ever put numbers before an area code?   Sounds like an idea <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_call\_prefix" title="wikipedia.org">foreigners</a> [wikipedia.org] would come up with!<br>
<br>
On a more serious note, they (the phone company) already do this type of thing.  When I was growing up, it was 7-digit dialing, but the number capacity reached and they had to overlay area codes, forcing us all into 10-digit dialing.   There was a little bit of backlash at the time, but nobody really cares now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>255 ( 255 ) 255-2555Who would ever put numbers before an area code ?
Sounds like an idea foreigners [ wikipedia.org ] would come up with !
On a more serious note , they ( the phone company ) already do this type of thing .
When I was growing up , it was 7-digit dialing , but the number capacity reached and they had to overlay area codes , forcing us all into 10-digit dialing .
There was a little bit of backlash at the time , but nobody really cares now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>255(255)255-2555Who would ever put numbers before an area code?
Sounds like an idea foreigners [wikipedia.org] would come up with!
On a more serious note, they (the phone company) already do this type of thing.
When I was growing up, it was 7-digit dialing, but the number capacity reached and they had to overlay area codes, forcing us all into 10-digit dialing.
There was a little bit of backlash at the time, but nobody really cares now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375993</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1245347760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/56, not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64. Otherwise the customer can't subnet without losing autoconfiguration. Preferably<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/56 , not /64 .
Otherwise the customer ca n't subnet without losing autoconfiguration .
Preferably /48 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/56, not /64.
Otherwise the customer can't subnet without losing autoconfiguration.
Preferably /48.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</id>
	<title>It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245339540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have Comcast.  Typing ipconfig into my command prompt returns IPV6 addresses.  <br> <br>I did not RTFA but it seems to me that they have already started with this in 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Comcast .
Typing ipconfig into my command prompt returns IPV6 addresses .
I did not RTFA but it seems to me that they have already started with this in 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Comcast.
Typing ipconfig into my command prompt returns IPV6 addresses.
I did not RTFA but it seems to me that they have already started with this in 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28388535</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>csnydermvpsoft</author>
	<datestamp>1245420360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is, after posting this, our connection (a $100/month Comcast Business line) was down for the majority of the afternoon. Their support was very responsive, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is , after posting this , our connection ( a $ 100/month Comcast Business line ) was down for the majority of the afternoon .
Their support was very responsive , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is, after posting this, our connection (a $100/month Comcast Business line) was down for the majority of the afternoon.
Their support was very responsive, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376945</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would beg to differ.  Do to all the nat routers being used in homes and business the so "called running out if IP's " is a not issue in the near term 10 or so years.  I would also hope people realise that IP v6 has a large privacy issue.  in like now the IP does not hold the mac address in the packet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. IP V6 will.  So not only will "three letter government" divisions have the ip address of your machine even if you change they will have the mac address as well.</p><p>Think about that be for rushing headlong into ipv6,,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would beg to differ .
Do to all the nat routers being used in homes and business the so " called running out if IP 's " is a not issue in the near term 10 or so years .
I would also hope people realise that IP v6 has a large privacy issue .
in like now the IP does not hold the mac address in the packet .. IP V6 will .
So not only will " three letter government " divisions have the ip address of your machine even if you change they will have the mac address as well.Think about that be for rushing headlong into ipv6,,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would beg to differ.
Do to all the nat routers being used in homes and business the so "called running out if IP's " is a not issue in the near term 10 or so years.
I would also hope people realise that IP v6 has a large privacy issue.
in like now the IP does not hold the mac address in the packet .. IP V6 will.
So not only will "three letter government" divisions have the ip address of your machine even if you change they will have the mac address as well.Think about that be for rushing headlong into ipv6,,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375819</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1245347220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't you make an IPv4 multicast address for each TV channel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't you make an IPv4 multicast address for each TV channel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't you make an IPv4 multicast address for each TV channel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>quazee</author>
	<datestamp>1245340740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure these are not 6to4 addresses (2002:&lt;your\_v4\_IP&gt;::xxx)?<br>
By default, Vista and Win7 will automatically allocate a 6to4 address for each non-private IPv4 address configured on the computer.<br>
(since you mentioned ipconfig and not ifconfig, I assume you are using Windows)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure these are not 6to4 addresses ( 2002 : : : xxx ) ?
By default , Vista and Win7 will automatically allocate a 6to4 address for each non-private IPv4 address configured on the computer .
( since you mentioned ipconfig and not ifconfig , I assume you are using Windows )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure these are not 6to4 addresses (2002:::xxx)?
By default, Vista and Win7 will automatically allocate a 6to4 address for each non-private IPv4 address configured on the computer.
(since you mentioned ipconfig and not ifconfig, I assume you are using Windows)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376511</id>
	<title>I wonder how this will integrate with local DHCP?</title>
	<author>wowbagger</author>
	<datestamp>1245349800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers, I have a firewall and local DHCP server, handing out addresses in one of the reserved ranges (e.g. 10.x.x.x) for my home network.</p><p>OK, so when my ISP starts handing me real IPv6 route-ability and a real IPv6 address range, how do I configure my DHCP server to take that address range and convey it to my local clients?</p><p>Yes, I know that the bottom 48 bits of the address <i>can be</i> the MAC address of the device, but I still need to communicate to the devices what the prefix is.</p><p>And I will *still* need that firewall and router because I have many devices that are IPv4 only, and I won't be replacing them anytime soon, so even if IPv4 vanishes from the Internet at large, I will need my firewall to proxy for those older devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like many / .
readers , I have a firewall and local DHCP server , handing out addresses in one of the reserved ranges ( e.g .
10.x.x.x ) for my home network.OK , so when my ISP starts handing me real IPv6 route-ability and a real IPv6 address range , how do I configure my DHCP server to take that address range and convey it to my local clients ? Yes , I know that the bottom 48 bits of the address can be the MAC address of the device , but I still need to communicate to the devices what the prefix is.And I will * still * need that firewall and router because I have many devices that are IPv4 only , and I wo n't be replacing them anytime soon , so even if IPv4 vanishes from the Internet at large , I will need my firewall to proxy for those older devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like many /.
readers, I have a firewall and local DHCP server, handing out addresses in one of the reserved ranges (e.g.
10.x.x.x) for my home network.OK, so when my ISP starts handing me real IPv6 route-ability and a real IPv6 address range, how do I configure my DHCP server to take that address range and convey it to my local clients?Yes, I know that the bottom 48 bits of the address can be the MAC address of the device, but I still need to communicate to the devices what the prefix is.And I will *still* need that firewall and router because I have many devices that are IPv4 only, and I won't be replacing them anytime soon, so even if IPv4 vanishes from the Internet at large, I will need my firewall to proxy for those older devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375285</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1245345180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of devices still do not support IPv6.  Phones, cellphones,</p><p>A lot of people have to type in IP addresses (sysadmins, etc.) when configuring devices, DNS, web servers, and so forth, and those huge address strings are a pain in the ass. I don't want to deal with them. I like the dotted quads.</p><p>Also, one occasionally needs to access machines by IP address when DNS flakes out. What do you do when a DNS server goes down? Ideally you have a secondary DNS however not all organizations are willing to spend the money - especially in this economic climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of devices still do not support IPv6 .
Phones , cellphones,A lot of people have to type in IP addresses ( sysadmins , etc .
) when configuring devices , DNS , web servers , and so forth , and those huge address strings are a pain in the ass .
I do n't want to deal with them .
I like the dotted quads.Also , one occasionally needs to access machines by IP address when DNS flakes out .
What do you do when a DNS server goes down ?
Ideally you have a secondary DNS however not all organizations are willing to spend the money - especially in this economic climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of devices still do not support IPv6.
Phones, cellphones,A lot of people have to type in IP addresses (sysadmins, etc.
) when configuring devices, DNS, web servers, and so forth, and those huge address strings are a pain in the ass.
I don't want to deal with them.
I like the dotted quads.Also, one occasionally needs to access machines by IP address when DNS flakes out.
What do you do when a DNS server goes down?
Ideally you have a secondary DNS however not all organizations are willing to spend the money - especially in this economic climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378065</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs."</p><p>I'm excited because the above statement is false. Now please excuse me, I'm off to the IPv6 parade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs .
" I 'm excited because the above statement is false .
Now please excuse me , I 'm off to the IPv6 parade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs.
"I'm excited because the above statement is false.
Now please excuse me, I'm off to the IPv6 parade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374437</id>
	<title>Believe it when I see it.</title>
	<author>maskedbishounen</author>
	<datestamp>1245341700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much like the mythical Comcast bandwidth usage meter which we have been hearing about for over half a year now, I will believe it when I see it.  And I am certainly not seeing it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much like the mythical Comcast bandwidth usage meter which we have been hearing about for over half a year now , I will believe it when I see it .
And I am certainly not seeing it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much like the mythical Comcast bandwidth usage meter which we have been hearing about for over half a year now, I will believe it when I see it.
And I am certainly not seeing it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049</id>
	<title>Are we serious this time?</title>
	<author>CobaltTiger</author>
	<datestamp>1245340080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are " almost gone " for maybe 10 years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing that IPv4 addresses are "almost gone" for maybe 10 years now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</id>
	<title>What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned?  From an end-user's perspective, it appears to accomplish the same thing that IPv4 does, except addresses are longer and contain more characters.  Are there any real benefits from and end-user's perspective in using IPv6?  ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs.  From a sysadmin point of view, it's just going to mean more work and probably sleepless nights as we discover quirks with software and equipment that don't play nicely with IPv6.  So, whats to get excited about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned ?
From an end-user 's perspective , it appears to accomplish the same thing that IPv4 does , except addresses are longer and contain more characters .
Are there any real benefits from and end-user 's perspective in using IPv6 ?
ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs .
From a sysadmin point of view , it 's just going to mean more work and probably sleepless nights as we discover quirks with software and equipment that do n't play nicely with IPv6 .
So , whats to get excited about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned?
From an end-user's perspective, it appears to accomplish the same thing that IPv4 does, except addresses are longer and contain more characters.
Are there any real benefits from and end-user's perspective in using IPv6?
ISPs are still going to charge the same amount for public IPs and people are still going to user routers with NAT to save money on having to pay extra for additional IPs.
From a sysadmin point of view, it's just going to mean more work and probably sleepless nights as we discover quirks with software and equipment that don't play nicely with IPv6.
So, whats to get excited about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907</id>
	<title>Asprin</title>
	<author>Kid Zero</author>
	<datestamp>1245339540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?</p><p>Otherwise: Good Luck, guys!  You'll need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this 'll cause ? Otherwise : Good Luck , guys !
You 'll need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?Otherwise: Good Luck, guys!
You'll need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376133</id>
	<title>What is the hardware impact on consumers?</title>
	<author>MrCool80s</author>
	<datestamp>1245348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I searched newegg.com and cdw.com for "ipv6" and with a few exceptions, only high end  networking equipment results running ~$1k+ came up.  Searching the web for "ipv6 hardware requirements" does not lead to much (I confess I do not want to read the whole spec.), but the article on wikipedia leads me to believe that home routers (and maybe managed switches) could be upgraded if resources such as RAM (and EEPROMs?) are sufficient and manufacturers so inclined.</p><p>Why do there seem to be so few end-user products which are or claim to be "ipv6 ready"?</p><p>Will the implementation of ipv6 end up providing every ISP account holder with a static IP, with IPv4/NAT behind it until all the old equipment dies over the next couple decades?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I searched newegg.com and cdw.com for " ipv6 " and with a few exceptions , only high end networking equipment results running ~ $ 1k + came up .
Searching the web for " ipv6 hardware requirements " does not lead to much ( I confess I do not want to read the whole spec .
) , but the article on wikipedia leads me to believe that home routers ( and maybe managed switches ) could be upgraded if resources such as RAM ( and EEPROMs ?
) are sufficient and manufacturers so inclined.Why do there seem to be so few end-user products which are or claim to be " ipv6 ready " ? Will the implementation of ipv6 end up providing every ISP account holder with a static IP , with IPv4/NAT behind it until all the old equipment dies over the next couple decades ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I searched newegg.com and cdw.com for "ipv6" and with a few exceptions, only high end  networking equipment results running ~$1k+ came up.
Searching the web for "ipv6 hardware requirements" does not lead to much (I confess I do not want to read the whole spec.
), but the article on wikipedia leads me to believe that home routers (and maybe managed switches) could be upgraded if resources such as RAM (and EEPROMs?
) are sufficient and manufacturers so inclined.Why do there seem to be so few end-user products which are or claim to be "ipv6 ready"?Will the implementation of ipv6 end up providing every ISP account holder with a static IP, with IPv4/NAT behind it until all the old equipment dies over the next couple decades?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374217</id>
	<title>Re:Asprin</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1245340800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?</p></div><p>Maybe somebody told them that IPV6 makes it easier to inject fake RST packets into TCP connections<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this 'll cause ? Maybe somebody told them that IPV6 makes it easier to inject fake RST packets into TCP connections ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they make enough painkillers to deal with the headaches this'll cause?Maybe somebody told them that IPV6 makes it easier to inject fake RST packets into TCP connections ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374315</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>Leebert</author>
	<datestamp>1245341220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more than that.  For example, a big part of ipv6 is trading off some degree of address portability for routing efficiency.  And stateless autoconfiguration.  And ipsec.  Address deprecation.  Mobile ipv6.</p><p>There's lots of advantages.  (Granted a few of the advantages end up being disadvantages...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more than that .
For example , a big part of ipv6 is trading off some degree of address portability for routing efficiency .
And stateless autoconfiguration .
And ipsec .
Address deprecation .
Mobile ipv6.There 's lots of advantages .
( Granted a few of the advantages end up being disadvantages... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more than that.
For example, a big part of ipv6 is trading off some degree of address portability for routing efficiency.
And stateless autoconfiguration.
And ipsec.
Address deprecation.
Mobile ipv6.There's lots of advantages.
(Granted a few of the advantages end up being disadvantages...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374329</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you directly on Comcast or are you behind a router?</p><p>I have a WRT54G running Tomato and Comcast gives it a IPv4, and Tomato assigns IPv6 to my internal network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you directly on Comcast or are you behind a router ? I have a WRT54G running Tomato and Comcast gives it a IPv4 , and Tomato assigns IPv6 to my internal network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you directly on Comcast or are you behind a router?I have a WRT54G running Tomato and Comcast gives it a IPv4, and Tomato assigns IPv6 to my internal network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376099</id>
	<title>Re:OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>asdfghjklqwertyuiop</author>
	<datestamp>1245348120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(255^6 right? subtract a couple for those obvious reasons)</p></div></blockquote><p>No. 2^128. Indescribably more. It seems you are the one who doesn't understand a few things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 255 ^ 6 right ?
subtract a couple for those obvious reasons ) No .
2 ^ 128. Indescribably more .
It seems you are the one who does n't understand a few things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(255^6 right?
subtract a couple for those obvious reasons)No.
2^128. Indescribably more.
It seems you are the one who doesn't understand a few things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>z4ce</author>
	<datestamp>1245343620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent. And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently. You need IPV6. Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you 're using Skype or bittorrent .
And you want to do it on more than one computer , and you want to do it relatively efficiently .
You need IPV6 .
Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent.
And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently.
You need IPV6.
Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28384671</id>
	<title>Re:You've got the protcol</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1245339660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>::1 is shorter

</p><p>And cooler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: : 1 is shorter And cooler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>::1 is shorter

And cooler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375623</id>
	<title>$5 - $6 PER IP / SYSTEM LIKE HOW BILL YOU PER CABL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245346500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$5 - $6 PER IP / SYSTEM LIKE HOW BILL YOU PER CABLE BOX / CABLE CARD / OUTLET FEES?</p><p>Must use the comcast router that has NAT locked out so you are forced to buy a ip per system? or have to only buy 1 ip use 2 routers.</p><p>They are ripping people off on the cable side with outlet fees and they now want to move that to there cable internet side what is next pay $3 per phone on there cable phone line like how ATT used to bill you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 5 - $ 6 PER IP / SYSTEM LIKE HOW BILL YOU PER CABLE BOX / CABLE CARD / OUTLET FEES ? Must use the comcast router that has NAT locked out so you are forced to buy a ip per system ?
or have to only buy 1 ip use 2 routers.They are ripping people off on the cable side with outlet fees and they now want to move that to there cable internet side what is next pay $ 3 per phone on there cable phone line like how ATT used to bill you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$5 - $6 PER IP / SYSTEM LIKE HOW BILL YOU PER CABLE BOX / CABLE CARD / OUTLET FEES?Must use the comcast router that has NAT locked out so you are forced to buy a ip per system?
or have to only buy 1 ip use 2 routers.They are ripping people off on the cable side with outlet fees and they now want to move that to there cable internet side what is next pay $3 per phone on there cable phone line like how ATT used to bill you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386615</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1245402120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> There will be no paying extra for additional IPs.</p></div><p>You mean there will be no reason to. Chances are, Comcast will <b>increase</b> the cost of IPs under the excuse of recouping the costs of the switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be no paying extra for additional IPs.You mean there will be no reason to .
Chances are , Comcast will increase the cost of IPs under the excuse of recouping the costs of the switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There will be no paying extra for additional IPs.You mean there will be no reason to.
Chances are, Comcast will increase the cost of IPs under the excuse of recouping the costs of the switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376351</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245349080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://3232236033/<br>Login: admin<br>Pass: *****<br>click. virtual servers<br>6881:192.168.2.47:6881<br>6882:192.168.2.42:6882</p><p>Of course, it would be better to just put your torrents all on one "server" machine and keep an instance of btlaunchmanycurses watching a directory on it (add or remove stuff from the directory at will, of course).  That way it can manage your connection and make sure every torrent gets a chance.</p><p>Of course you're only using that to distribute your collection of pictures from little jimmy's birthday party, linux isos, and other things you have legitimate copy rights over, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //3232236033/Login : adminPass : * * * * * click .
virtual servers6881 : 192.168.2.47 : 68816882 : 192.168.2.42 : 6882Of course , it would be better to just put your torrents all on one " server " machine and keep an instance of btlaunchmanycurses watching a directory on it ( add or remove stuff from the directory at will , of course ) .
That way it can manage your connection and make sure every torrent gets a chance.Of course you 're only using that to distribute your collection of pictures from little jimmy 's birthday party , linux isos , and other things you have legitimate copy rights over , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://3232236033/Login: adminPass: *****click.
virtual servers6881:192.168.2.47:68816882:192.168.2.42:6882Of course, it would be better to just put your torrents all on one "server" machine and keep an instance of btlaunchmanycurses watching a directory on it (add or remove stuff from the directory at will, of course).
That way it can manage your connection and make sure every torrent gets a chance.Of course you're only using that to distribute your collection of pictures from little jimmy's birthday party, linux isos, and other things you have legitimate copy rights over, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386965</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>hab136</author>
	<datestamp>1245406800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent. And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently. You need IPV6. Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not exactly the greatest of examples.  Skype is the king of NAT busting, no user intervention required.</p><p>Torrents need one port forwarded per machine at the router, which is either not that hard, or automatic.  Many torrent clients can use uPnP or NAT-PMP to map the port automatically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you 're using Skype or bittorrent .
And you want to do it on more than one computer , and you want to do it relatively efficiently .
You need IPV6 .
Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.Not exactly the greatest of examples .
Skype is the king of NAT busting , no user intervention required.Torrents need one port forwarded per machine at the router , which is either not that hard , or automatic .
Many torrent clients can use uPnP or NAT-PMP to map the port automatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you're using Skype or bittorrent.
And you want to do it on more than one computer, and you want to do it relatively efficiently.
You need IPV6.
Creating P2P apps is a pain with all of the NAT in the world.Not exactly the greatest of examples.
Skype is the king of NAT busting, no user intervention required.Torrents need one port forwarded per machine at the router, which is either not that hard, or automatic.
Many torrent clients can use uPnP or NAT-PMP to map the port automatically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293</id>
	<title>OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1245341160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this. IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too. That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...</p><p>I've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.</p><p>Come on guys, you know you are going to have to deal with problems no mater what happens in computer land?! Might as well deal with a problem that will make the internet routing make sense again and it's not like it will need to be done again in your life time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this .
IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too .
That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...I 've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.Come on guys , you know you are going to have to deal with problems no mater what happens in computer land ? !
Might as well deal with a problem that will make the internet routing make sense again and it 's not like it will need to be done again in your life time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this.
IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too.
That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...I've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.Come on guys, you know you are going to have to deal with problems no mater what happens in computer land?!
Might as well deal with a problem that will make the internet routing make sense again and it's not like it will need to be done again in your life time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377623</id>
	<title>Corrected explanation...</title>
	<author>Kadin2048</author>
	<datestamp>1245353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to clarify the bit about the addresses, because I forgot a couple of sections...</p><p>The whole IPv6 address is 128 bits, but in a unicast address, the first 3 are the "prefix identifier," basically saying that this is unicast.  Then you have a 13 bit "TLD Identifier" and 8 reserved bits, completing the global prefix portion.</p><p>But then you have a 24 bit "NLA ID", which might specify an ISP or some other intermediate network.  This provides for traffic aggregation, and they get assigned (I guess) by the national registries.  This brings you to 48 bits.  Exactly how they'll choose to distribute the NLA IDs, and how many each organization/ISP will get, I'm not quite clear on.  I've heard some people allude to ISPs getting large blocks at this level and putting a "subscriber ID" or "customer ID" in this region, leaving 80 bits free per customer, but I don't think this is really the case.</p><p>After the NLA is a "SLA ID", which is like a very big subnet identifier.  It's 16 bits long, bringing you to 64 for the address so far.  This is what I think individual home routers will get from ISPs, assuming the NLA IDs get given out with enough granularity so that there isn't competition.</p><p>Beyond the SLA ID is 64 bits for the "interface ID," which a host can pretty much define however it wants.  In most applications this can be easily created by padding out the Ethernet MAC, although it can also be generated randomly if that's not desired.</p><p>References:<br><a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757359(WS.10).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757359(WS.10).aspx</a> [microsoft.com] - Surprisingly good TechNet article<br><a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2462.txt" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">RFC 2462</a> [ietf.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify the bit about the addresses , because I forgot a couple of sections...The whole IPv6 address is 128 bits , but in a unicast address , the first 3 are the " prefix identifier , " basically saying that this is unicast .
Then you have a 13 bit " TLD Identifier " and 8 reserved bits , completing the global prefix portion.But then you have a 24 bit " NLA ID " , which might specify an ISP or some other intermediate network .
This provides for traffic aggregation , and they get assigned ( I guess ) by the national registries .
This brings you to 48 bits .
Exactly how they 'll choose to distribute the NLA IDs , and how many each organization/ISP will get , I 'm not quite clear on .
I 've heard some people allude to ISPs getting large blocks at this level and putting a " subscriber ID " or " customer ID " in this region , leaving 80 bits free per customer , but I do n't think this is really the case.After the NLA is a " SLA ID " , which is like a very big subnet identifier .
It 's 16 bits long , bringing you to 64 for the address so far .
This is what I think individual home routers will get from ISPs , assuming the NLA IDs get given out with enough granularity so that there is n't competition.Beyond the SLA ID is 64 bits for the " interface ID , " which a host can pretty much define however it wants .
In most applications this can be easily created by padding out the Ethernet MAC , although it can also be generated randomly if that 's not desired.References : http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757359 ( WS.10 ) .aspx [ microsoft.com ] - Surprisingly good TechNet articleRFC 2462 [ ietf.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify the bit about the addresses, because I forgot a couple of sections...The whole IPv6 address is 128 bits, but in a unicast address, the first 3 are the "prefix identifier," basically saying that this is unicast.
Then you have a 13 bit "TLD Identifier" and 8 reserved bits, completing the global prefix portion.But then you have a 24 bit "NLA ID", which might specify an ISP or some other intermediate network.
This provides for traffic aggregation, and they get assigned (I guess) by the national registries.
This brings you to 48 bits.
Exactly how they'll choose to distribute the NLA IDs, and how many each organization/ISP will get, I'm not quite clear on.
I've heard some people allude to ISPs getting large blocks at this level and putting a "subscriber ID" or "customer ID" in this region, leaving 80 bits free per customer, but I don't think this is really the case.After the NLA is a "SLA ID", which is like a very big subnet identifier.
It's 16 bits long, bringing you to 64 for the address so far.
This is what I think individual home routers will get from ISPs, assuming the NLA IDs get given out with enough granularity so that there isn't competition.Beyond the SLA ID is 64 bits for the "interface ID," which a host can pretty much define however it wants.
In most applications this can be easily created by padding out the Ethernet MAC, although it can also be generated randomly if that's not desired.References:http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757359(WS.10).aspx [microsoft.com] - Surprisingly good TechNet articleRFC 2462 [ietf.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373983</id>
	<title>what about caps?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1245339840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will comcast unveil a "tiered plan" whereby you only get the first 5 groups of four hexadecimal digits at the base price, with prices increasing up to 8?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will comcast unveil a " tiered plan " whereby you only get the first 5 groups of four hexadecimal digits at the base price , with prices increasing up to 8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will comcast unveil a "tiered plan" whereby you only get the first 5 groups of four hexadecimal digits at the base price, with prices increasing up to 8?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376663</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>MaerD</author>
	<datestamp>1245350460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Have you ever spent time on the phones doing tech support? <br>

<br>
I've had conversations where relaying the command "cd" took 15 minutes. "ok I need you to cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc, that's c as in charlie" "b as in boy?" "no, c as in charlie" "b as in boy?" "no, c as in cookie".<br>
<br>
 After a few go arounds of "c as in cookie" my cubemate started going "is good enough for me".

<br> <br> now "the tech will know the prefix" doesn't help. What are you going to do? "I only need the last two sets of digits between the colons?" It won't help. People don't deal well with "the computer is down" in the first place, much less when they have to read out crap that doesn't make sense. Numbers are easy, numbers mixed with letters... you're just going to further alienate users and have to hide it deeper to make it "friendly".</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Have you ever spent time on the phones doing tech support ?
I 've had conversations where relaying the command " cd " took 15 minutes .
" ok I need you to cd /etc , that 's c as in charlie " " b as in boy ?
" " no , c as in charlie " " b as in boy ?
" " no , c as in cookie " .
After a few go arounds of " c as in cookie " my cubemate started going " is good enough for me " .
now " the tech will know the prefix " does n't help .
What are you going to do ?
" I only need the last two sets of digits between the colons ?
" It wo n't help .
People do n't deal well with " the computer is down " in the first place , much less when they have to read out crap that does n't make sense .
Numbers are easy , numbers mixed with letters... you 're just going to further alienate users and have to hide it deeper to make it " friendly " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Have you ever spent time on the phones doing tech support?
I've had conversations where relaying the command "cd" took 15 minutes.
"ok I need you to cd /etc, that's c as in charlie" "b as in boy?
" "no, c as in charlie" "b as in boy?
" "no, c as in cookie".
After a few go arounds of "c as in cookie" my cubemate started going "is good enough for me".
now "the tech will know the prefix" doesn't help.
What are you going to do?
"I only need the last two sets of digits between the colons?
" It won't help.
People don't deal well with "the computer is down" in the first place, much less when they have to read out crap that doesn't make sense.
Numbers are easy, numbers mixed with letters... you're just going to further alienate users and have to hide it deeper to make it "friendly".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377161</id>
	<title>Re:Time Warner is already doing this in Brooklyn/N</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245352380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets clear this up.</p><p>All you know from this traceroute is that the routers between 2002:185a:90f:1234::1 and ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net are acting in a transparent manner.  It could be because they are not decrementing the TTL on each hop.</p><p>This could be because they are transparent routers, it could be an IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 or something else, you really don't know and are making silly assumptions.</p><p>What bothers me however is that either your Windows Vista/7 PC (as noted by the <b>C:\Users</b> in the command prompt and your use of windows <b>tracert</b> instead of traceroute) is directly connected to the Internet, while it is possible that you are doing that, it would be utterly stupid and I'm going to make an assumption of my own, that you are not directly connected to the Internet.  Why do I make this assumption?  Well partially because its a rather quick way to get exploited, theres always SOMETHING you can exploit in an MS OS and that it means you only have one PC, being that this is slashdot I can guess that those are not the case, so you aren't directly connected to the Internet and the first hop you're talking to is a DLink or Linksys router or something.</p><p>Now this makes sense, as it simply means your router is connected to swip.net using an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel.  Since this is a free service and several consumer grade devices support it, this is more likely the case.  I'm not real sure how you end up with IPv6 enabled on your router and not have any clue about it, but perhaps it was done by a roommate or something like that.</p><p>Eitherway, me thinks it might be better for you to learn wtf is going on with your own internet connection than talk about how Time Warner handlers theirs.</p><p>Finally, since you're obviously new to IPv6 and networking.  SWIP sells connections, they are a backbone provider which is why you see a direct connect from them to Google.  They also provide IPv6 tunnel endpoints so you can tunnel it over IPv4, which appears to be exactly whats going on in your case.  This tunnels are free to anyone who signed up.  With that in mind and the fact that tunnels have to generally be setup on both ends in advance its likely that if Time Warner IS involved in this, they are simply working a deal with SWIP, not robbing service from them.  I would have to say that SWIP.net is fully aware of the tunnel route and has authorized it, that is after all one of their core businesses.</p><p>I suggested you learn a little more about the current state of IPv6, the existing providers with  IPv6 support, and most importantly, what your little Linksys or DLink router is doing that you are completely unaware of.  At least go turn off your tunnel to swip.net before claiming that TWC supports IPv6 in your area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets clear this up.All you know from this traceroute is that the routers between 2002 : 185a : 90f : 1234 : : 1 and ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net are acting in a transparent manner .
It could be because they are not decrementing the TTL on each hop.This could be because they are transparent routers , it could be an IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 or something else , you really do n't know and are making silly assumptions.What bothers me however is that either your Windows Vista/7 PC ( as noted by the C : \ Users in the command prompt and your use of windows tracert instead of traceroute ) is directly connected to the Internet , while it is possible that you are doing that , it would be utterly stupid and I 'm going to make an assumption of my own , that you are not directly connected to the Internet .
Why do I make this assumption ?
Well partially because its a rather quick way to get exploited , theres always SOMETHING you can exploit in an MS OS and that it means you only have one PC , being that this is slashdot I can guess that those are not the case , so you are n't directly connected to the Internet and the first hop you 're talking to is a DLink or Linksys router or something.Now this makes sense , as it simply means your router is connected to swip.net using an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel .
Since this is a free service and several consumer grade devices support it , this is more likely the case .
I 'm not real sure how you end up with IPv6 enabled on your router and not have any clue about it , but perhaps it was done by a roommate or something like that.Eitherway , me thinks it might be better for you to learn wtf is going on with your own internet connection than talk about how Time Warner handlers theirs.Finally , since you 're obviously new to IPv6 and networking .
SWIP sells connections , they are a backbone provider which is why you see a direct connect from them to Google .
They also provide IPv6 tunnel endpoints so you can tunnel it over IPv4 , which appears to be exactly whats going on in your case .
This tunnels are free to anyone who signed up .
With that in mind and the fact that tunnels have to generally be setup on both ends in advance its likely that if Time Warner IS involved in this , they are simply working a deal with SWIP , not robbing service from them .
I would have to say that SWIP.net is fully aware of the tunnel route and has authorized it , that is after all one of their core businesses.I suggested you learn a little more about the current state of IPv6 , the existing providers with IPv6 support , and most importantly , what your little Linksys or DLink router is doing that you are completely unaware of .
At least go turn off your tunnel to swip.net before claiming that TWC supports IPv6 in your area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets clear this up.All you know from this traceroute is that the routers between 2002:185a:90f:1234::1 and ams-core-1.tengige0-0-0-0.swip.net are acting in a transparent manner.
It could be because they are not decrementing the TTL on each hop.This could be because they are transparent routers, it could be an IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 or something else, you really don't know and are making silly assumptions.What bothers me however is that either your Windows Vista/7 PC (as noted by the C:\Users in the command prompt and your use of windows tracert instead of traceroute) is directly connected to the Internet, while it is possible that you are doing that, it would be utterly stupid and I'm going to make an assumption of my own, that you are not directly connected to the Internet.
Why do I make this assumption?
Well partially because its a rather quick way to get exploited, theres always SOMETHING you can exploit in an MS OS and that it means you only have one PC, being that this is slashdot I can guess that those are not the case, so you aren't directly connected to the Internet and the first hop you're talking to is a DLink or Linksys router or something.Now this makes sense, as it simply means your router is connected to swip.net using an IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel.
Since this is a free service and several consumer grade devices support it, this is more likely the case.
I'm not real sure how you end up with IPv6 enabled on your router and not have any clue about it, but perhaps it was done by a roommate or something like that.Eitherway, me thinks it might be better for you to learn wtf is going on with your own internet connection than talk about how Time Warner handlers theirs.Finally, since you're obviously new to IPv6 and networking.
SWIP sells connections, they are a backbone provider which is why you see a direct connect from them to Google.
They also provide IPv6 tunnel endpoints so you can tunnel it over IPv4, which appears to be exactly whats going on in your case.
This tunnels are free to anyone who signed up.
With that in mind and the fact that tunnels have to generally be setup on both ends in advance its likely that if Time Warner IS involved in this, they are simply working a deal with SWIP, not robbing service from them.
I would have to say that SWIP.net is fully aware of the tunnel route and has authorized it, that is after all one of their core businesses.I suggested you learn a little more about the current state of IPv6, the existing providers with  IPv6 support, and most importantly, what your little Linksys or DLink router is doing that you are completely unaware of.
At least go turn off your tunnel to swip.net before claiming that TWC supports IPv6 in your area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377899</id>
	<title>Re:OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1245354360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this. IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too. That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...</i></p><p>IPv6 was designed specifically so you don't have to get rid of all your IPv4 gear.</p><p><i>I've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.</i></p><p>NAT is an integral part of IPv6.  An IPv6 prefix can be large enough to encompass a block of addresses as large as the entire IPv4 address space.  So you connect your IPv4 nodes to the IPv6 internet with a NAT box that prepends your IPv6 prefix to the IPv4 address to form a unique IPv6 address, and NAT that through your gateway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this .
IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too .
That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...IPv6 was designed specifically so you do n't have to get rid of all your IPv4 gear.I 've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.NAT is an integral part of IPv6 .
An IPv6 prefix can be large enough to encompass a block of addresses as large as the entire IPv4 address space .
So you connect your IPv4 nodes to the IPv6 internet with a NAT box that prepends your IPv6 prefix to the IPv4 address to form a unique IPv6 address , and NAT that through your gateway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how all of you are complaining so much about this.
IPv6 is a required evil for the internet to keep going and it will simplify things greatly and should speed up things in general too.
That is if and when they get rid of the IPv4 hardware...IPv6 was designed specifically so you don't have to get rid of all your IPv4 gear.I've never seen a bunch of self described computer geeks whining so much about something that will simplify routing and get rid of NAT which is a truely horrid hack.NAT is an integral part of IPv6.
An IPv6 prefix can be large enough to encompass a block of addresses as large as the entire IPv4 address space.
So you connect your IPv4 nodes to the IPv6 internet with a NAT box that prepends your IPv6 prefix to the IPv4 address to form a unique IPv6 address, and NAT that through your gateway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655</id>
	<title>Re:OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1245346560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LoL.  I'm not complaining about IPv6 because I know its not going to get rid of NAT tables. IPv6 has somewhere around 270 quadrillion available address combinations (255^6 right? subtract a couple for those obvious reasons)</p><p>Nothing doesn't make sense with NAT. In all honesty its how the whole thing should have been structured in the first place.</p><p>Why?</p><p>If one day we reach more then 270 quadrillion networked computers (that'd make for an awesome lan party, but I shouldn't get distracted) we'll just have to shift over to IPv8. Doing that on alot of PC's won't be as smooth as this IPv4 to IPv6 will be.</p><p>But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses. NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LoL .
I 'm not complaining about IPv6 because I know its not going to get rid of NAT tables .
IPv6 has somewhere around 270 quadrillion available address combinations ( 255 ^ 6 right ?
subtract a couple for those obvious reasons ) Nothing does n't make sense with NAT .
In all honesty its how the whole thing should have been structured in the first place.Why ? If one day we reach more then 270 quadrillion networked computers ( that 'd make for an awesome lan party , but I should n't get distracted ) we 'll just have to shift over to IPv8 .
Doing that on alot of PC 's wo n't be as smooth as this IPv4 to IPv6 will be.But guess what , if you understand NAT , you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4 , because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses .
NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people do n't like because they do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LoL.
I'm not complaining about IPv6 because I know its not going to get rid of NAT tables.
IPv6 has somewhere around 270 quadrillion available address combinations (255^6 right?
subtract a couple for those obvious reasons)Nothing doesn't make sense with NAT.
In all honesty its how the whole thing should have been structured in the first place.Why?If one day we reach more then 270 quadrillion networked computers (that'd make for an awesome lan party, but I shouldn't get distracted) we'll just have to shift over to IPv8.
Doing that on alot of PC's won't be as smooth as this IPv4 to IPv6 will be.But guess what, if you understand NAT, you will NEVER have to upgrade past IPv4, because you will NEVER run out of IP Addresses.
NAT is just the flexible approach to the problem that alot of people don't like because they don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374631</id>
	<title>Re:Good news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245342480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ipv6 would run as a dual stack so unless your retarded and set AAA records or ipv6 access there will be ZERO PROBLEMS if you do you suffer from a layer 8 problem</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ipv6 would run as a dual stack so unless your retarded and set AAA records or ipv6 access there will be ZERO PROBLEMS if you do you suffer from a layer 8 problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ipv6 would run as a dual stack so unless your retarded and set AAA records or ipv6 access there will be ZERO PROBLEMS if you do you suffer from a layer 8 problem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377323</id>
	<title>What happened to 64-bit addresses?</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1245352860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like they skipped a step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like they skipped a step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like they skipped a step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677</id>
	<title>Re:Proud to be a Comcast customer?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1245342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a money saver for them.  Why have a Cable TV infrastructure, and an IP Infrastructure.  Think how much bandwidth they could offer if they used the entire coax connection for network.  With IPv6, you make each tv channel a separate Multicast broadcast address in your network, and then the end users just subscribes to a multicast, then unsubscribes when they change channels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a money saver for them .
Why have a Cable TV infrastructure , and an IP Infrastructure .
Think how much bandwidth they could offer if they used the entire coax connection for network .
With IPv6 , you make each tv channel a separate Multicast broadcast address in your network , and then the end users just subscribes to a multicast , then unsubscribes when they change channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a money saver for them.
Why have a Cable TV infrastructure, and an IP Infrastructure.
Think how much bandwidth they could offer if they used the entire coax connection for network.
With IPv6, you make each tv channel a separate Multicast broadcast address in your network, and then the end users just subscribes to a multicast, then unsubscribes when they change channels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</id>
	<title>Additional IPs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will be no paying extra for additional IPs.  Everybody will get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64.  Look at this:</p><p>Addresses available in IPv4: 4,294,967,296</p><p>Addresses available PER CUSTOMER for IPv6: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616</p><p>This enables stateless autoconfiguration (usually based on MAC addresses) that simplifies everybody's lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be no paying extra for additional IPs .
Everybody will get a /64 .
Look at this : Addresses available in IPv4 : 4,294,967,296Addresses available PER CUSTOMER for IPv6 : 18,446,744,073,709,551,616This enables stateless autoconfiguration ( usually based on MAC addresses ) that simplifies everybody 's lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be no paying extra for additional IPs.
Everybody will get a /64.
Look at this:Addresses available in IPv4: 4,294,967,296Addresses available PER CUSTOMER for IPv6: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616This enables stateless autoconfiguration (usually based on MAC addresses) that simplifies everybody's lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375931</id>
	<title>huh?</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1245347640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RFC 2460 was publish in 1998.  There's nothing "draft" about IPv6; it's quite mature.  Sounds like you have a Microsoft problem, not an IPv6 problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RFC 2460 was publish in 1998 .
There 's nothing " draft " about IPv6 ; it 's quite mature .
Sounds like you have a Microsoft problem , not an IPv6 problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RFC 2460 was publish in 1998.
There's nothing "draft" about IPv6; it's quite mature.
Sounds like you have a Microsoft problem, not an IPv6 problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376149</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1245348360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your ISP only gives you a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64, you'll only be able to run one subnet.  IANA suggests giving everyone a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48:</p><p><a href="http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02" title="iana.org">http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02</a> [iana.org] (section 2.7)</p><p>But I think some ISPs are planning to do something in between.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your ISP only gives you a /64 , you 'll only be able to run one subnet .
IANA suggests giving everyone a /48 : http : //www.iana.org/reports/2002/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02 [ iana.org ] ( section 2.7 ) But I think some ISPs are planning to do something in between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your ISP only gives you a /64, you'll only be able to run one subnet.
IANA suggests giving everyone a /48:http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/ipv6-allocation-policy-26jun02 [iana.org] (section 2.7)But I think some ISPs are planning to do something in between.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375497</id>
	<title>IPv6 = no NAT?  Not if Comcast has its way.</title>
	<author>glindsey</author>
	<datestamp>1245345960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Comcast switches to IPv6, do you really think they'll give you more than one IP address?  You better believe they'll charge you more for each additional one.  <i>Maybe</i> they'll give you two or three for free, but I doubt it.</p><p>So unless you want to pay per computer you have connected, you'll still need to NAT them through a router.  Nothing will change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Comcast switches to IPv6 , do you really think they 'll give you more than one IP address ?
You better believe they 'll charge you more for each additional one .
Maybe they 'll give you two or three for free , but I doubt it.So unless you want to pay per computer you have connected , you 'll still need to NAT them through a router .
Nothing will change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Comcast switches to IPv6, do you really think they'll give you more than one IP address?
You better believe they'll charge you more for each additional one.
Maybe they'll give you two or three for free, but I doubt it.So unless you want to pay per computer you have connected, you'll still need to NAT them through a router.
Nothing will change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375225</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245344880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned? </i></p><p>Two words: No NAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned ?
Two words : No NAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about IPv6 is mentioned?
Two words: No NAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375247</id>
	<title>Where is Mark Lottor? IPV4 has plenty left to it!</title>
	<author>aisnota</author>
	<datestamp>1245345000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The large telecoms and cable outfits have tons of unused IP space that could be CIDR blocked out, think of the class A 24.X.X.X for instance that used to be @Home and Rodgers, large portions are empty!  AT&amp;T moved @Home to 12.X.X.X and then subsequently provides managed space to cable outfits like Mediacomm etc.</p><p>Now Mediacomm has just finally got around to getting its own space, is AT&amp;T offering to CIDR out their precious class A?</p><p>No of course not, like some of the others, they get allocations from ARIN and sit on them instead of consolidating.  They have scads of CIDR blocks used by all sorts of companies out there.  Heck ARIN should just re-map some of those AT&amp;T direct to the customers, let them keep the 12.X.X.X A Space.</p><p>Back in the day, Mark Lottor did mapping of all live ping able IP's before firewalls were so common and NAT extremely rare.  If he were to make a comparison with whomever does like mapping today to those legacy maps and IP allocations, it would be a fascinating graphic to show the transformations and if by carrier, show how greedily the Worldcom/UUNets Sprints and Baby Bells have asked for space, color to their identity and now look to see many time those scattered CIDR blocks are empty.  Sprint, old UUNet and Baby Bell CIDR's if unused, should get back into the pool.</p><p>Where is Mark Lottor and these newer guys with the latest IPV4 utilization's mapped out for the comparison analysis.</p><p>Enough said.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The large telecoms and cable outfits have tons of unused IP space that could be CIDR blocked out , think of the class A 24.X.X.X for instance that used to be @ Home and Rodgers , large portions are empty !
AT&amp;T moved @ Home to 12.X.X.X and then subsequently provides managed space to cable outfits like Mediacomm etc.Now Mediacomm has just finally got around to getting its own space , is AT&amp;T offering to CIDR out their precious class A ? No of course not , like some of the others , they get allocations from ARIN and sit on them instead of consolidating .
They have scads of CIDR blocks used by all sorts of companies out there .
Heck ARIN should just re-map some of those AT&amp;T direct to the customers , let them keep the 12.X.X.X A Space.Back in the day , Mark Lottor did mapping of all live ping able IP 's before firewalls were so common and NAT extremely rare .
If he were to make a comparison with whomever does like mapping today to those legacy maps and IP allocations , it would be a fascinating graphic to show the transformations and if by carrier , show how greedily the Worldcom/UUNets Sprints and Baby Bells have asked for space , color to their identity and now look to see many time those scattered CIDR blocks are empty .
Sprint , old UUNet and Baby Bell CIDR 's if unused , should get back into the pool.Where is Mark Lottor and these newer guys with the latest IPV4 utilization 's mapped out for the comparison analysis.Enough said .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The large telecoms and cable outfits have tons of unused IP space that could be CIDR blocked out, think of the class A 24.X.X.X for instance that used to be @Home and Rodgers, large portions are empty!
AT&amp;T moved @Home to 12.X.X.X and then subsequently provides managed space to cable outfits like Mediacomm etc.Now Mediacomm has just finally got around to getting its own space, is AT&amp;T offering to CIDR out their precious class A?No of course not, like some of the others, they get allocations from ARIN and sit on them instead of consolidating.
They have scads of CIDR blocks used by all sorts of companies out there.
Heck ARIN should just re-map some of those AT&amp;T direct to the customers, let them keep the 12.X.X.X A Space.Back in the day, Mark Lottor did mapping of all live ping able IP's before firewalls were so common and NAT extremely rare.
If he were to make a comparison with whomever does like mapping today to those legacy maps and IP allocations, it would be a fascinating graphic to show the transformations and if by carrier, show how greedily the Worldcom/UUNets Sprints and Baby Bells have asked for space, color to their identity and now look to see many time those scattered CIDR blocks are empty.
Sprint, old UUNet and Baby Bell CIDR's if unused, should get back into the pool.Where is Mark Lottor and these newer guys with the latest IPV4 utilization's mapped out for the comparison analysis.Enough said.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374257</id>
	<title>froSt pi5t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245341040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, but what iS want them there. very own shItter, could save it</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , but what iS want them there .
very own shItter , could save it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, but what iS want them there.
very own shItter, could save it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376191</id>
	<title>Re:OMG! OMG!.IPv6 is coming for ME!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1245348540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its funny how you think you know what you're talking about.</p><p>First off, people use PAT, not NAT, very VERY few people use NAT.  NAT maps an IP address on one side to an IP address on the otherside.  Each internal address uses an external address exclusively.</p><p>No ISP does this for typical home subscribers, you get one IP so NAT would fail horribly.</p><p>What you actually use is PAT, Port and Address Translation.  This is the 1 to many that you see people using so they can get a bunch of machines on the Internet with only a single external address.  Yes I realize its common to refer to it as NAT, but thats wrong and so are you, and if you're going to act like an arrogant pickle smoker I'm going to have to call you on it.</p><p>Second, IPv6 will do nothing to make routing easier, the statement in and of itself is retarded and shows a complete lack of practical understanding of why routing is the mess it is.</p><p>When the Internet started (pick a point in time, any point doesn't really matter when at all), they didn't sit down and assign all the IP addresses to everyone and lay out the entire mesh of connections around the world to facilitate the most efficient topology did they?   No, the didn't, it evolved over years.  Connections come and go, address assignments come and go or get reassigned, thats just the way of the Internet, it changes.</p><p>IPv6 in no way deals with that fact.  It gives us enough addresses assign 2^52 of them to every visible star in the sky and have plenty left over.  It deals with the fact that we're low on addresses by giving us a lot more.  It gives us some ways to auto-assign addresses and blocks based on where they are connected.  What it does not deal with is that you are in Dallas, and your connections for auto-assignment are in new york and san francisco.   It doesn't deal with what happens when you move that subnet to new york.</p><p>IPv6 will do nothing at all to simplify routing.  There is more to the routing problem than address assignments and the only people that think it can be fixed by adding a lot more numbers and subnets to the mix are just illustrating their complete lack of grasp of the actual problem.</p><p>Please do not try to educate people about IPv6 or Internet routing/protocols in the future, you're missing some fairly key knowledge that just means you're making it so other people are wrong as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its funny how you think you know what you 're talking about.First off , people use PAT , not NAT , very VERY few people use NAT .
NAT maps an IP address on one side to an IP address on the otherside .
Each internal address uses an external address exclusively.No ISP does this for typical home subscribers , you get one IP so NAT would fail horribly.What you actually use is PAT , Port and Address Translation .
This is the 1 to many that you see people using so they can get a bunch of machines on the Internet with only a single external address .
Yes I realize its common to refer to it as NAT , but thats wrong and so are you , and if you 're going to act like an arrogant pickle smoker I 'm going to have to call you on it.Second , IPv6 will do nothing to make routing easier , the statement in and of itself is retarded and shows a complete lack of practical understanding of why routing is the mess it is.When the Internet started ( pick a point in time , any point does n't really matter when at all ) , they did n't sit down and assign all the IP addresses to everyone and lay out the entire mesh of connections around the world to facilitate the most efficient topology did they ?
No , the did n't , it evolved over years .
Connections come and go , address assignments come and go or get reassigned , thats just the way of the Internet , it changes.IPv6 in no way deals with that fact .
It gives us enough addresses assign 2 ^ 52 of them to every visible star in the sky and have plenty left over .
It deals with the fact that we 're low on addresses by giving us a lot more .
It gives us some ways to auto-assign addresses and blocks based on where they are connected .
What it does not deal with is that you are in Dallas , and your connections for auto-assignment are in new york and san francisco .
It does n't deal with what happens when you move that subnet to new york.IPv6 will do nothing at all to simplify routing .
There is more to the routing problem than address assignments and the only people that think it can be fixed by adding a lot more numbers and subnets to the mix are just illustrating their complete lack of grasp of the actual problem.Please do not try to educate people about IPv6 or Internet routing/protocols in the future , you 're missing some fairly key knowledge that just means you 're making it so other people are wrong as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its funny how you think you know what you're talking about.First off, people use PAT, not NAT, very VERY few people use NAT.
NAT maps an IP address on one side to an IP address on the otherside.
Each internal address uses an external address exclusively.No ISP does this for typical home subscribers, you get one IP so NAT would fail horribly.What you actually use is PAT, Port and Address Translation.
This is the 1 to many that you see people using so they can get a bunch of machines on the Internet with only a single external address.
Yes I realize its common to refer to it as NAT, but thats wrong and so are you, and if you're going to act like an arrogant pickle smoker I'm going to have to call you on it.Second, IPv6 will do nothing to make routing easier, the statement in and of itself is retarded and shows a complete lack of practical understanding of why routing is the mess it is.When the Internet started (pick a point in time, any point doesn't really matter when at all), they didn't sit down and assign all the IP addresses to everyone and lay out the entire mesh of connections around the world to facilitate the most efficient topology did they?
No, the didn't, it evolved over years.
Connections come and go, address assignments come and go or get reassigned, thats just the way of the Internet, it changes.IPv6 in no way deals with that fact.
It gives us enough addresses assign 2^52 of them to every visible star in the sky and have plenty left over.
It deals with the fact that we're low on addresses by giving us a lot more.
It gives us some ways to auto-assign addresses and blocks based on where they are connected.
What it does not deal with is that you are in Dallas, and your connections for auto-assignment are in new york and san francisco.
It doesn't deal with what happens when you move that subnet to new york.IPv6 will do nothing at all to simplify routing.
There is more to the routing problem than address assignments and the only people that think it can be fixed by adding a lot more numbers and subnets to the mix are just illustrating their complete lack of grasp of the actual problem.Please do not try to educate people about IPv6 or Internet routing/protocols in the future, you're missing some fairly key knowledge that just means you're making it so other people are wrong as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28395297</id>
	<title>Re:What is the hardware impact on consumers?</title>
	<author>Guyver3</author>
	<datestamp>1245404040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D-link DIR-615 hardware rev C1</p><p>no ipv6 firewall rules, but does native/static tunnel/6to4, and announces a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 to your wired lan/wireless</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D-link DIR-615 hardware rev C1no ipv6 firewall rules , but does native/static tunnel/6to4 , and announces a /64 to your wired lan/wireless</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D-link DIR-615 hardware rev C1no ipv6 firewall rules, but does native/static tunnel/6to4, and announces a /64 to your wired lan/wireless</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376521</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Azh Nazg</author>
	<datestamp>1245349860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Y'know, IPv6  was a finished standard 10 years ago. IPv6 is RFC 2460, dual stack is RFC 4213... The *only* thing you've named that's even a draft standard is Teredo. Otherwise, IPv6 was recommended for general use and roll-out years ago. That Windows Update is breaking things is a case of your IT staff being incompetent, not IPv6 being a "draft standard" or "not ready for use".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , IPv6 was a finished standard 10 years ago .
IPv6 is RFC 2460 , dual stack is RFC 4213... The * only * thing you 've named that 's even a draft standard is Teredo .
Otherwise , IPv6 was recommended for general use and roll-out years ago .
That Windows Update is breaking things is a case of your IT staff being incompetent , not IPv6 being a " draft standard " or " not ready for use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, IPv6  was a finished standard 10 years ago.
IPv6 is RFC 2460, dual stack is RFC 4213... The *only* thing you've named that's even a draft standard is Teredo.
Otherwise, IPv6 was recommended for general use and roll-out years ago.
That Windows Update is breaking things is a case of your IT staff being incompetent, not IPv6 being a "draft standard" or "not ready for use".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374685</id>
	<title>Re:REPENT!!</title>
	<author>ringdangdu</author>
	<datestamp>1245342720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days? Mine's in the shop.")</p></div><p>Excellent line!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days ?
Mine 's in the shop .
" ) Excellent line !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days?
Mine's in the shop.
")Excellent line!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377643</id>
	<title>Re:Asprin</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1245353760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have doubts about it causing many problems for users. Vista and Win7 have IPv6 turned on out of the box. If the user one of those OSs, and has a DOCSIS 3 modem attached directly to the computer, or they have a IPv6 router, they should be assigned an IPv4 and an IPv6 address. If the OS or the router doesn't support IPv6, they would just get an IPv4 address.</p><p>Mac and Linux of course, both support IPv6. Even setting up IPv6 manually with a tunnel isn't that hard, if you know just a bit about networking.</p><p>Of course nothing ever goes as smoothly as it "should", but I bet more of the issues will be on the Comcast side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have doubts about it causing many problems for users .
Vista and Win7 have IPv6 turned on out of the box .
If the user one of those OSs , and has a DOCSIS 3 modem attached directly to the computer , or they have a IPv6 router , they should be assigned an IPv4 and an IPv6 address .
If the OS or the router does n't support IPv6 , they would just get an IPv4 address.Mac and Linux of course , both support IPv6 .
Even setting up IPv6 manually with a tunnel is n't that hard , if you know just a bit about networking.Of course nothing ever goes as smoothly as it " should " , but I bet more of the issues will be on the Comcast side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have doubts about it causing many problems for users.
Vista and Win7 have IPv6 turned on out of the box.
If the user one of those OSs, and has a DOCSIS 3 modem attached directly to the computer, or they have a IPv6 router, they should be assigned an IPv4 and an IPv6 address.
If the OS or the router doesn't support IPv6, they would just get an IPv4 address.Mac and Linux of course, both support IPv6.
Even setting up IPv6 manually with a tunnel isn't that hard, if you know just a bit about networking.Of course nothing ever goes as smoothly as it "should", but I bet more of the issues will be on the Comcast side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376103</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compost will probably screw this up. I worked for an outsourcer for a while supporting them. Never in my life have a seen such a disorganized mess as Compost. Due to the fact that different markets were completely on their own with absolutely NO standarization, any time they attempted any sort of change the result was something that ended up not working and customers fighting to be compensated for downtime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compost will probably screw this up .
I worked for an outsourcer for a while supporting them .
Never in my life have a seen such a disorganized mess as Compost .
Due to the fact that different markets were completely on their own with absolutely NO standarization , any time they attempted any sort of change the result was something that ended up not working and customers fighting to be compensated for downtime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compost will probably screw this up.
I worked for an outsourcer for a while supporting them.
Never in my life have a seen such a disorganized mess as Compost.
Due to the fact that different markets were completely on their own with absolutely NO standarization, any time they attempted any sort of change the result was something that ended up not working and customers fighting to be compensated for downtime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375863</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1245347400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 core is NOT a draft standard for about 8 years now.</p><p>Some details were only recently approved, but they generally do not have effect on end-user (Windows XP already had a working IPv6 stack).</p><p>I've been running IPv6 on my computers (including Windows XP-based ones) for a year now, without any problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 core is NOT a draft standard for about 8 years now.Some details were only recently approved , but they generally do not have effect on end-user ( Windows XP already had a working IPv6 stack ) .I 've been running IPv6 on my computers ( including Windows XP-based ones ) for a year now , without any problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 core is NOT a draft standard for about 8 years now.Some details were only recently approved, but they generally do not have effect on end-user (Windows XP already had a working IPv6 stack).I've been running IPv6 on my computers (including Windows XP-based ones) for a year now, without any problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28391137</id>
	<title>Re:But there's so much space for stuff like...</title>
	<author>dennypayne</author>
	<datestamp>1245431400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And "for all intensive purposes" was never the phrase.  It's "for all intents and purposes."</htmltext>
<tokenext>And " for all intensive purposes " was never the phrase .
It 's " for all intents and purposes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And "for all intensive purposes" was never the phrase.
It's "for all intents and purposes.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>Kadin2048</author>
	<datestamp>1245349260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The decision to use hex quad notation to represent IPv6 isn't really that important from a technical perspective.  It's important in the short run that IPv6 addresses look different from IPv4s, to distinguish one from the other.  However, in the long run it's quite possible to use an IPv4-type notation scheme with v6.</p><p>IPv6 addresses will in most instances consist of two components, one which will typically come down from an ISP (the "global prefix" is the proper name, IIRC) and consists of 24 bits, followed by a subnet identifier (8 bits), and then an interface identifier (32 bits).</p><p>In most cases where a user is calling their ISP for help, the global prefix will already be known by the tech on the line.  It's not necessary for the user to report it.  So, if IPv6 addresses become an unbearable burden (which I really don't think they are; people are well-trained to read seemingly meaningless numbers over the phone to tech support), you could quite easily adjust user-facing software to display the subnet and interface identifier in a friendly, IPv4-style form.  In this form, the subnet+interface address would look just like an IPv4 address with one extra group of octal digits.</p><p>Frankly, I don't really anticipate many reasons for users to need to communicate their IP addresses to tech support once IPv6 becomes the norm.  You used to get that a lot because automatic address assignment was a bolt-on to IPv4 and often didn't work right; with IPv6 it's the idea from the very beginning.  Plus, IPv6 does a much better job of handling multicast and broadcast traffic, which means you can have automatic service discovery and automatic machine discovery without broadcast storms and all the other issues that have plagued attempts at such systems on IPv4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The decision to use hex quad notation to represent IPv6 is n't really that important from a technical perspective .
It 's important in the short run that IPv6 addresses look different from IPv4s , to distinguish one from the other .
However , in the long run it 's quite possible to use an IPv4-type notation scheme with v6.IPv6 addresses will in most instances consist of two components , one which will typically come down from an ISP ( the " global prefix " is the proper name , IIRC ) and consists of 24 bits , followed by a subnet identifier ( 8 bits ) , and then an interface identifier ( 32 bits ) .In most cases where a user is calling their ISP for help , the global prefix will already be known by the tech on the line .
It 's not necessary for the user to report it .
So , if IPv6 addresses become an unbearable burden ( which I really do n't think they are ; people are well-trained to read seemingly meaningless numbers over the phone to tech support ) , you could quite easily adjust user-facing software to display the subnet and interface identifier in a friendly , IPv4-style form .
In this form , the subnet + interface address would look just like an IPv4 address with one extra group of octal digits.Frankly , I do n't really anticipate many reasons for users to need to communicate their IP addresses to tech support once IPv6 becomes the norm .
You used to get that a lot because automatic address assignment was a bolt-on to IPv4 and often did n't work right ; with IPv6 it 's the idea from the very beginning .
Plus , IPv6 does a much better job of handling multicast and broadcast traffic , which means you can have automatic service discovery and automatic machine discovery without broadcast storms and all the other issues that have plagued attempts at such systems on IPv4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decision to use hex quad notation to represent IPv6 isn't really that important from a technical perspective.
It's important in the short run that IPv6 addresses look different from IPv4s, to distinguish one from the other.
However, in the long run it's quite possible to use an IPv4-type notation scheme with v6.IPv6 addresses will in most instances consist of two components, one which will typically come down from an ISP (the "global prefix" is the proper name, IIRC) and consists of 24 bits, followed by a subnet identifier (8 bits), and then an interface identifier (32 bits).In most cases where a user is calling their ISP for help, the global prefix will already be known by the tech on the line.
It's not necessary for the user to report it.
So, if IPv6 addresses become an unbearable burden (which I really don't think they are; people are well-trained to read seemingly meaningless numbers over the phone to tech support), you could quite easily adjust user-facing software to display the subnet and interface identifier in a friendly, IPv4-style form.
In this form, the subnet+interface address would look just like an IPv4 address with one extra group of octal digits.Frankly, I don't really anticipate many reasons for users to need to communicate their IP addresses to tech support once IPv6 becomes the norm.
You used to get that a lot because automatic address assignment was a bolt-on to IPv4 and often didn't work right; with IPv6 it's the idea from the very beginning.
Plus, IPv6 does a much better job of handling multicast and broadcast traffic, which means you can have automatic service discovery and automatic machine discovery without broadcast storms and all the other issues that have plagued attempts at such systems on IPv4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374751</id>
	<title>This is what it'll take for IPv6 to happen.</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1245343020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm happy to see this.  If the major ISP's start rolling out IPv6 to customers, then we'll really start to see the chicken-and-egg deployment problem get solved.  In the US there are really only half a dozen of The [Phone|Cable] Companies that need to get on board to cover the vast majority of Internet users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy to see this .
If the major ISP 's start rolling out IPv6 to customers , then we 'll really start to see the chicken-and-egg deployment problem get solved .
In the US there are really only half a dozen of The [ Phone | Cable ] Companies that need to get on board to cover the vast majority of Internet users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy to see this.
If the major ISP's start rolling out IPv6 to customers, then we'll really start to see the chicken-and-egg deployment problem get solved.
In the US there are really only half a dozen of The [Phone|Cable] Companies that need to get on board to cover the vast majority of Internet users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374149</id>
	<title>Nobodies asked  yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just how much extra are they going to charge the customers for the privalege of of a cost of them staying in business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just how much extra are they going to charge the customers for the privalege of of a cost of them staying in business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just how much extra are they going to charge the customers for the privalege of of a cost of them staying in business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376265</id>
	<title>tinfoil hat ++</title>
	<author>thegameiam</author>
	<datestamp>1245348840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you can't ping something doesn't mean it isn't in use.  ARIN and the other RIRs require extensive documentation before they give out more space, and all of the companies you've mentioned have received it.  I recommend reading up on how a SWIP works, followed by getting an understanding of rWhois.  At that point you might have a better understanding of some of the issues.  Heck, NANOG has had some excellent discussions on the subject of IPv4 address reclamation, and the outcome of those discussions is that it's a lot of work for very, very little benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you ca n't ping something does n't mean it is n't in use .
ARIN and the other RIRs require extensive documentation before they give out more space , and all of the companies you 've mentioned have received it .
I recommend reading up on how a SWIP works , followed by getting an understanding of rWhois .
At that point you might have a better understanding of some of the issues .
Heck , NANOG has had some excellent discussions on the subject of IPv4 address reclamation , and the outcome of those discussions is that it 's a lot of work for very , very little benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you can't ping something doesn't mean it isn't in use.
ARIN and the other RIRs require extensive documentation before they give out more space, and all of the companies you've mentioned have received it.
I recommend reading up on how a SWIP works, followed by getting an understanding of rWhois.
At that point you might have a better understanding of some of the issues.
Heck, NANOG has had some excellent discussions on the subject of IPv4 address reclamation, and the outcome of those discussions is that it's a lot of work for very, very little benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374765</id>
	<title>Re:Good news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245343080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it was just a matter of software updates, but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.</p></div><p>I guess I live a sheltered life, because I've been using IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel for about 7 years and I've never had a site break like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was just a matter of software updates , but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.I guess I live a sheltered life , because I 've been using IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel for about 7 years and I 've never had a site break like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was just a matter of software updates, but alas there are mountains of sites that are literally hard-coded to store IPv4 addresses and you get a nice PHP error when you attempt to visit them.I guess I live a sheltered life, because I've been using IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel for about 7 years and I've never had a site break like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325</id>
	<title>Re:REPENT!!</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1245341280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brother in law used to call me up, frequently, to ask me for tech support help. He's a doctor, so I solved it by calling him up every single day to ask him some inane question about medicine.</p><p>"Hey, so I'm at the store and I want to buy band-aids. Which ones are best?"<br>"Hey, it's me again - so when I called up 5 minutes ago to ask about band-aids, I didn't realize they had purple ones. Are those going to work differently than the beige ones?"<br>"Oh, hi, me again... I was walking by the frozen food section and it was kind of cold there but it's a really hot day outside - can I catch sick from the temperature differential?"<br>"Yeah, it's... well, this is a bit strange. But I was at work today and one of my co-workers kind of has a limp. Can you tell me what that's from? I don't wanna ask him - let me put him on with you, maybe you can fix him..."<br>"So I was on a date last night and we went to a used bookstore and I started sneezing. Is that the swine flu? Well, yeah, it was dusty in there, but Oprah was talking about the Swine Flu, and I had bacon the other day so maybe I'm going to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hello? Helloooo?"</p><p>For people who don't have a particular profession, calling them up at odd hours to ask them for tiny favors also works. My next-door neighbor used to ask me for tech support all the time, so I started asking him to pick things up at the store for me, give me rides, loan me odd random items ("Can I borrow one of your bookends?" "Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days? Mine's in the shop.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother in law used to call me up , frequently , to ask me for tech support help .
He 's a doctor , so I solved it by calling him up every single day to ask him some inane question about medicine .
" Hey , so I 'm at the store and I want to buy band-aids .
Which ones are best ?
" " Hey , it 's me again - so when I called up 5 minutes ago to ask about band-aids , I did n't realize they had purple ones .
Are those going to work differently than the beige ones ?
" " Oh , hi , me again... I was walking by the frozen food section and it was kind of cold there but it 's a really hot day outside - can I catch sick from the temperature differential ?
" " Yeah , it 's... well , this is a bit strange .
But I was at work today and one of my co-workers kind of has a limp .
Can you tell me what that 's from ?
I do n't wan na ask him - let me put him on with you , maybe you can fix him... " " So I was on a date last night and we went to a used bookstore and I started sneezing .
Is that the swine flu ?
Well , yeah , it was dusty in there , but Oprah was talking about the Swine Flu , and I had bacon the other day so maybe I 'm going to ... hello ? Helloooo ?
" For people who do n't have a particular profession , calling them up at odd hours to ask them for tiny favors also works .
My next-door neighbor used to ask me for tech support all the time , so I started asking him to pick things up at the store for me , give me rides , loan me odd random items ( " Can I borrow one of your bookends ?
" " Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days ?
Mine 's in the shop .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother in law used to call me up, frequently, to ask me for tech support help.
He's a doctor, so I solved it by calling him up every single day to ask him some inane question about medicine.
"Hey, so I'm at the store and I want to buy band-aids.
Which ones are best?
""Hey, it's me again - so when I called up 5 minutes ago to ask about band-aids, I didn't realize they had purple ones.
Are those going to work differently than the beige ones?
""Oh, hi, me again... I was walking by the frozen food section and it was kind of cold there but it's a really hot day outside - can I catch sick from the temperature differential?
""Yeah, it's... well, this is a bit strange.
But I was at work today and one of my co-workers kind of has a limp.
Can you tell me what that's from?
I don't wanna ask him - let me put him on with you, maybe you can fix him...""So I was on a date last night and we went to a used bookstore and I started sneezing.
Is that the swine flu?
Well, yeah, it was dusty in there, but Oprah was talking about the Swine Flu, and I had bacon the other day so maybe I'm going to ... hello? Helloooo?
"For people who don't have a particular profession, calling them up at odd hours to ask them for tiny favors also works.
My next-door neighbor used to ask me for tech support all the time, so I started asking him to pick things up at the store for me, give me rides, loan me odd random items ("Can I borrow one of your bookends?
" "Do you have a shoehorn I can use for a couple of days?
Mine's in the shop.
")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374151</id>
	<title>services?</title>
	<author>Neil Watson</author>
	<datestamp>1245340560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Potentially these customers will have a small block of ipv6 addresses.  Will they be allowed to run their own web or email services?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Potentially these customers will have a small block of ipv6 addresses .
Will they be allowed to run their own web or email services ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Potentially these customers will have a small block of ipv6 addresses.
Will they be allowed to run their own web or email services?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375309</id>
	<title>Lots of ISPs already have IPv6, including Verizon</title>
	<author>XMLsucks</author>
	<datestamp>1245345240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of American ISPs are already providing IPv6 because they want to have the government as a customer.  Many of you probably could enable IPv6 but don't because your router is incapable of handling IPv6.  There are very few home routers that I could find that support IPv6.  One that does is Apple's Airport Extreme.  I bought that, connected it, and instantly got IPv6 addresses handed out to my home network.  Although they are 6to4 addresses, I can connect to other IPv6 hosts, including friends at other ISPs, and ipv6.google.com.  When I'm remote, I can connect directly to any of my home computers (when using IPv6) --- no more port forwarding via NAT.

One reason that 6to4 appeals to the ISPs is that it puts a time limit on your IPv6 prefix lease which is tied to the lease on the IPv4 address.  Thus when the IPv4 address changes, your IPv6 subnet's prefix changes, which makes it hard to run a server, and you must rely on dyndns.  Dyndns with IPv6 is very easy, because your end host knows its IPv6 prefix (and doesn't have to ping a remote host to figure out its IP address as is necessary for a IPv4 host behind NAT), and because everything on your subnet knows instantly when the IPv6 prefix changes, and so you can update the dyndns with a very small race condition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of American ISPs are already providing IPv6 because they want to have the government as a customer .
Many of you probably could enable IPv6 but do n't because your router is incapable of handling IPv6 .
There are very few home routers that I could find that support IPv6 .
One that does is Apple 's Airport Extreme .
I bought that , connected it , and instantly got IPv6 addresses handed out to my home network .
Although they are 6to4 addresses , I can connect to other IPv6 hosts , including friends at other ISPs , and ipv6.google.com .
When I 'm remote , I can connect directly to any of my home computers ( when using IPv6 ) --- no more port forwarding via NAT .
One reason that 6to4 appeals to the ISPs is that it puts a time limit on your IPv6 prefix lease which is tied to the lease on the IPv4 address .
Thus when the IPv4 address changes , your IPv6 subnet 's prefix changes , which makes it hard to run a server , and you must rely on dyndns .
Dyndns with IPv6 is very easy , because your end host knows its IPv6 prefix ( and does n't have to ping a remote host to figure out its IP address as is necessary for a IPv4 host behind NAT ) , and because everything on your subnet knows instantly when the IPv6 prefix changes , and so you can update the dyndns with a very small race condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of American ISPs are already providing IPv6 because they want to have the government as a customer.
Many of you probably could enable IPv6 but don't because your router is incapable of handling IPv6.
There are very few home routers that I could find that support IPv6.
One that does is Apple's Airport Extreme.
I bought that, connected it, and instantly got IPv6 addresses handed out to my home network.
Although they are 6to4 addresses, I can connect to other IPv6 hosts, including friends at other ISPs, and ipv6.google.com.
When I'm remote, I can connect directly to any of my home computers (when using IPv6) --- no more port forwarding via NAT.
One reason that 6to4 appeals to the ISPs is that it puts a time limit on your IPv6 prefix lease which is tied to the lease on the IPv4 address.
Thus when the IPv4 address changes, your IPv6 subnet's prefix changes, which makes it hard to run a server, and you must rely on dyndns.
Dyndns with IPv6 is very easy, because your end host knows its IPv6 prefix (and doesn't have to ping a remote host to figure out its IP address as is necessary for a IPv4 host behind NAT), and because everything on your subnet knows instantly when the IPv6 prefix changes, and so you can update the dyndns with a very small race condition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28379595</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal with IPv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245315900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about $NEW\_TECHNOLOGY is mentioned?  From an end-user's perspective, it appears to accomplish the same thing as $OLD\_TECHNOLOGY, except {faster|smaller|cheaper}.  Are there any real benefits from an end-user's perspective in using $NEW\_TECHNOLOGY? etc etc.  So, whats to get excited about?</p><p>I don't think you quite fit in here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about $ NEW \ _TECHNOLOGY is mentioned ?
From an end-user 's perspective , it appears to accomplish the same thing as $ OLD \ _TECHNOLOGY , except { faster | smaller | cheaper } .
Are there any real benefits from an end-user 's perspective in using $ NEW \ _TECHNOLOGY ?
etc etc .
So , whats to get excited about ? I do n't think you quite fit in here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone here get so excited when anything about $NEW\_TECHNOLOGY is mentioned?
From an end-user's perspective, it appears to accomplish the same thing as $OLD\_TECHNOLOGY, except {faster|smaller|cheaper}.
Are there any real benefits from an end-user's perspective in using $NEW\_TECHNOLOGY?
etc etc.
So, whats to get excited about?I don't think you quite fit in here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376395</id>
	<title>Re:I still don't like IPv6</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1245349320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of people have never typed an IP address.  Computers use them quadrillions of times a day.  I don't think we should cripple the scalability of our communication system just so it's slightly easier for people to look at its inner workings.</p><p>In any case, memorizing common IPv6 addresses isn't that hard.  [2001:4860:b006::68], for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of people have never typed an IP address .
Computers use them quadrillions of times a day .
I do n't think we should cripple the scalability of our communication system just so it 's slightly easier for people to look at its inner workings.In any case , memorizing common IPv6 addresses is n't that hard .
[ 2001 : 4860 : b006 : : 68 ] , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of people have never typed an IP address.
Computers use them quadrillions of times a day.
I don't think we should cripple the scalability of our communication system just so it's slightly easier for people to look at its inner workings.In any case, memorizing common IPv6 addresses isn't that hard.
[2001:4860:b006::68], for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376177</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1245348420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>inet6 addr: fe80::***:****:****:****/64 Scope:Link</p></div><p>No need to redact that.  It's a link-local, non-routable address, not usable by any machine not directly connected to your LAN.  You don't have IPv6 service.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>inet6 addr : fe80 : : * * * : * * * * : * * * * : * * * * /64 Scope : LinkNo need to redact that .
It 's a link-local , non-routable address , not usable by any machine not directly connected to your LAN .
You do n't have IPv6 service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>inet6 addr: fe80::***:****:****:****/64 Scope:LinkNo need to redact that.
It's a link-local, non-routable address, not usable by any machine not directly connected to your LAN.
You don't have IPv6 service.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377561</id>
	<title>Re:It's Comcastic</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1245353580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you connected directly to the ISP pipe or do you have a home router?

Oh and the title of the post is misleading. They're going to have trials in 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you connected directly to the ISP pipe or do you have a home router ?
Oh and the title of the post is misleading .
They 're going to have trials in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you connected directly to the ISP pipe or do you have a home router?
Oh and the title of the post is misleading.
They're going to have trials in 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376345</id>
	<title>Re:Additional IPs</title>
	<author>j h woodyatt</author>
	<datestamp>1245349080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I don't think you should be terribly surprised if Comcast decides you should be willing to pay extra (and agree to different terms of service) if you don't want your IPv4 address(es) to be walled off behind their Carrier Grade NAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I do n't think you should be terribly surprised if Comcast decides you should be willing to pay extra ( and agree to different terms of service ) if you do n't want your IPv4 address ( es ) to be walled off behind their Carrier Grade NAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I don't think you should be terribly surprised if Comcast decides you should be willing to pay extra (and agree to different terms of service) if you don't want your IPv4 address(es) to be walled off behind their Carrier Grade NAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385509</id>
	<title>Re:Asprin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did all of your IPv6 nodes get the address of your DNS server to lookup IPv6 addresses?  DHCP over IPv4?  Thought so.</p><p>So, exactly what benefit have you achieved by configuring IPv6 on your network?  It is still useless without IPv4.  And if you need IPv4, you are still bound by IPv4's limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did all of your IPv6 nodes get the address of your DNS server to lookup IPv6 addresses ?
DHCP over IPv4 ?
Thought so.So , exactly what benefit have you achieved by configuring IPv6 on your network ?
It is still useless without IPv4 .
And if you need IPv4 , you are still bound by IPv4 's limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did all of your IPv6 nodes get the address of your DNS server to lookup IPv6 addresses?
DHCP over IPv4?
Thought so.So, exactly what benefit have you achieved by configuring IPv6 on your network?
It is still useless without IPv4.
And if you need IPv4, you are still bound by IPv4's limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375959</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28423305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28383687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28391137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28388535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28398357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28384671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28379595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28395297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1417201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376389
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28391137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28398357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28423305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28388535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28381141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28383687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28385445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28378057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28386965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28379595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28384671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28395297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375655
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28373925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28377885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28380903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28376521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1417201.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28374685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1417201.28375911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
