<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_22_1828253</id>
	<title>Windows 7 May Finally Get IPv6 Deployed</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261471740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:esther@bitranch.com" rel="nofollow">Esther Schindler</a> writes <i>"According to this article at IT Expert Voice, <a href="http://itexpertvoice.com/home/windows-7-and-ipv6-useful-at-last/">Windows 7 and IPv6: Useful at Last?</a>, we've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of IPv6' that most of us have stopped listening. But the network protocol may have new life breathed into it because IPv6 is a requirement for DirectAccess. DirectAccess, a feature in Windows 7, makes remote access a lot easier &mdash; and <a href="http://itexpertvoice.com/ad/directaccess-and-the-vpn-dragon/">it doesn't require a VPN</a>. (Lisa Vaas interviews security experts and network admins to find out what they think of <em>that</em> idea.) The two articles examine the advantages and disadvantages of DirectAccess, with particular attention to the possibility that Microsoft's sponsorship may give IPv6 the deployment push it has lacked."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Esther Schindler writes " According to this article at IT Expert Voice , Windows 7 and IPv6 : Useful at Last ? , we 've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of IPv6 ' that most of us have stopped listening .
But the network protocol may have new life breathed into it because IPv6 is a requirement for DirectAccess .
DirectAccess , a feature in Windows 7 , makes remote access a lot easier    and it does n't require a VPN .
( Lisa Vaas interviews security experts and network admins to find out what they think of that idea .
) The two articles examine the advantages and disadvantages of DirectAccess , with particular attention to the possibility that Microsoft 's sponsorship may give IPv6 the deployment push it has lacked .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Esther Schindler writes "According to this article at IT Expert Voice, Windows 7 and IPv6: Useful at Last?, we've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of IPv6' that most of us have stopped listening.
But the network protocol may have new life breathed into it because IPv6 is a requirement for DirectAccess.
DirectAccess, a feature in Windows 7, makes remote access a lot easier — and it doesn't require a VPN.
(Lisa Vaas interviews security experts and network admins to find out what they think of that idea.
) The two articles examine the advantages and disadvantages of DirectAccess, with particular attention to the possibility that Microsoft's sponsorship may give IPv6 the deployment push it has lacked.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528818</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It pains me to think it, but how long before we see "IPv6 shortening services"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It pains me to think it , but how long before we see " IPv6 shortening services " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It pains me to think it, but how long before we see "IPv6 shortening services"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529888</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1261480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can type a DNS name. An ipv4 address is a bit cooler. But just imagine your coworker's respect when they see you telnet to 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can type a DNS name .
An ipv4 address is a bit cooler .
But just imagine your coworker 's respect when they see you telnet to 2001 : db8 : 85a3 : : 8a2e : 370 : 7334</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can type a DNS name.
An ipv4 address is a bit cooler.
But just imagine your coworker's respect when they see you telnet to 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529154</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdotted, but regarding VPNs</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1261476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key is that with VPN, you can set up those client certs and two factor auth for a single server on your LAN--the VPN server--and all the rest can be used with lower security.  Compare to configuring <b>every</b> host on your network in this way.  Furthermore, a firewall helps guard against error.  Did you accidentally set up a server incorrectly?  Well the firewall still prevents everyone from accessing it unless they're using VPN.</p><p>VPN/Firewall is still a good portion of the layered security approach, and it would be even if every device on the network supported SSL/client certs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is that with VPN , you can set up those client certs and two factor auth for a single server on your LAN--the VPN server--and all the rest can be used with lower security .
Compare to configuring every host on your network in this way .
Furthermore , a firewall helps guard against error .
Did you accidentally set up a server incorrectly ?
Well the firewall still prevents everyone from accessing it unless they 're using VPN.VPN/Firewall is still a good portion of the layered security approach , and it would be even if every device on the network supported SSL/client certs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is that with VPN, you can set up those client certs and two factor auth for a single server on your LAN--the VPN server--and all the rest can be used with lower security.
Compare to configuring every host on your network in this way.
Furthermore, a firewall helps guard against error.
Did you accidentally set up a server incorrectly?
Well the firewall still prevents everyone from accessing it unless they're using VPN.VPN/Firewall is still a good portion of the layered security approach, and it would be even if every device on the network supported SSL/client certs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534108</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>GravityStar</author>
	<datestamp>1259758380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then, they will ask for government bailouts to help in their unforeseeable crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then , they will ask for government bailouts to help in their unforeseeable crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then, they will ask for government bailouts to help in their unforeseeable crisis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529108</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even worse is the fact that a lot of routers still can't handle it.<br>This has caused a lot of problems for users of Ubuntu Karmic Koala, which enabled IPv6 by default.<br>After upgrading to Kubuntu 9.10 I was getting huge delays and failed connections (but not all the time) on everything from Konqueror to apt-get.<br>It turns out the problem was a bug in my DSL modem, causing it to choke when trying to connect to a host that has IPv6 enabled.<br>I was able to work around it, but a lot of people are still having trouble.<br>Let's see how Microsoft deals with all the older installed hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse is the fact that a lot of routers still ca n't handle it.This has caused a lot of problems for users of Ubuntu Karmic Koala , which enabled IPv6 by default.After upgrading to Kubuntu 9.10 I was getting huge delays and failed connections ( but not all the time ) on everything from Konqueror to apt-get.It turns out the problem was a bug in my DSL modem , causing it to choke when trying to connect to a host that has IPv6 enabled.I was able to work around it , but a lot of people are still having trouble.Let 's see how Microsoft deals with all the older installed hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse is the fact that a lot of routers still can't handle it.This has caused a lot of problems for users of Ubuntu Karmic Koala, which enabled IPv6 by default.After upgrading to Kubuntu 9.10 I was getting huge delays and failed connections (but not all the time) on everything from Konqueror to apt-get.It turns out the problem was a bug in my DSL modem, causing it to choke when trying to connect to a host that has IPv6 enabled.I was able to work around it, but a lot of people are still having trouble.Let's see how Microsoft deals with all the older installed hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528962</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1261476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might be in the minority here, but I'd rather type "www.whatever.com" than either of the other choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be in the minority here , but I 'd rather type " www.whatever.com " than either of the other choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be in the minority here, but I'd rather type "www.whatever.com" than either of the other choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531046</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>growse</author>
	<datestamp>1261486320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could, you know, use a firewall?</p><p>If not-letting-people-route-to-your-ip is your security mechanism, you've got the wrong tool for that particular job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could , you know , use a firewall ? If not-letting-people-route-to-your-ip is your security mechanism , you 've got the wrong tool for that particular job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could, you know, use a firewall?If not-letting-people-route-to-your-ip is your security mechanism, you've got the wrong tool for that particular job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530702</id>
	<title>Wonder why</title>
	<author>Sets\_Chaos</author>
	<datestamp>1261484160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder why no one has asked; does i4i make the whole world blind?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why no one has asked ; does i4i make the whole world blind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why no one has asked; does i4i make the whole world blind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547070</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Adm.Wiggin</author>
	<datestamp>1261650720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, Vista (including Windows 7) and Mac OS X have had IPv6 enabled by default for quite a while now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , Vista ( including Windows 7 ) and Mac OS X have had IPv6 enabled by default for quite a while now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, Vista (including Windows 7) and Mac OS X have had IPv6 enabled by default for quite a while now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531730</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>j h woodyatt</author>
	<datestamp>1261492380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"so I am not sure why the OP says it doesn't require a VPN."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because it doesn't use private addressing realms.  Everything gets numbered out of the global address realm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" so I am not sure why the OP says it does n't require a VPN .
" ...because it does n't use private addressing realms .
Everything gets numbered out of the global address realm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"so I am not sure why the OP says it doesn't require a VPN.
" ...because it doesn't use private addressing realms.
Everything gets numbered out of the global address realm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529238</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm far more annoyed with the security roadblocks put up by the V.7 RDP client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm far more annoyed with the security roadblocks put up by the V.7 RDP client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm far more annoyed with the security roadblocks put up by the V.7 RDP client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530752</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1261484460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We won't run out. It's like peak oil - we won't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics. It'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up, reducing consumption. Essentially, we'll never use 100\% of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies. Same with IPv4 addresses. They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system. IPv6 will come in slowly.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm sorry, but you're simply uninformed. This is exactly like global warming and I made the analogy before <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1474014&amp;cid=30391512" title="slashdot.org">in reverse</a> [slashdot.org].<br> <br>
In both cases, the experts say it's happening and it's a problem, while layman continue to have a flawed and incomplete picture. For example, you're stating that "it'll be harder and harder to find", however there is no market in IPv4 addresses, they are not sold or bought at the ISP level, but rather they are supplied on demand by the registrars. Market analogies do not apply. It is a finite resource with extremely low elasticity in supply. Partitioning IPv4 addresses to small chunks and coming up with a procedure to reclaim them would be extremely hard, for routing reasons. Even if you'd attempt to set up a market for IPv4 addresses, you'd need global agreement (the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed recently how well that works out) and you'd risk fracturing the Internet due to conflicts of interests when it turns out that you can't get IPv4 addresses anymore unless you pay for them. The question who gets the money is a big open question. To put it simply, you just can't apply market schemes to a finite addressing scheme. It does not work.<br> <br>
Oh, and just to lay the "universities with large address spaces" argument to rest, even if we'd reclaim the legacy spaces, we'd extend exhaustion by 3-5 months. No, an IPv4 address market is not viable, is not going to happen and we're better off focusing on migrating to IPv6 instead of picking the "do nothing" option and waiting for a panic solution when the IPv4 addresses run out in 2011 (IANA pool)/2012 (RIRs). Besides, why meddle with temporary solutions? Data shows that <a href="http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html" title="potaroo.net">IPv4 address space consumption</a> [potaroo.net] is accelerating. We simply need IPv6 to provide for the increasing addressing demands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We wo n't run out .
It 's like peak oil - we wo n't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics .
It 'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up , reducing consumption .
Essentially , we 'll never use 100 \ % of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies .
Same with IPv4 addresses .
They 'll become more and more valuable , universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up , and we 'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system .
IPv6 will come in slowly .
I 'm sorry , but you 're simply uninformed .
This is exactly like global warming and I made the analogy before in reverse [ slashdot.org ] .
In both cases , the experts say it 's happening and it 's a problem , while layman continue to have a flawed and incomplete picture .
For example , you 're stating that " it 'll be harder and harder to find " , however there is no market in IPv4 addresses , they are not sold or bought at the ISP level , but rather they are supplied on demand by the registrars .
Market analogies do not apply .
It is a finite resource with extremely low elasticity in supply .
Partitioning IPv4 addresses to small chunks and coming up with a procedure to reclaim them would be extremely hard , for routing reasons .
Even if you 'd attempt to set up a market for IPv4 addresses , you 'd need global agreement ( the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed recently how well that works out ) and you 'd risk fracturing the Internet due to conflicts of interests when it turns out that you ca n't get IPv4 addresses anymore unless you pay for them .
The question who gets the money is a big open question .
To put it simply , you just ca n't apply market schemes to a finite addressing scheme .
It does not work .
Oh , and just to lay the " universities with large address spaces " argument to rest , even if we 'd reclaim the legacy spaces , we 'd extend exhaustion by 3-5 months .
No , an IPv4 address market is not viable , is not going to happen and we 're better off focusing on migrating to IPv6 instead of picking the " do nothing " option and waiting for a panic solution when the IPv4 addresses run out in 2011 ( IANA pool ) /2012 ( RIRs ) .
Besides , why meddle with temporary solutions ?
Data shows that IPv4 address space consumption [ potaroo.net ] is accelerating .
We simply need IPv6 to provide for the increasing addressing demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We won't run out.
It's like peak oil - we won't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics.
It'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up, reducing consumption.
Essentially, we'll never use 100\% of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies.
Same with IPv4 addresses.
They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system.
IPv6 will come in slowly.
I'm sorry, but you're simply uninformed.
This is exactly like global warming and I made the analogy before in reverse [slashdot.org].
In both cases, the experts say it's happening and it's a problem, while layman continue to have a flawed and incomplete picture.
For example, you're stating that "it'll be harder and harder to find", however there is no market in IPv4 addresses, they are not sold or bought at the ISP level, but rather they are supplied on demand by the registrars.
Market analogies do not apply.
It is a finite resource with extremely low elasticity in supply.
Partitioning IPv4 addresses to small chunks and coming up with a procedure to reclaim them would be extremely hard, for routing reasons.
Even if you'd attempt to set up a market for IPv4 addresses, you'd need global agreement (the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed recently how well that works out) and you'd risk fracturing the Internet due to conflicts of interests when it turns out that you can't get IPv4 addresses anymore unless you pay for them.
The question who gets the money is a big open question.
To put it simply, you just can't apply market schemes to a finite addressing scheme.
It does not work.
Oh, and just to lay the "universities with large address spaces" argument to rest, even if we'd reclaim the legacy spaces, we'd extend exhaustion by 3-5 months.
No, an IPv4 address market is not viable, is not going to happen and we're better off focusing on migrating to IPv6 instead of picking the "do nothing" option and waiting for a panic solution when the IPv4 addresses run out in 2011 (IANA pool)/2012 (RIRs).
Besides, why meddle with temporary solutions?
Data shows that IPv4 address space consumption [potaroo.net] is accelerating.
We simply need IPv6 to provide for the increasing addressing demands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534078</id>
	<title>Re:Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will th</title>
	<author>johnw</author>
	<datestamp>1259758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP?</p></div><p>My ISP currently allocates (and routes) me 18446744073709551616 IPv6 addresses.  They will increase this on demand up to a maximum of 1208925819614629174706176 addresses.  Once I've used those I'll start to look for a new ISP.</p><p>This message coming to you from 2001:8b0:e9:1:21c:bfff:fe92:17c9</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP ? My ISP currently allocates ( and routes ) me 18446744073709551616 IPv6 addresses .
They will increase this on demand up to a maximum of 1208925819614629174706176 addresses .
Once I 've used those I 'll start to look for a new ISP.This message coming to you from 2001 : 8b0 : e9 : 1 : 21c : bfff : fe92 : 17c9</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP?My ISP currently allocates (and routes) me 18446744073709551616 IPv6 addresses.
They will increase this on demand up to a maximum of 1208925819614629174706176 addresses.
Once I've used those I'll start to look for a new ISP.This message coming to you from 2001:8b0:e9:1:21c:bfff:fe92:17c9
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532370</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 sucks monkey bawls</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1261500600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We already have a simple solution, IP4 with NAT. It works great.</p></div><p>I take it you've never had to program any application that needs peer to peer communications then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a simple solution , IP4 with NAT .
It works great.I take it you 've never had to program any application that needs peer to peer communications then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a simple solution, IP4 with NAT.
It works great.I take it you've never had to program any application that needs peer to peer communications then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529446</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261478220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a server-checks-client-security thing, not a Microsoft-checks-customer-setup thing. Refusing to work with known-broken software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a server-checks-client-security thing , not a Microsoft-checks-customer-setup thing .
Refusing to work with known-broken software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a server-checks-client-security thing, not a Microsoft-checks-customer-setup thing.
Refusing to work with known-broken software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534286</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259762040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ethernet MAC addresses have a 'gazillion addresses'. That doesn't mean its a problem. NAT/Firewall is a retarded statement. NAT and firewall are different functionalities. Use of profanity doesn't prove your point - it just makes you look like a moron (not that your statements in themself do not).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet MAC addresses have a 'gazillion addresses' .
That does n't mean its a problem .
NAT/Firewall is a retarded statement .
NAT and firewall are different functionalities .
Use of profanity does n't prove your point - it just makes you look like a moron ( not that your statements in themself do not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet MAC addresses have a 'gazillion addresses'.
That doesn't mean its a problem.
NAT/Firewall is a retarded statement.
NAT and firewall are different functionalities.
Use of profanity doesn't prove your point - it just makes you look like a moron (not that your statements in themself do not).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532238</id>
	<title>No, just typical Microsoft:</title>
	<author>azrider</author>
	<datestamp>1261498980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anybody notice this:<blockquote><div><p>If you are already using Window 7's IPv6 on a network with other operating systems using the protocol you may run into some compatibility problems. The root of this is that Windows 7 handles IPv6 auto-configuration with the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) in a manner <strong>that's not quite the same as how the RFC standards prescribes them</strong></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Or this:</p><blockquote><div><p>You should also keep in mind that while you can join a HomeGroup with any edition of Windows 7, you can only create one in <strong>Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise</strong> So, in short, you can't use it as drop-in replacement for an existing Windows XP peer-to-peer Workgroup network in which every PC shares all its resources with the others.</p></div></blockquote><p>
And, even better:</p><blockquote><div><p>Some users who've already been using IPv4 may also have trouble turning IPv6 on for their HomeGroup. Typically, this is what happens: they try to enable IPv6 by opening Network Connections in the Control Panel, right-clicking the adapter, and clicking properties. Under "Local Area Connection Status" they see:<br>
IPv4 Connectivity: Internet<br>
IPv6 Connectivity: No network access<br>
If that happens to you, you probably need to manually set up IPv6. This is done, according to Microsoft, with the following steps:<br>
1. Click Start, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click <strong>regedit.exe</strong> in the Programs list.</p><p>
So, to get <strong>normal</strong> functionality for a <em>HomeGroup</em>, they have to <strong>edit the Registry</strong>.</p><p>
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish anybody?</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anybody notice this : If you are already using Window 7 's IPv6 on a network with other operating systems using the protocol you may run into some compatibility problems .
The root of this is that Windows 7 handles IPv6 auto-configuration with the Neighbor Discovery Protocol ( NDP ) in a manner that 's not quite the same as how the RFC standards prescribes them Or this : You should also keep in mind that while you can join a HomeGroup with any edition of Windows 7 , you can only create one in Home Premium , Professional , Ultimate , or Enterprise So , in short , you ca n't use it as drop-in replacement for an existing Windows XP peer-to-peer Workgroup network in which every PC shares all its resources with the others .
And , even better : Some users who 've already been using IPv4 may also have trouble turning IPv6 on for their HomeGroup .
Typically , this is what happens : they try to enable IPv6 by opening Network Connections in the Control Panel , right-clicking the adapter , and clicking properties .
Under " Local Area Connection Status " they see : IPv4 Connectivity : Internet IPv6 Connectivity : No network access If that happens to you , you probably need to manually set up IPv6 .
This is done , according to Microsoft , with the following steps : 1 .
Click Start , type regedit in the Start Search box , and then click regedit.exe in the Programs list .
So , to get normal functionality for a HomeGroup , they have to edit the Registry .
Embrace , Extend , Extinguish anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anybody notice this:If you are already using Window 7's IPv6 on a network with other operating systems using the protocol you may run into some compatibility problems.
The root of this is that Windows 7 handles IPv6 auto-configuration with the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) in a manner that's not quite the same as how the RFC standards prescribes them 
Or this:You should also keep in mind that while you can join a HomeGroup with any edition of Windows 7, you can only create one in Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise So, in short, you can't use it as drop-in replacement for an existing Windows XP peer-to-peer Workgroup network in which every PC shares all its resources with the others.
And, even better:Some users who've already been using IPv4 may also have trouble turning IPv6 on for their HomeGroup.
Typically, this is what happens: they try to enable IPv6 by opening Network Connections in the Control Panel, right-clicking the adapter, and clicking properties.
Under "Local Area Connection Status" they see:
IPv4 Connectivity: Internet
IPv6 Connectivity: No network access
If that happens to you, you probably need to manually set up IPv6.
This is done, according to Microsoft, with the following steps:
1.
Click Start, type regedit in the Start Search box, and then click regedit.exe in the Programs list.
So, to get normal functionality for a HomeGroup, they have to edit the Registry.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish anybody?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529932</id>
	<title>Might as well rename Slashdot --</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1261480320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- three Microsoft related stories out of four.</p><p>I hereby dub Slashdot "Microdot!"</p><p>Oh, wait....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- three Microsoft related stories out of four.I hereby dub Slashdot " Microdot !
" Oh , wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- three Microsoft related stories out of four.I hereby dub Slashdot "Microdot!
"Oh, wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261482300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6. Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.</p></div><p>Right.  Most users don't know what IPv6 is and are simply using whatever they've been set up to use.  In the case of home users, users have been set up to use whatever their ISP has told them to use.  In the case of both businesses and individuals, it's hard to say anyone opted for anything since IPv6 usually isn't even a real option.  ISPs aren't supporting it.  It's possible to do some kind of tunneling to use IPv6, but since it's basically not in use, there isn't a lot of payoff.</p><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine, people turned to network address translation (NAT) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). With this combination, thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address, as far as the Internet is concerned.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...</p></div><p>Well NAT can accomplish a lot, but you're right that it can break a lot of things. The idea of giving everything a non-routable address and then using NAT is sort of adding a level of complexity where it shouldn't be necessary.  But ultimately, my firewalls are doing a good enough job at managing it, though, and that's not what bothers me. (Yes, I'm just talking about me personally here.  I know NAT is causing problems for others.)
</p><p>What really bothers me is that there *is* an IPv4 address famine.  It's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we haven't yet reached the point of outright crisis.  If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful, then riddle me this: why can't I get a static IP for my home internet connection?  In order to get a static IP, I have to upgrade to a "business" account which costs $200/month more and doesn't really offer any improvements other than a static IP.  Yup.  $200/month for a static IP.
</p><p>Really it's just another example of ISPs refusing to invest in the upgrades they need in order to provide a modern level of service.  They're hoping that they can continue indefinitely giving us dynamic IP addresses, milking DSL and even... *sight*... dial-up.  Part of it, we have to realize, is that they don't want the Internet to be a P2P network.  They want it to be a broadcast network where they control the broadcast.  There's no incentive for them to make your two-way communications easier.  They're probably just as happy if you're behind several layers of NAT and can't do anything but download web pages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network .
Users did n't opt for opting out of IPv6 .
Large telcos did n't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.Right .
Most users do n't know what IPv6 is and are simply using whatever they 've been set up to use .
In the case of home users , users have been set up to use whatever their ISP has told them to use .
In the case of both businesses and individuals , it 's hard to say anyone opted for anything since IPv6 usually is n't even a real option .
ISPs are n't supporting it .
It 's possible to do some kind of tunneling to use IPv6 , but since it 's basically not in use , there is n't a lot of payoff.To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine , people turned to network address translation ( NAT ) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol ( DHCP ) .
With this combination , thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address , as far as the Internet is concerned .
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture , the second sentence is simply not true .
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days , if those computers are using the internet .
NAT breaks so many things...Well NAT can accomplish a lot , but you 're right that it can break a lot of things .
The idea of giving everything a non-routable address and then using NAT is sort of adding a level of complexity where it should n't be necessary .
But ultimately , my firewalls are doing a good enough job at managing it , though , and that 's not what bothers me .
( Yes , I 'm just talking about me personally here .
I know NAT is causing problems for others .
) What really bothers me is that there * is * an IPv4 address famine .
It 's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we have n't yet reached the point of outright crisis .
If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful , then riddle me this : why ca n't I get a static IP for my home internet connection ?
In order to get a static IP , I have to upgrade to a " business " account which costs $ 200/month more and does n't really offer any improvements other than a static IP .
Yup. $ 200/month for a static IP .
Really it 's just another example of ISPs refusing to invest in the upgrades they need in order to provide a modern level of service .
They 're hoping that they can continue indefinitely giving us dynamic IP addresses , milking DSL and even... * sight * ... dial-up .
Part of it , we have to realize , is that they do n't want the Internet to be a P2P network .
They want it to be a broadcast network where they control the broadcast .
There 's no incentive for them to make your two-way communications easier .
They 're probably just as happy if you 're behind several layers of NAT and ca n't do anything but download web pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network.
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6.
Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.Right.
Most users don't know what IPv6 is and are simply using whatever they've been set up to use.
In the case of home users, users have been set up to use whatever their ISP has told them to use.
In the case of both businesses and individuals, it's hard to say anyone opted for anything since IPv6 usually isn't even a real option.
ISPs aren't supporting it.
It's possible to do some kind of tunneling to use IPv6, but since it's basically not in use, there isn't a lot of payoff.To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine, people turned to network address translation (NAT) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
With this combination, thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address, as far as the Internet is concerned.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true.
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet.
NAT breaks so many things...Well NAT can accomplish a lot, but you're right that it can break a lot of things.
The idea of giving everything a non-routable address and then using NAT is sort of adding a level of complexity where it shouldn't be necessary.
But ultimately, my firewalls are doing a good enough job at managing it, though, and that's not what bothers me.
(Yes, I'm just talking about me personally here.
I know NAT is causing problems for others.
)
What really bothers me is that there *is* an IPv4 address famine.
It's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we haven't yet reached the point of outright crisis.
If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful, then riddle me this: why can't I get a static IP for my home internet connection?
In order to get a static IP, I have to upgrade to a "business" account which costs $200/month more and doesn't really offer any improvements other than a static IP.
Yup.  $200/month for a static IP.
Really it's just another example of ISPs refusing to invest in the upgrades they need in order to provide a modern level of service.
They're hoping that they can continue indefinitely giving us dynamic IP addresses, milking DSL and even... *sight*... dial-up.
Part of it, we have to realize, is that they don't want the Internet to be a P2P network.
They want it to be a broadcast network where they control the broadcast.
There's no incentive for them to make your two-way communications easier.
They're probably just as happy if you're behind several layers of NAT and can't do anything but download web pages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531524</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1261490520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're any kind of network administrator, you can figure out how to control access to your network. IPv4 was designed to connect, not separate, hosts and you managed to make it do what you wanted.</p><p>If want people to connect to services in your network, don't deploy this service behind your firewall. And if you can't stop others from deploying it, well, then there were already a lot of things you couldn't stop anyway, this isn't the first one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're any kind of network administrator , you can figure out how to control access to your network .
IPv4 was designed to connect , not separate , hosts and you managed to make it do what you wanted.If want people to connect to services in your network , do n't deploy this service behind your firewall .
And if you ca n't stop others from deploying it , well , then there were already a lot of things you could n't stop anyway , this is n't the first one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're any kind of network administrator, you can figure out how to control access to your network.
IPv4 was designed to connect, not separate, hosts and you managed to make it do what you wanted.If want people to connect to services in your network, don't deploy this service behind your firewall.
And if you can't stop others from deploying it, well, then there were already a lot of things you couldn't stop anyway, this isn't the first one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529348</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1261477740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?</p></div><p>You're an idiot?  All this is saying is that it has to pass a bunch of policy settings to connect.  What exactly is supposed to be sinister about that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , it checks for software status , which I guess is cool , but what makes me suspect that there is a " Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK " aspect to this ? You 're an idiot ?
All this is saying is that it has to pass a bunch of policy settings to connect .
What exactly is supposed to be sinister about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?You're an idiot?
All this is saying is that it has to pass a bunch of policy settings to connect.
What exactly is supposed to be sinister about that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532790</id>
	<title>What is the state of IPv6?</title>
	<author>definate</author>
	<datestamp>1261506300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just looking for someone who has any idea on what the state of adoption of IPv6 is at?</p><p>Is there anyway for me to tell if my ISP and similar has adopted it?</p><p>Are there gateways which translate IPv6 to IPv4, so users can adopt ONLY IPv6 while maintaining backwards compatibility at the ISP level?</p><p>One impediment to adoption is that, even nerds like me, who are interested in it, but aren't die hard fans, don't know much about it. The best thing I see from it, is having an address space that is public and under my control. Looking forward to that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just looking for someone who has any idea on what the state of adoption of IPv6 is at ? Is there anyway for me to tell if my ISP and similar has adopted it ? Are there gateways which translate IPv6 to IPv4 , so users can adopt ONLY IPv6 while maintaining backwards compatibility at the ISP level ? One impediment to adoption is that , even nerds like me , who are interested in it , but are n't die hard fans , do n't know much about it .
The best thing I see from it , is having an address space that is public and under my control .
Looking forward to that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just looking for someone who has any idea on what the state of adoption of IPv6 is at?Is there anyway for me to tell if my ISP and similar has adopted it?Are there gateways which translate IPv6 to IPv4, so users can adopt ONLY IPv6 while maintaining backwards compatibility at the ISP level?One impediment to adoption is that, even nerds like me, who are interested in it, but aren't die hard fans, don't know much about it.
The best thing I see from it, is having an address space that is public and under my control.
Looking forward to that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532028</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>mishehu</author>
	<datestamp>1261495980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>s/can go away/should go away/

There, fixed that for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>s/can go away/should go away/ There , fixed that for you : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>s/can go away/should go away/

There, fixed that for you :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</id>
	<title>IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1261475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it will be useful, I don't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.</p><p>I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it will be useful , I do n't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001 : db8 : 85a3 : : 8a2e : 370 : 7334</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it will be useful, I don't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531558</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1261490820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>universities? if it was just universities.<br>what really drives me mad is corps like ford, general electric, daimler, merck,... having<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 subnets and making no real use of them, hiding them completely behind firewalls. how about these fuckers just use 10.* and give their huge blocks to providers that are in real need (like <a href="http://qsc.de/" title="qsc.de" rel="nofollow">qsc</a> [qsc.de]), having to let go of business opportunities otherwise because of the shortage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>universities ?
if it was just universities.what really drives me mad is corps like ford , general electric , daimler , merck,... having /24 subnets and making no real use of them , hiding them completely behind firewalls .
how about these fuckers just use 10 .
* and give their huge blocks to providers that are in real need ( like qsc [ qsc.de ] ) , having to let go of business opportunities otherwise because of the shortage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>universities?
if it was just universities.what really drives me mad is corps like ford, general electric, daimler, merck,... having /24 subnets and making no real use of them, hiding them completely behind firewalls.
how about these fuckers just use 10.
* and give their huge blocks to providers that are in real need (like qsc [qsc.de]), having to let go of business opportunities otherwise because of the shortage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529974</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you actually know what are you talking about or just going WTF WTF WTF WTF???? OMG?!</p><p>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#directaccess</p><p>And for people that actually block microsoft.com,</p><blockquote><div><p>Enhance mobility and manageability with DirectAccess</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *     Working outside the office is easier than ever. DirectAccess in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 enhances the productivity of mobile workers by connecting them seamlessly and more securely to their corporate network any time they have Internet access&mdash;without the need to VPN. When your IT department enables DirectAccess, the corporate network&rsquo;s file shares, intranet websites, and line-of-business applications remain accessible wherever you have an Internet connection.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *     Manage remote machines more effectively. Flexibility gives IT the opportunity to service remote machines on a regular basis and ensure that mobile users stay up to date with company policies. With DirectAccess, IT administrators can manage mobile computers by updating Group Policy settings and distributing software updates any time the mobile computer has Internet connectivity, even if the user is not logged on.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; *     Enhance security and access control. To keep data safer as it travels public networks, DirectAccess uses IPv6-over-IPsec to encrypt communications transmitted across the Internet. DirectAccess is designed to reduce unnecessary traffic on the corporate network by sending only traffic destined for the corporate network through the DirectAccess server (running Windows Server 2008 R2), or the administrator can choose to send all traffic through the corporate network. In addition to authenticating the computer, DirectAccess can also authenticate the user and supports multifactor authentication, such as a smart card. IT administrators can configure which intranet resources specific users can access using DirectAccess.</p></div></blockquote><p>So what is DirectAccess? How about a better VPN that's been integrated into native windows network topology (thing Active Record, Domain controller, and related fluff)</p><p>But then, why are you freaking about about IPv6? MS could have done similar stuff with IPv4, but chose not to because IPv4 solutions are kludges that must work over NAT and worse. IPv6 only makes this service simpler on the programming side as *some* of the features required to make DirectAccess work are part of the protocol.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectAccess</p><p>Anyway, congratulations on being the dumbass of the week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you actually know what are you talking about or just going WTF WTF WTF WTF ? ? ? ?
OMG ? ! http : //www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx # directaccessAnd for people that actually block microsoft.com,Enhance mobility and manageability with DirectAccess         * Working outside the office is easier than ever .
DirectAccess in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 enhances the productivity of mobile workers by connecting them seamlessly and more securely to their corporate network any time they have Internet access    without the need to VPN .
When your IT department enables DirectAccess , the corporate network    s file shares , intranet websites , and line-of-business applications remain accessible wherever you have an Internet connection .
        * Manage remote machines more effectively .
Flexibility gives IT the opportunity to service remote machines on a regular basis and ensure that mobile users stay up to date with company policies .
With DirectAccess , IT administrators can manage mobile computers by updating Group Policy settings and distributing software updates any time the mobile computer has Internet connectivity , even if the user is not logged on .
        * Enhance security and access control .
To keep data safer as it travels public networks , DirectAccess uses IPv6-over-IPsec to encrypt communications transmitted across the Internet .
DirectAccess is designed to reduce unnecessary traffic on the corporate network by sending only traffic destined for the corporate network through the DirectAccess server ( running Windows Server 2008 R2 ) , or the administrator can choose to send all traffic through the corporate network .
In addition to authenticating the computer , DirectAccess can also authenticate the user and supports multifactor authentication , such as a smart card .
IT administrators can configure which intranet resources specific users can access using DirectAccess.So what is DirectAccess ?
How about a better VPN that 's been integrated into native windows network topology ( thing Active Record , Domain controller , and related fluff ) But then , why are you freaking about about IPv6 ?
MS could have done similar stuff with IPv4 , but chose not to because IPv4 solutions are kludges that must work over NAT and worse .
IPv6 only makes this service simpler on the programming side as * some * of the features required to make DirectAccess work are part of the protocol .
      http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectAccessAnyway , congratulations on being the dumbass of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you actually know what are you talking about or just going WTF WTF WTF WTF????
OMG?!http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#directaccessAnd for people that actually block microsoft.com,Enhance mobility and manageability with DirectAccess
        *     Working outside the office is easier than ever.
DirectAccess in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 enhances the productivity of mobile workers by connecting them seamlessly and more securely to their corporate network any time they have Internet access—without the need to VPN.
When your IT department enables DirectAccess, the corporate network’s file shares, intranet websites, and line-of-business applications remain accessible wherever you have an Internet connection.
        *     Manage remote machines more effectively.
Flexibility gives IT the opportunity to service remote machines on a regular basis and ensure that mobile users stay up to date with company policies.
With DirectAccess, IT administrators can manage mobile computers by updating Group Policy settings and distributing software updates any time the mobile computer has Internet connectivity, even if the user is not logged on.
        *     Enhance security and access control.
To keep data safer as it travels public networks, DirectAccess uses IPv6-over-IPsec to encrypt communications transmitted across the Internet.
DirectAccess is designed to reduce unnecessary traffic on the corporate network by sending only traffic destined for the corporate network through the DirectAccess server (running Windows Server 2008 R2), or the administrator can choose to send all traffic through the corporate network.
In addition to authenticating the computer, DirectAccess can also authenticate the user and supports multifactor authentication, such as a smart card.
IT administrators can configure which intranet resources specific users can access using DirectAccess.So what is DirectAccess?
How about a better VPN that's been integrated into native windows network topology (thing Active Record, Domain controller, and related fluff)But then, why are you freaking about about IPv6?
MS could have done similar stuff with IPv4, but chose not to because IPv4 solutions are kludges that must work over NAT and worse.
IPv6 only makes this service simpler on the programming side as *some* of the features required to make DirectAccess work are part of the protocol.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectAccessAnyway, congratulations on being the dumbass of the week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531694</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261492020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?</p></div><p>The fact that you are a FUD spreading idiot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , it checks for software status , which I guess is cool , but what makes me suspect that there is a " Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK " aspect to this ? The fact that you are a FUD spreading idiot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?The fact that you are a FUD spreading idiot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533600</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you are pretty much on the money, NAT isn't as broken as you think. i know for certain that my OpenBSD installations can successfully NAT and reverse net many thousands of IPs.</p><p>You mention that NAT breaks many protocols and you are correct, but I assure you that many of those protocols are poorly planned out security wise, and even if one were to allow them it wouldn't be without an intermediate bastion, defeating the rationale behind direct routing.</p><p>IP6 has many advantages but I doubt that making corporate LANs as permissive as home internet links is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you are pretty much on the money , NAT is n't as broken as you think .
i know for certain that my OpenBSD installations can successfully NAT and reverse net many thousands of IPs.You mention that NAT breaks many protocols and you are correct , but I assure you that many of those protocols are poorly planned out security wise , and even if one were to allow them it would n't be without an intermediate bastion , defeating the rationale behind direct routing.IP6 has many advantages but I doubt that making corporate LANs as permissive as home internet links is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you are pretty much on the money, NAT isn't as broken as you think.
i know for certain that my OpenBSD installations can successfully NAT and reverse net many thousands of IPs.You mention that NAT breaks many protocols and you are correct, but I assure you that many of those protocols are poorly planned out security wise, and even if one were to allow them it wouldn't be without an intermediate bastion, defeating the rationale behind direct routing.IP6 has many advantages but I doubt that making corporate LANs as permissive as home internet links is one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535630</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259772120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv6 will be widespread when Comcast + Company support it natively, the webservers of the world are using it, and they decide to shut ipv4 off.  At that point, every mom and pop still using a WRWT54G with default firmware will need to either upgrade, or buy a new router.<br><br>Either way, it's going to happen.  The only question is when.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 will be widespread when Comcast + Company support it natively , the webservers of the world are using it , and they decide to shut ipv4 off .
At that point , every mom and pop still using a WRWT54G with default firmware will need to either upgrade , or buy a new router.Either way , it 's going to happen .
The only question is when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 will be widespread when Comcast + Company support it natively, the webservers of the world are using it, and they decide to shut ipv4 off.
At that point, every mom and pop still using a WRWT54G with default firmware will need to either upgrade, or buy a new router.Either way, it's going to happen.
The only question is when.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532192</id>
	<title>Re:Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will th</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261498140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I get up to 5 (dynamic) IPv4 addresses included with my 100/100 fiber connection (for about 40 EUR), so I would be very surprised if they charged extra for multiple IPv6 addresses.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I get up to 5 ( dynamic ) IPv4 addresses included with my 100/100 fiber connection ( for about 40 EUR ) , so I would be very surprised if they charged extra for multiple IPv6 addresses .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I get up to 5 (dynamic) IPv4 addresses included with my 100/100 fiber connection (for about 40 EUR), so I would be very surprised if they charged extra for multiple IPv6 addresses.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529778</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hosts file is going to be messy, too.<br>But I think it's going to come into its own now.</p><p>However, I can see all sorts of problems when I have to ask a client which IP6 block he has for his LAN. Every one will be different. You won't be able to simply use 192.168 or 10.x or 172.x for in-house? Sounds like endless opportunities for excellence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hosts file is going to be messy , too.But I think it 's going to come into its own now.However , I can see all sorts of problems when I have to ask a client which IP6 block he has for his LAN .
Every one will be different .
You wo n't be able to simply use 192.168 or 10.x or 172.x for in-house ?
Sounds like endless opportunities for excellence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hosts file is going to be messy, too.But I think it's going to come into its own now.However, I can see all sorts of problems when I have to ask a client which IP6 block he has for his LAN.
Every one will be different.
You won't be able to simply use 192.168 or 10.x or 172.x for in-house?
Sounds like endless opportunities for excellence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</id>
	<title>Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that I barely know where to begin.<blockquote><div><p>IPv6 has been "the next generation of TCP/IP protocols" for so long that you can be forgiven for thinking that it will never be useful.</p></div></blockquote><p>
IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful. The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.</p><blockquote><div><p>Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6. Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.</p><blockquote><div><p>To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine, people turned to network address translation (NAT) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). With this combination, thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address, as far as the Internet is concerned.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...</p><blockquote><div><p>By the time Windows XP and Windows 2003 rolled out, IPv6 was built into the operating systems.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This sentence might give you the impression that you can run IPv6 with Windows XP. That's not the case, it misses DNS resolution through IPv6 and DHCPv6, so while it supports some things, the IPv6 support is far from complete.</p><blockquote><div><p>Windows 7, when used with Server 2008 R2, may finally give enterprise network administrators a reason to deploy IPv6.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No, when the technical people at large telcos are given the money and mandate to deploy IPv6 that's when it'll happen. When the head honchos who held back the upgrade for financial reasons and the lack of government regulation in a classic example of the tragedy of the commons realise that IPv4 blocks <a href="http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html" title="potaroo.net">will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries</a> [potaroo.net], they'll panic and start throwing money, excuses and horrible stopgap solutions at the problem, which could have been avoided to head for this bloody showdown we're going to see in the next couple of years as everyone will a. try to grab as many addresses as possible to keep telco projects in the pipeline from sinking b. franctically scramble to upgrade.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that I barely know where to begin.IPv6 has been " the next generation of TCP/IP protocols " for so long that you can be forgiven for thinking that it will never be useful .
IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful .
The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy , feature-laden things that consumers actually want.Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network .
Users did n't opt for opting out of IPv6 .
Large telcos did n't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine , people turned to network address translation ( NAT ) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol ( DHCP ) .
With this combination , thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address , as far as the Internet is concerned .
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture , the second sentence is simply not true .
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days , if those computers are using the internet .
NAT breaks so many things...By the time Windows XP and Windows 2003 rolled out , IPv6 was built into the operating systems .
This sentence might give you the impression that you can run IPv6 with Windows XP .
That 's not the case , it misses DNS resolution through IPv6 and DHCPv6 , so while it supports some things , the IPv6 support is far from complete.Windows 7 , when used with Server 2008 R2 , may finally give enterprise network administrators a reason to deploy IPv6 .
No , when the technical people at large telcos are given the money and mandate to deploy IPv6 that 's when it 'll happen .
When the head honchos who held back the upgrade for financial reasons and the lack of government regulation in a classic example of the tragedy of the commons realise that IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries [ potaroo.net ] , they 'll panic and start throwing money , excuses and horrible stopgap solutions at the problem , which could have been avoided to head for this bloody showdown we 're going to see in the next couple of years as everyone will a. try to grab as many addresses as possible to keep telco projects in the pipeline from sinking b. franctically scramble to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that I barely know where to begin.IPv6 has been "the next generation of TCP/IP protocols" for so long that you can be forgiven for thinking that it will never be useful.
IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful.
The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.Both the Internet and the vast majority of American and European business users elected to stay with the legacy IPv4 network.
Users didn't opt for opting out of IPv6.
Large telcos didn't spend enough money soon enough to get the upgrade rolling in a tragedy of the commons kind of situation.To get around the much-predicted Internet IPv4 address famine, people turned to network address translation (NAT) and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
With this combination, thousands of corporate PCs can have their own internal IPv4 addresses while using up only a single IP address, as far as the Internet is concerned.
Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true.
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet.
NAT breaks so many things...By the time Windows XP and Windows 2003 rolled out, IPv6 was built into the operating systems.
This sentence might give you the impression that you can run IPv6 with Windows XP.
That's not the case, it misses DNS resolution through IPv6 and DHCPv6, so while it supports some things, the IPv6 support is far from complete.Windows 7, when used with Server 2008 R2, may finally give enterprise network administrators a reason to deploy IPv6.
No, when the technical people at large telcos are given the money and mandate to deploy IPv6 that's when it'll happen.
When the head honchos who held back the upgrade for financial reasons and the lack of government regulation in a classic example of the tragedy of the commons realise that IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries [potaroo.net], they'll panic and start throwing money, excuses and horrible stopgap solutions at the problem, which could have been avoided to head for this bloody showdown we're going to see in the next couple of years as everyone will a. try to grab as many addresses as possible to keep telco projects in the pipeline from sinking b. franctically scramble to upgrade.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547180</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>Adm.Wiggin</author>
	<datestamp>1261651560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whatever software you're using for VPN right now (OpenVPN, etc.), just use that.  If it already has IPv6 support, then you're good to go.  iptables supports it, and if you have a firewall on the "corporate net", then filtering IPv6 is just as easy as filtering IPv4, except with longer addresses.  Nothing has to change except the addressing (and a few bits of code underneath the surface, obviously).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever software you 're using for VPN right now ( OpenVPN , etc .
) , just use that .
If it already has IPv6 support , then you 're good to go .
iptables supports it , and if you have a firewall on the " corporate net " , then filtering IPv6 is just as easy as filtering IPv4 , except with longer addresses .
Nothing has to change except the addressing ( and a few bits of code underneath the surface , obviously ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever software you're using for VPN right now (OpenVPN, etc.
), just use that.
If it already has IPv6 support, then you're good to go.
iptables supports it, and if you have a firewall on the "corporate net", then filtering IPv6 is just as easy as filtering IPv4, except with longer addresses.
Nothing has to change except the addressing (and a few bits of code underneath the surface, obviously).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529664</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about this feature a few weeks ago.</p><p>MS Is touting "this is not a VPN" (even in their marketing for this feature) -- but the parent is right, it's just an ipsec VPN that's initialized early in the boot up process.</p><p>I guess it's handy, most vpn clients I've seen are klunky things that have to run after login.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about this feature a few weeks ago.MS Is touting " this is not a VPN " ( even in their marketing for this feature ) -- but the parent is right , it 's just an ipsec VPN that 's initialized early in the boot up process.I guess it 's handy , most vpn clients I 've seen are klunky things that have to run after login .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about this feature a few weeks ago.MS Is touting "this is not a VPN" (even in their marketing for this feature) -- but the parent is right, it's just an ipsec VPN that's initialized early in the boot up process.I guess it's handy, most vpn clients I've seen are klunky things that have to run after login.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?  On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?<br>
<br>
What ever, just another service I have to stop/remove on a PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN ?
On the internet sure , ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall ?
What ever , just another service I have to stop/remove on a PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?
On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?
What ever, just another service I have to stop/remove on a PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531814</id>
	<title>Home group</title>
	<author>golfbum</author>
	<datestamp>1261493220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a feature of Win7 requires IPV6.

gb</htmltext>
<tokenext>a feature of Win7 requires IPV6 .
gb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a feature of Win7 requires IPV6.
gb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528834</id>
	<title>Wah happen to ipv5?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gotz to noze !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gotz to noze !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotz to noze !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529848</id>
	<title>Either that...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1261480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or DirectAccess will be a dead feature because it requires a protocol that few want to support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or DirectAccess will be a dead feature because it requires a protocol that few want to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...or DirectAccess will be a dead feature because it requires a protocol that few want to support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529182</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1261477080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it will be useful, I don't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.</p><p>I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</p></div><p>I don't think that'll happen until we run out of words and names!
</p><p>
--Greg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it will be useful , I do n't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001 : db8 : 85a3 : : 8a2e : 370 : 7334I do n't think that 'll happen until we run out of words and names !
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it will be useful, I don't think widespread usage of IPv6 will start before we run out of IPv4 addresses.I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334I don't think that'll happen until we run out of words and names!
--Greg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529638</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>key134</author>
	<datestamp>1261479120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true. The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet. NAT breaks so many things...</p></div><p>I'm not really sure where you get the idea that you can only use 30-50 computers on a single public IP.  I can guarantee if you use enterprise-grade firewalls to do the NAT'ing you have no problem going into the thousands of clients.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture , the second sentence is simply not true .
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days , if those computers are using the internet .
NAT breaks so many things...I 'm not really sure where you get the idea that you can only use 30-50 computers on a single public IP .
I can guarantee if you use enterprise-grade firewalls to do the NAT'ing you have no problem going into the thousands of clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from leaving CIDR out of the picture, the second sentence is simply not true.
The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet.
NAT breaks so many things...I'm not really sure where you get the idea that you can only use 30-50 computers on a single public IP.
I can guarantee if you use enterprise-grade firewalls to do the NAT'ing you have no problem going into the thousands of clients.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529150</id>
	<title>Doesn't require a VPN</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1261476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.. I'll just toss out my vpns and start using the MS solution which greatly simplifies remote access security.. I can see lots of people will be running to this.. Yeah..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah.. I 'll just toss out my vpns and start using the MS solution which greatly simplifies remote access security.. I can see lots of people will be running to this.. Yeah. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.. I'll just toss out my vpns and start using the MS solution which greatly simplifies remote access security.. I can see lots of people will be running to this.. Yeah..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529556</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1261478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?  On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?</p></div><p>While I don't think I'd recommend connecting any machine - Windows or otherwise - to the Internet without a firewall...  I don't see why you think you need NAT.</p><p>NAT is Network Address Translation.  It has absolutely nothing to do with security.  It's a way to overload a single public IP address and funnel multiple private IP addresses through it.</p><p>Yes, NAT gives you a default, basic firewall just because you have to explicitly define incoming translations.  But there's absolutely no reason you need NAT in order to do a firewall.</p><p>I've got dozens of servers sitting behind firewalls with absolutely no NAT going on at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN ?
On the internet sure , ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall ? While I do n't think I 'd recommend connecting any machine - Windows or otherwise - to the Internet without a firewall... I do n't see why you think you need NAT.NAT is Network Address Translation .
It has absolutely nothing to do with security .
It 's a way to overload a single public IP address and funnel multiple private IP addresses through it.Yes , NAT gives you a default , basic firewall just because you have to explicitly define incoming translations .
But there 's absolutely no reason you need NAT in order to do a firewall.I 've got dozens of servers sitting behind firewalls with absolutely no NAT going on at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?
On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?While I don't think I'd recommend connecting any machine - Windows or otherwise - to the Internet without a firewall...  I don't see why you think you need NAT.NAT is Network Address Translation.
It has absolutely nothing to do with security.
It's a way to overload a single public IP address and funnel multiple private IP addresses through it.Yes, NAT gives you a default, basic firewall just because you have to explicitly define incoming translations.
But there's absolutely no reason you need NAT in order to do a firewall.I've got dozens of servers sitting behind firewalls with absolutely no NAT going on at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>IP6 (and DirectAccess) in no way require you to remove a firewall between you and the rest of the universe. NAT however, can go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IP6 ( and DirectAccess ) in no way require you to remove a firewall between you and the rest of the universe .
NAT however , can go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IP6 (and DirectAccess) in no way require you to remove a firewall between you and the rest of the universe.
NAT however, can go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846</id>
	<title>IPv6 sucks monkey bawls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261493640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several reasons I think IP6 sucks:
<ol>
<li>It uses ":" as the separator, which is stupid, given some scripts and files use ":" as a delimiter.  Using a colon is retarded, period.</li>
<li>It is hexadecimal and long, which makes it hard for us humans to remember it.  What is easier?  192.168.65.54 or e80::212:f0ff:fe90:a7ae</li>
<li>Familiar tools and apps don't work with it.</li>
<li>We already have a simple solution, IP4 with NAT.  It works great.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several reasons I think IP6 sucks : It uses " : " as the separator , which is stupid , given some scripts and files use " : " as a delimiter .
Using a colon is retarded , period .
It is hexadecimal and long , which makes it hard for us humans to remember it .
What is easier ?
192.168.65.54 or e80 : : 212 : f0ff : fe90 : a7ae Familiar tools and apps do n't work with it .
We already have a simple solution , IP4 with NAT .
It works great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several reasons I think IP6 sucks:

It uses ":" as the separator, which is stupid, given some scripts and files use ":" as a delimiter.
Using a colon is retarded, period.
It is hexadecimal and long, which makes it hard for us humans to remember it.
What is easier?
192.168.65.54 or e80::212:f0ff:fe90:a7ae
Familiar tools and apps don't work with it.
We already have a simple solution, IP4 with NAT.
It works great.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532478</id>
	<title>Re:Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will th</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1261501800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I read, which was a few years back, that only the first 64bit of the 128bit address space is actually assigned. The other 64bit of the space is for the end user to use. This may have changed, not sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I read , which was a few years back , that only the first 64bit of the 128bit address space is actually assigned .
The other 64bit of the space is for the end user to use .
This may have changed , not sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I read, which was a few years back, that only the first 64bit of the 128bit address space is actually assigned.
The other 64bit of the space is for the end user to use.
This may have changed, not sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529476</id>
	<title>So.....</title>
	<author>mortal-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1261478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>....are we cool with Microsoft now, hmm?</htmltext>
<tokenext>....are we cool with Microsoft now , hmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....are we cool with Microsoft now, hmm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528866</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>mr crypto</author>
	<datestamp>1261475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... Looks like the tiny URL problem all over again.  We need tiny IP!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... Looks like the tiny URL problem all over again .
We need tiny IP !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... Looks like the tiny URL problem all over again.
We need tiny IP!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529640</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1261479120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, NAP is more like making sure you've deployed the patches from last Tuesday. And from reading about it ages ago, I thought it was fairly configurable</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , NAP is more like making sure you 've deployed the patches from last Tuesday .
And from reading about it ages ago , I thought it was fairly configurable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, NAP is more like making sure you've deployed the patches from last Tuesday.
And from reading about it ages ago, I thought it was fairly configurable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533580</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>IcePic</author>
	<datestamp>1259746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again, some of us dont use the randomized ipv6 addresses but rather get to choose the numbers ourselves (especially for servers which you may need to enter ips for), and in those cases, you can get away with having to remember five "octets" instead of four, like 2001:abc:def:123:: which means it will be possible to learn for you to use when the DNS is unusable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , some of us dont use the randomized ipv6 addresses but rather get to choose the numbers ourselves ( especially for servers which you may need to enter ips for ) , and in those cases , you can get away with having to remember five " octets " instead of four , like 2001 : abc : def : 123 : : which means it will be possible to learn for you to use when the DNS is unusable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, some of us dont use the randomized ipv6 addresses but rather get to choose the numbers ourselves (especially for servers which you may need to enter ips for), and in those cases, you can get away with having to remember five "octets" instead of four, like 2001:abc:def:123:: which means it will be possible to learn for you to use when the DNS is unusable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528842</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why type either?  You should look at getting DNS up and running on your systems.  It's a bit cutting edge, but well worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why type either ?
You should look at getting DNS up and running on your systems .
It 's a bit cutting edge , but well worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why type either?
You should look at getting DNS up and running on your systems.
It's a bit cutting edge, but well worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530902</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Yaztromo</author>
	<datestamp>1261485420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system. IPv6 will come in slowly.</p></div><p>The problem with breaking up a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 is that you can't just spread around 16.7 million addresses to the individual machines around the globe that need them -- not unless we're ready to handle the massive explosion of routing table entries that would require (and we're not).  CIDR still defines a routing hierarchy, where the huge swaths of free addresses exist within that hierarchy isn't necessarily geographically where they are needed, or where the systems that need them are going to be able to connect to them.
</p><p>Not to say that some breaking up of largely unused<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8's and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/16's can't be done -- just that it's nowhere near as trivial a problem as most people seem to assume it is.  It isn't like there is an abundance of resources in one area, so we can put them on a ship and send them to an area where the resource need exists.
</p><p>Of course, all of this presumes that the holder of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 is using it in some sane manner where is it even possible to break the address space into routeable blocks...
</p><p>Yaz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll become more and more valuable , universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up , and we 'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system .
IPv6 will come in slowly.The problem with breaking up a /8 is that you ca n't just spread around 16.7 million addresses to the individual machines around the globe that need them -- not unless we 're ready to handle the massive explosion of routing table entries that would require ( and we 're not ) .
CIDR still defines a routing hierarchy , where the huge swaths of free addresses exist within that hierarchy is n't necessarily geographically where they are needed , or where the systems that need them are going to be able to connect to them .
Not to say that some breaking up of largely unused /8 's and /16 's ca n't be done -- just that it 's nowhere near as trivial a problem as most people seem to assume it is .
It is n't like there is an abundance of resources in one area , so we can put them on a ship and send them to an area where the resource need exists .
Of course , all of this presumes that the holder of the /8 is using it in some sane manner where is it even possible to break the address space into routeable blocks.. . Yaz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system.
IPv6 will come in slowly.The problem with breaking up a /8 is that you can't just spread around 16.7 million addresses to the individual machines around the globe that need them -- not unless we're ready to handle the massive explosion of routing table entries that would require (and we're not).
CIDR still defines a routing hierarchy, where the huge swaths of free addresses exist within that hierarchy isn't necessarily geographically where they are needed, or where the systems that need them are going to be able to connect to them.
Not to say that some breaking up of largely unused /8's and /16's can't be done -- just that it's nowhere near as trivial a problem as most people seem to assume it is.
It isn't like there is an abundance of resources in one area, so we can put them on a ship and send them to an area where the resource need exists.
Of course, all of this presumes that the holder of the /8 is using it in some sane manner where is it even possible to break the address space into routeable blocks...
Yaz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533748</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1259749860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NAT does not provide any measure at all of anonymity. In fact if you are not using TOR you don't have any anonymity.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. knows your IP, and can probably buy the database of time/ip/address allocations from your ISP. I am on a static IP, you could probably get the phone number on my desk within 30 mins without a warrant.
<br> <br>
Also IP6 does provide for "randomized" addresses. So when you travel for example, your laptop would get different addresses( if you want). Or your home network would if thats what you want. But this is still not the same as anonymity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NAT does not provide any measure at all of anonymity .
In fact if you are not using TOR you do n't have any anonymity .
/. knows your IP , and can probably buy the database of time/ip/address allocations from your ISP .
I am on a static IP , you could probably get the phone number on my desk within 30 mins without a warrant .
Also IP6 does provide for " randomized " addresses .
So when you travel for example , your laptop would get different addresses ( if you want ) .
Or your home network would if thats what you want .
But this is still not the same as anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NAT does not provide any measure at all of anonymity.
In fact if you are not using TOR you don't have any anonymity.
/. knows your IP, and can probably buy the database of time/ip/address allocations from your ISP.
I am on a static IP, you could probably get the phone number on my desk within 30 mins without a warrant.
Also IP6 does provide for "randomized" addresses.
So when you travel for example, your laptop would get different addresses( if you want).
Or your home network would if thats what you want.
But this is still not the same as anonymity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532534</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1261502400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>@ addresses being too long.  Several reasons this won't matter:<ol>
<li>DNS - people won't be typing in IPs</li><li>DHCP - people won't be setting IPs en-masse</li><li>Search engines - people won't even be typing in/remembering DNS hostnames</li></ol><p>
Set up a network properly and you very rarely ever need to type an IP once its been set up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ addresses being too long .
Several reasons this wo n't matter : DNS - people wo n't be typing in IPsDHCP - people wo n't be setting IPs en-masseSearch engines - people wo n't even be typing in/remembering DNS hostnames Set up a network properly and you very rarely ever need to type an IP once its been set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@ addresses being too long.
Several reasons this won't matter:
DNS - people won't be typing in IPsDHCP - people won't be setting IPs en-masseSearch engines - people won't even be typing in/remembering DNS hostnames
Set up a network properly and you very rarely ever need to type an IP once its been set up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30560746</id>
	<title>Windows 7 has IPv6</title>
	<author>Shadow-Copy</author>
	<datestamp>1261849320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv6 has been around since, XP.<br><br>Windows 7 has IPv6, so does Vista, as well as XP, carries version 6.<br><br>This article is not even correct, nor current in technology.<br><br>Microsoft doesn't answer to many rants from creditable media sources, because of the fact of how many throw slander at Windows that isn't even correct(as like this article).<br><br>This article is a bogus, all-the-way-around incorrect OPINION, with not one fact.<br><br>This "blog article" is just a thought-less rant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 has been around since , XP.Windows 7 has IPv6 , so does Vista , as well as XP , carries version 6.This article is not even correct , nor current in technology.Microsoft does n't answer to many rants from creditable media sources , because of the fact of how many throw slander at Windows that is n't even correct ( as like this article ) .This article is a bogus , all-the-way-around incorrect OPINION , with not one fact.This " blog article " is just a thought-less rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 has been around since, XP.Windows 7 has IPv6, so does Vista, as well as XP, carries version 6.This article is not even correct, nor current in technology.Microsoft doesn't answer to many rants from creditable media sources, because of the fact of how many throw slander at Windows that isn't even correct(as like this article).This article is a bogus, all-the-way-around incorrect OPINION, with not one fact.This "blog article" is just a thought-less rant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528946</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your average joe won't be typing in ip addresses</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your average joe wo n't be typing in ip addresses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your average joe won't be typing in ip addresses</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529340</id>
	<title>IPv4 Forever!!!!</title>
	<author>waterlogged</author>
	<datestamp>1261477680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BGP filters are hard enough in v4 can you imagine doing this crap?</p><p>ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2a00::/12 ge 19 le 32<br>ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2801:0000::/24 le 48<br>ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2c00::/12 ge 19 le 32<br>ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 0::/0 le 128</p><p>Forget it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BGP filters are hard enough in v4 can you imagine doing this crap ? ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2a00 : : /12 ge 19 le 32ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2801 : 0000 : : /24 le 48ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2c00 : : /12 ge 19 le 32ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 0 : : /0 le 128Forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BGP filters are hard enough in v4 can you imagine doing this crap?ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2a00::/12 ge 19 le 32ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2801:0000::/24 le 48ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict permit 2c00::/12 ge 19 le 32ipv6 prefix-list ipv6-ebgp-strict deny 0::/0 le 128Forget it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532248</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Koutarou</author>
	<datestamp>1261499160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The recommendations have been that end-users get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 (a single subnet with 64 bits worth of addresses to work with)</p><p>Originally when more subnets were required the recommendations were to allocate a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/48 per business customer (65,535<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64 subnets) but that has been since relaxed to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/56 (256 subnets) for small businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The recommendations have been that end-users get a /64 ( a single subnet with 64 bits worth of addresses to work with ) Originally when more subnets were required the recommendations were to allocate a /48 per business customer ( 65,535 /64 subnets ) but that has been since relaxed to /56 ( 256 subnets ) for small businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The recommendations have been that end-users get a /64 (a single subnet with 64 bits worth of addresses to work with)Originally when more subnets were required the recommendations were to allocate a /48 per business customer (65,535 /64 subnets) but that has been since relaxed to /56 (256 subnets) for small businesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531638</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1261491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?</i> <br>
<br>
Teeming multitudes of clueless users who only have one computer and therefore never got a router.  Every one of their boxes is totally owned, but they're oblivious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall ?
Teeming multitudes of clueless users who only have one computer and therefore never got a router .
Every one of their boxes is totally owned , but they 're oblivious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?
Teeming multitudes of clueless users who only have one computer and therefore never got a router.
Every one of their boxes is totally owned, but they're oblivious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</id>
	<title>Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say that this is what struck my eye :</p><p><i>In addition, DirectAccess can be integrated with Network Access Protection (NAP). NAP, which was introduced in its current version in Windows Server 2008, automatically checks that a remote PC has up-to-date software and the proper policy-set security settings.</i></p><p>OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?</p><p>By the way, this sets up an IPSEC VPN, so I am not sure why the OP says it doesn't require a VPN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say that this is what struck my eye : In addition , DirectAccess can be integrated with Network Access Protection ( NAP ) .
NAP , which was introduced in its current version in Windows Server 2008 , automatically checks that a remote PC has up-to-date software and the proper policy-set security settings.OK , it checks for software status , which I guess is cool , but what makes me suspect that there is a " Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK " aspect to this ? By the way , this sets up an IPSEC VPN , so I am not sure why the OP says it does n't require a VPN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say that this is what struck my eye :In addition, DirectAccess can be integrated with Network Access Protection (NAP).
NAP, which was introduced in its current version in Windows Server 2008, automatically checks that a remote PC has up-to-date software and the proper policy-set security settings.OK, it checks for software status, which I guess is cool, but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?By the way, this sets up an IPSEC VPN, so I am not sure why the OP says it doesn't require a VPN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531542</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261490580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... IPv4 blocks <a href="http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html" title="potaroo.net" rel="nofollow">will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries</a> [potaroo.net] </p></div><p>So Hollywood was right, the world does end in 2012!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries [ potaroo.net ] So Hollywood was right , the world does end in 2012 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... IPv4 blocks will be gone by 2011 fall from the IANA pool and a year later from the regional registries [potaroo.net] So Hollywood was right, the world does end in 2012!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531958</id>
	<title>VPN is easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous Struct</author>
	<datestamp>1261495320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good, simple VPN solutions are a commodity nowadays.  VPN is easy to do, easy to manage, easy to deploy.  DirectAccess does let you be 'on the network' at boot time, but outside of that, it's just a more complicated and vendor and version specific way to do something that is already cheap and easy to do in a universal, vendor-neutral way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , simple VPN solutions are a commodity nowadays .
VPN is easy to do , easy to manage , easy to deploy .
DirectAccess does let you be 'on the network ' at boot time , but outside of that , it 's just a more complicated and vendor and version specific way to do something that is already cheap and easy to do in a universal , vendor-neutral way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, simple VPN solutions are a commodity nowadays.
VPN is easy to do, easy to manage, easy to deploy.
DirectAccess does let you be 'on the network' at boot time, but outside of that, it's just a more complicated and vendor and version specific way to do something that is already cheap and easy to do in a universal, vendor-neutral way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529470</id>
	<title>Tec Laziness?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that it was the cost of new hardware that was holding back the adoption of IPv6... turns out it was just the laziness of tecs... who would of guessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that it was the cost of new hardware that was holding back the adoption of IPv6... turns out it was just the laziness of tecs... who would of guessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that it was the cost of new hardware that was holding back the adoption of IPv6... turns out it was just the laziness of tecs... who would of guessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529252</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>MathiasRav</author>
	<datestamp>1261477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?  On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?</p></div><p>Network address translation came into use because you had limited supply of IP addresses, pigeonhole problem basically. With IPv6 that's not needed, because surely 3.4&#215;10^38 addresses should be enough for anyone. You'll just need a firewall to reject requests from outside your own assigned block.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN ?
On the internet sure , ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall ? Network address translation came into use because you had limited supply of IP addresses , pigeonhole problem basically .
With IPv6 that 's not needed , because surely 3.4   10 ^ 38 addresses should be enough for anyone .
You 'll just need a firewall to reject requests from outside your own assigned block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell needs 13 Gazillion addresses on their LAN?
On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?Network address translation came into use because you had limited supply of IP addresses, pigeonhole problem basically.
With IPv6 that's not needed, because surely 3.4×10^38 addresses should be enough for anyone.
You'll just need a firewall to reject requests from outside your own assigned block.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532776</id>
	<title>VPNs are easier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261505880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm sure some IT goon somewhere might care.. I had some time to kill one day and decided to try and get direct access to work... After reading the list of prereques (MS domain controller, MSDNS (vendor lockin anyone?)) and how it works I shook my head and forgot about it.</p><p>Whats the point/difference?  Current VPNs take two seconds to configure, do the same thing and everyone has/uses them.  You could already do nailed VPNs with RRAS since I don't know 10 years now...</p><p>If MS really wanted to make themselves useful they would deploy zero knowledge authentication system such as SRP so there would be less of a need to fiddle with goofy client security certificates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm sure some IT goon somewhere might care.. I had some time to kill one day and decided to try and get direct access to work... After reading the list of prereques ( MS domain controller , MSDNS ( vendor lockin anyone ?
) ) and how it works I shook my head and forgot about it.Whats the point/difference ?
Current VPNs take two seconds to configure , do the same thing and everyone has/uses them .
You could already do nailed VPNs with RRAS since I do n't know 10 years now...If MS really wanted to make themselves useful they would deploy zero knowledge authentication system such as SRP so there would be less of a need to fiddle with goofy client security certificates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm sure some IT goon somewhere might care.. I had some time to kill one day and decided to try and get direct access to work... After reading the list of prereques (MS domain controller, MSDNS (vendor lockin anyone?
)) and how it works I shook my head and forgot about it.Whats the point/difference?
Current VPNs take two seconds to configure, do the same thing and everyone has/uses them.
You could already do nailed VPNs with RRAS since I don't know 10 years now...If MS really wanted to make themselves useful they would deploy zero knowledge authentication system such as SRP so there would be less of a need to fiddle with goofy client security certificates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533178</id>
	<title>Re:No, just typical Microsoft:</title>
	<author>bruce\_the\_loon</author>
	<datestamp>1261511400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUD, glorious FUD.
</p><p>You do not need Homegroups to make sharing work. It just makes it easier. The older technique of keeping the passwords synced across the machines is still operational.
</p><p>And someone has already answered the IPv6 no internet connectivity FUD as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUD , glorious FUD .
You do not need Homegroups to make sharing work .
It just makes it easier .
The older technique of keeping the passwords synced across the machines is still operational .
And someone has already answered the IPv6 no internet connectivity FUD as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUD, glorious FUD.
You do not need Homegroups to make sharing work.
It just makes it easier.
The older technique of keeping the passwords synced across the machines is still operational.
And someone has already answered the IPv6 no internet connectivity FUD as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529310</id>
	<title>They've invented SSH/SSL!</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1261477560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that it doesn't work with the networking you have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that it does n't work with the networking you have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that it doesn't work with the networking you have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530244</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1261481880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  In my office, we have a Cisco ASA with about 3000 client devices behind a single public IP.  We have no real problems dealing with the vast majority of web services.  People can play WoW, chat on Skype/MSN/Yahoo, watch videos on YouTube, and post comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  Hell, even bittorrent works well enough that we are considering a packetshaper to reclaim some of our bandwidth.  We currently average about 200mbps up and down per day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
In my office , we have a Cisco ASA with about 3000 client devices behind a single public IP .
We have no real problems dealing with the vast majority of web services .
People can play WoW , chat on Skype/MSN/Yahoo , watch videos on YouTube , and post comments on / .
Hell , even bittorrent works well enough that we are considering a packetshaper to reclaim some of our bandwidth .
We currently average about 200mbps up and down per day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
In my office, we have a Cisco ASA with about 3000 client devices behind a single public IP.
We have no real problems dealing with the vast majority of web services.
People can play WoW, chat on Skype/MSN/Yahoo, watch videos on YouTube, and post comments on /.
Hell, even bittorrent works well enough that we are considering a packetshaper to reclaim some of our bandwidth.
We currently average about 200mbps up and down per day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531924</id>
	<title>Re:Another Genuine Advantage ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261494840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did he get modded insightfull, this is not a MS license checking feature, it is a commonly implemented feature in many large organisations through various technologies including MS Windows,<p><div class="quote"><p>but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?</p></div><p>
probably because your a tin foil hat basement living geek that doesn't really understand the technology here but thought they would try and be cool and have a swipe at MS anyway?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did he get modded insightfull , this is not a MS license checking feature , it is a commonly implemented feature in many large organisations through various technologies including MS Windows,but what makes me suspect that there is a " Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK " aspect to this ?
probably because your a tin foil hat basement living geek that does n't really understand the technology here but thought they would try and be cool and have a swipe at MS anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did he get modded insightfull, this is not a MS license checking feature, it is a commonly implemented feature in many large organisations through various technologies including MS Windows,but what makes me suspect that there is a "Refuse to operate unless the licenses appear OK" aspect to this ?
probably because your a tin foil hat basement living geek that doesn't really understand the technology here but thought they would try and be cool and have a swipe at MS anyway?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930</id>
	<title>Slashdotted, but regarding VPNs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... right now they're a necessary evil.  There's no reason why you couldn't eliminate VPNs altogether if you ran every service over SSL and verified the client certificate before granting access.  Though of course that's of limited benefit unless you can configure every application that needs to be accessed remotely to do this, regardless of server or client OS  (...<b>or</b> you don't need to care because you only run applications which can be configured like this).</p><p>Knowing Microsoft, this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008.  Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... right now they 're a necessary evil .
There 's no reason why you could n't eliminate VPNs altogether if you ran every service over SSL and verified the client certificate before granting access .
Though of course that 's of limited benefit unless you can configure every application that needs to be accessed remotely to do this , regardless of server or client OS ( ...or you do n't need to care because you only run applications which can be configured like this ) .Knowing Microsoft , this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008 .
Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... right now they're a necessary evil.
There's no reason why you couldn't eliminate VPNs altogether if you ran every service over SSL and verified the client certificate before granting access.
Though of course that's of limited benefit unless you can configure every application that needs to be accessed remotely to do this, regardless of server or client OS  (...or you don't need to care because you only run applications which can be configured like this).Knowing Microsoft, this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008.
Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530384</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>yoghurt</author>
	<datestamp>1261482480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the sake of argument, I will suppose that your ISP gives you IPv6.  What makes you think they'll give you more than one working address?  Verizon and Comcast are known for their greed an ineptitude.  For competition you need at least 3 viable choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the sake of argument , I will suppose that your ISP gives you IPv6 .
What makes you think they 'll give you more than one working address ?
Verizon and Comcast are known for their greed an ineptitude .
For competition you need at least 3 viable choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the sake of argument, I will suppose that your ISP gives you IPv6.
What makes you think they'll give you more than one working address?
Verizon and Comcast are known for their greed an ineptitude.
For competition you need at least 3 viable choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1261480920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what your problem is? You think NAT is a security mechanism -- it's not.</p></div><p>In fact that's not my problem.  My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitist.  That would be the best definition of your pejorative of my point of view.</p><p>I'm not specifically advocating NAT as a security mechanism.  The actual use for NAT (working around limited space) doesn't actually present itself to the argument.  Imagine instead a firewall that did one-to-one address mapping if it makes you feel better.  It doesn't really matter.  In the end the current setup means I use network addresses that DO NOT ROUTE to the outside world.  If you want into my network, I have to map it.  If I didn't map it, you're not getting in, all things held equal.</p><p>Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't.  I don't really know.  I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so.  The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else.  Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.</p><p>So tell me again, without being so strict with your terms, why forfeiting the level of control I presently have is a good thing.  I understand that this control was delivered due to a gap in the design purpose, but again I don't really care about the 'why'.  Convince me to allow that traffic to route inbound without being mapped.  Please.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what your problem is ?
You think NAT is a security mechanism -- it 's not.In fact that 's not my problem .
My problem , from your point of view , is that I 'm not an elitist .
That would be the best definition of your pejorative of my point of view.I 'm not specifically advocating NAT as a security mechanism .
The actual use for NAT ( working around limited space ) does n't actually present itself to the argument .
Imagine instead a firewall that did one-to-one address mapping if it makes you feel better .
It does n't really matter .
In the end the current setup means I use network addresses that DO NOT ROUTE to the outside world .
If you want into my network , I have to map it .
If I did n't map it , you 're not getting in , all things held equal.Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you ca n't .
I do n't really know .
I have n't researched it because there 's not really any great need to do so .
The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else .
Not only is this not necessary in any way , it is also the opposite of what is desired.So tell me again , without being so strict with your terms , why forfeiting the level of control I presently have is a good thing .
I understand that this control was delivered due to a gap in the design purpose , but again I do n't really care about the 'why' .
Convince me to allow that traffic to route inbound without being mapped .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what your problem is?
You think NAT is a security mechanism -- it's not.In fact that's not my problem.
My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitist.
That would be the best definition of your pejorative of my point of view.I'm not specifically advocating NAT as a security mechanism.
The actual use for NAT (working around limited space) doesn't actually present itself to the argument.
Imagine instead a firewall that did one-to-one address mapping if it makes you feel better.
It doesn't really matter.
In the end the current setup means I use network addresses that DO NOT ROUTE to the outside world.
If you want into my network, I have to map it.
If I didn't map it, you're not getting in, all things held equal.Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't.
I don't really know.
I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so.
The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else.
Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.So tell me again, without being so strict with your terms, why forfeiting the level of control I presently have is a good thing.
I understand that this control was delivered due to a gap in the design purpose, but again I don't really care about the 'why'.
Convince me to allow that traffic to route inbound without being mapped.
Please.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529218</id>
	<title>IPV6 is fatally broke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a big fan of djb but he hit this nail right on the head.</p><p>http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big fan of djb but he hit this nail right on the head.http : //cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big fan of djb but he hit this nail right on the head.http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530160</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>isomer1</author>
	<datestamp>1261481460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Along with the last vestiges of privacy in IP space.  Every single connection you make traced directly to you instantly.  Joy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with the last vestiges of privacy in IP space .
Every single connection you make traced directly to you instantly .
Joy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with the last vestiges of privacy in IP space.
Every single connection you make traced directly to you instantly.
Joy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>Daltorak</author>
	<datestamp>1261480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From a security point of view, I'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now. Think about what this technology does. It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit</p></div><p>Oh come <i>on</i>.  You're a professional (right?), you should know better than to say this kind of crap.  You know what your problem is?  You think NAT is a security mechanism -- <b>it's not</b>.  Just because we have spent the last ten-plus years having the Firewall also perform network address translation, doesn't mean the two roles have anything to do with eachother -- <b>they don't</b>.  NAT is a workaround for the problem of limited IP address spaces; it says so right in the freakin' abstract of the original NAT RFC (1631), which was published in 1994!  Don't assign it responsibilities it wasn't designed to have!</p><p>IPv6 can (and should) be firewalled just as IPv4 can (and should).  It's always a good idea to have a device between your Internet connection(s) and your in-house systems that makes decisions about whether or not packets going to &amp; from certain IP addresses+ports should be allowed through.  But, seriously, who cares if the source or destination address is IPv4 or IPv6?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a security point of view , I 'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now .
Think about what this technology does .
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without auditOh come on .
You 're a professional ( right ?
) , you should know better than to say this kind of crap .
You know what your problem is ?
You think NAT is a security mechanism -- it 's not .
Just because we have spent the last ten-plus years having the Firewall also perform network address translation , does n't mean the two roles have anything to do with eachother -- they do n't .
NAT is a workaround for the problem of limited IP address spaces ; it says so right in the freakin ' abstract of the original NAT RFC ( 1631 ) , which was published in 1994 !
Do n't assign it responsibilities it was n't designed to have ! IPv6 can ( and should ) be firewalled just as IPv4 can ( and should ) .
It 's always a good idea to have a device between your Internet connection ( s ) and your in-house systems that makes decisions about whether or not packets going to &amp; from certain IP addresses + ports should be allowed through .
But , seriously , who cares if the source or destination address is IPv4 or IPv6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a security point of view, I'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now.
Think about what this technology does.
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without auditOh come on.
You're a professional (right?
), you should know better than to say this kind of crap.
You know what your problem is?
You think NAT is a security mechanism -- it's not.
Just because we have spent the last ten-plus years having the Firewall also perform network address translation, doesn't mean the two roles have anything to do with eachother -- they don't.
NAT is a workaround for the problem of limited IP address spaces; it says so right in the freakin' abstract of the original NAT RFC (1631), which was published in 1994!
Don't assign it responsibilities it wasn't designed to have!IPv6 can (and should) be firewalled just as IPv4 can (and should).
It's always a good idea to have a device between your Internet connection(s) and your in-house systems that makes decisions about whether or not packets going to &amp; from certain IP addresses+ports should be allowed through.
But, seriously, who cares if the source or destination address is IPv4 or IPv6?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532454</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1261501500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334</p></div><p>Meh.  Besides the question about why you'd type either given the existence of DNS, my machine's IPv6 address is 2001:470:c:36b::1.  Since pretty much EVERY IPv6 address in use in the near future begins with 2001, you don't really have to remember that, which means all I really have to remember is 470:c:36b.  I think that's <i>easier</i> than any IPv4 address I've ever had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001 : db8 : 85a3 : : 8a2e : 370 : 7334Meh .
Besides the question about why you 'd type either given the existence of DNS , my machine 's IPv6 address is 2001 : 470 : c : 36b : : 1 .
Since pretty much EVERY IPv6 address in use in the near future begins with 2001 , you do n't really have to remember that , which means all I really have to remember is 470 : c : 36b .
I think that 's easier than any IPv4 address I 've ever had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather type in 49.1.4.22 than 2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334Meh.
Besides the question about why you'd type either given the existence of DNS, my machine's IPv6 address is 2001:470:c:36b::1.
Since pretty much EVERY IPv6 address in use in the near future begins with 2001, you don't really have to remember that, which means all I really have to remember is 470:c:36b.
I think that's easier than any IPv4 address I've ever had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530472</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1261482840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even in my home network with only 4 machines I use DNS. moocow, the cowlaptop and eatingcows. Easy to remember and spell, and i run both ip6 and ip4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in my home network with only 4 machines I use DNS .
moocow , the cowlaptop and eatingcows .
Easy to remember and spell , and i run both ip6 and ip4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in my home network with only 4 machines I use DNS.
moocow, the cowlaptop and eatingcows.
Easy to remember and spell, and i run both ip6 and ip4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528938</id>
	<title>Lisa Vaas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are all these wimmins doing writing about IT stuff? Get back in the kitchen where you belong!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are all these wimmins doing writing about IT stuff ?
Get back in the kitchen where you belong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are all these wimmins doing writing about IT stuff?
Get back in the kitchen where you belong!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531758</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdotted, but regarding VPNs</title>
	<author>Curate</author>
	<datestamp>1261492620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Knowing Microsoft, this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008. Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case?</i> <p>Actually the server requirement is Windows Server 2008 <b>R2</b>, aka "Windows 7 Server".  And yes, that is the case; it's a new feature introduced in Windows 7 that other OSes have absolutely no concept of.  It remains to be seen if this can be/will be backported to previous versions of Windows.  My guess is probably not since it would require fairly extensive changes to the networking subsystem and impacting other subsystems as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing Microsoft , this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008 .
Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case ?
Actually the server requirement is Windows Server 2008 R2 , aka " Windows 7 Server " .
And yes , that is the case ; it 's a new feature introduced in Windows 7 that other OSes have absolutely no concept of .
It remains to be seen if this can be/will be backported to previous versions of Windows .
My guess is probably not since it would require fairly extensive changes to the networking subsystem and impacting other subsystems as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing Microsoft, this is only useful if all your clients are Windows 7 and all your servers are Windows Server 2008.
Can any early adopters confirm whether or not this is the case?
Actually the server requirement is Windows Server 2008 R2, aka "Windows 7 Server".
And yes, that is the case; it's a new feature introduced in Windows 7 that other OSes have absolutely no concept of.
It remains to be seen if this can be/will be backported to previous versions of Windows.
My guess is probably not since it would require fairly extensive changes to the networking subsystem and impacting other subsystems as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533548</id>
	<title>File sync-ing/monocultures</title>
	<author>martin</author>
	<datestamp>1259746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Field has a specific headache he&rsquo;s hoping DirectAccess will ease: file synchronization. &ldquo;Someone might take their laptop home for weeks or months at a time, and it won&rsquo;t synchronize their files on the network until [the laptop] is brought back in.&rdquo; He anticipates that DirectAccess will make his life easier because he &ldquo;won&rsquo;t need to worry about people losing files because they rarely bring in their laptop,&rdquo; he says.</i></p><p>What!!!- has he actually tried file sync-ing over something that's more than about 10ms latency away....and thats most people off LAN these days.</p><p>I read with interest Mr Field talking about GP and all things M$, he needs to get out more. GPO's are good but they can be complemented by other technologies, not just what M$ gives you in this particular release. monocultures bad and being brain washed into a single vendors view is not a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Field has a specific headache he    s hoping DirectAccess will ease : file synchronization .
   Someone might take their laptop home for weeks or months at a time , and it won    t synchronize their files on the network until [ the laptop ] is brought back in.    He anticipates that DirectAccess will make his life easier because he    won    t need to worry about people losing files because they rarely bring in their laptop ,    he says.What ! !
! - has he actually tried file sync-ing over something that 's more than about 10ms latency away....and thats most people off LAN these days.I read with interest Mr Field talking about GP and all things M $ , he needs to get out more .
GPO 's are good but they can be complemented by other technologies , not just what M $ gives you in this particular release .
monocultures bad and being brain washed into a single vendors view is not a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Field has a specific headache he’s hoping DirectAccess will ease: file synchronization.
“Someone might take their laptop home for weeks or months at a time, and it won’t synchronize their files on the network until [the laptop] is brought back in.” He anticipates that DirectAccess will make his life easier because he “won’t need to worry about people losing files because they rarely bring in their laptop,” he says.What!!
!- has he actually tried file sync-ing over something that's more than about 10ms latency away....and thats most people off LAN these days.I read with interest Mr Field talking about GP and all things M$, he needs to get out more.
GPO's are good but they can be complemented by other technologies, not just what M$ gives you in this particular release.
monocultures bad and being brain washed into a single vendors view is not a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535736</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;<br>Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't. I don't really know. I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so. The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else. Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.<br>&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private\_network#Private\_IPv6\_networks<br><br>
&nbsp; IPv6 supports private networks.  But your last statement, "it is also the opposite of what is desired" - I disagree.  I would rather have a all my IPs available on the internet and have a bridging firewall to filter access or set up VPN.  There is a large pool of people who would rather do without the vast headaches that using NAT brings to network topology.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you ca n't .
I do n't really know .
I have n't researched it because there 's not really any great need to do so .
The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else .
Not only is this not necessary in any way , it is also the opposite of what is desired.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private \ _network # Private \ _IPv6 \ _networks   IPv6 supports private networks .
But your last statement , " it is also the opposite of what is desired " - I disagree .
I would rather have a all my IPs available on the internet and have a bridging firewall to filter access or set up VPN .
There is a large pool of people who would rather do without the vast headaches that using NAT brings to network topology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't.
I don't really know.
I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so.
The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else.
Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private\_network#Private\_IPv6\_networks
  IPv6 supports private networks.
But your last statement, "it is also the opposite of what is desired" - I disagree.
I would rather have a all my IPs available on the internet and have a bridging firewall to filter access or set up VPN.
There is a large pool of people who would rather do without the vast headaches that using NAT brings to network topology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529192</id>
	<title>How Ironic</title>
	<author>fat\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1261477080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"According to this article at IT Expert Voice, Windows 7 and IPv6: Useful at Last?, we've had so many predictions that this will be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,<b>'the year of IPv6' that most of us have stopped listening.</b>"
<br> <br>
Kind of like Linux on the desktop!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to this article at IT Expert Voice , Windows 7 and IPv6 : Useful at Last ? , we 've had so many predictions that this will be ,'the year of IPv6 ' that most of us have stopped listening .
" Kind of like Linux on the desktop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to this article at IT Expert Voice, Windows 7 and IPv6: Useful at Last?, we've had so many predictions that this will be ,'the year of IPv6' that most of us have stopped listening.
"
 
Kind of like Linux on the desktop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529138</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I suggest you do a little more research on the currently impending doom.</p><p>http://www.lammle.com/blog/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I suggest you do a little more research on the currently impending doom.http : //www.lammle.com/blog/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I suggest you do a little more research on the currently impending doom.http://www.lammle.com/blog/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531166</id>
	<title>DirectAccess</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261487220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://itexpertvoice.com/ad/directaccess-and-the-vpn-dragon/" title="itexpertvoice.com" rel="nofollow">Article</a> [itexpertvoice.com] says:<blockquote><div><p>One or more DirectAccess servers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with two network adapters: one that is connected directly to the Internet, and a second that is connected to the intranet</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It will be a <b>cold</b> day in Hell before I
plug a Windows system in both outside and inside the firewall.
</p><p>
Seriously, is Microsoft suggesting you hang <b>pwn me</b> signs on your servers too?
</p><p>
To be clear.  Best practices has been and always will be to place a firewall between all your servers and the internet.
</p><p>
It would make more sense if the requirement was to plug one NIC into a trusted DMZ for remote access users to attach to (and gain slightly-elevated privileges), and another NIC into a  less-trusted DMZ,  to accept only valid DirectAccess traffic.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Article [ itexpertvoice.com ] says : One or more DirectAccess servers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with two network adapters : one that is connected directly to the Internet , and a second that is connected to the intranet It will be a cold day in Hell before I plug a Windows system in both outside and inside the firewall .
Seriously , is Microsoft suggesting you hang pwn me signs on your servers too ?
To be clear .
Best practices has been and always will be to place a firewall between all your servers and the internet .
It would make more sense if the requirement was to plug one NIC into a trusted DMZ for remote access users to attach to ( and gain slightly-elevated privileges ) , and another NIC into a less-trusted DMZ , to accept only valid DirectAccess traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article [itexpertvoice.com] says:One or more DirectAccess servers running Windows Server 2008 R2 with two network adapters: one that is connected directly to the Internet, and a second that is connected to the intranet

It will be a cold day in Hell before I
plug a Windows system in both outside and inside the firewall.
Seriously, is Microsoft suggesting you hang pwn me signs on your servers too?
To be clear.
Best practices has been and always will be to place a firewall between all your servers and the internet.
It would make more sense if the requirement was to plug one NIC into a trusted DMZ for remote access users to attach to (and gain slightly-elevated privileges), and another NIC into a  less-trusted DMZ,  to accept only valid DirectAccess traffic.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482</id>
	<title>Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1261478340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a security point of view, I'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now.  Think about what this technology does.  It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.  And I quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Admin Tom Perrine, chiming in on the LOPSA forum when asked to contribute thoughts for this article, had four major DirectAccess concerns: As an Enterprise customer, he needs to be able to at least:</p><p>.  set specific policies (no split tunneling)<br>.  force specific VPN technology including encryption algorithms (IPSEC, AES, etc.)<br>.  ensure proper key and credential management, including two-factor or challenge/response<br>.  audit activities while user is connected to the VPN.</p></div><p>The article goes on to discuss the first one.  Nothing whatsoever on the other three.  Not to mention that if the machine fails to get the updated GPO it fails OPEN.  Everything here I see says it 'just works' and there is almost no talk of admin control.  I'm having trouble coming up with a good enough string of expletives to cover my emotions.  Wow.  Just wow.</p><p>What exactly is the security mechanism, then?  Username/Password?  I see comparisons in TFA being drawn to web portals.  Well I don't know about your shop, but around here we have planned for the web portal to be compromised at some point, and have limited the data available.  We have NOT made that assumption for the heart of our network, and I'm unsure how long I'd keep my job if I made that case.</p><p>As stated in TFA it sounds much easier to just shut the protocol off until there's a pressing and urgent business need to enable it again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a security point of view , I 'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now .
Think about what this technology does .
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit .
And I quote : Admin Tom Perrine , chiming in on the LOPSA forum when asked to contribute thoughts for this article , had four major DirectAccess concerns : As an Enterprise customer , he needs to be able to at least : .
set specific policies ( no split tunneling ) .
force specific VPN technology including encryption algorithms ( IPSEC , AES , etc. ) .
ensure proper key and credential management , including two-factor or challenge/response .
audit activities while user is connected to the VPN.The article goes on to discuss the first one .
Nothing whatsoever on the other three .
Not to mention that if the machine fails to get the updated GPO it fails OPEN .
Everything here I see says it 'just works ' and there is almost no talk of admin control .
I 'm having trouble coming up with a good enough string of expletives to cover my emotions .
Wow. Just wow.What exactly is the security mechanism , then ?
Username/Password ? I see comparisons in TFA being drawn to web portals .
Well I do n't know about your shop , but around here we have planned for the web portal to be compromised at some point , and have limited the data available .
We have NOT made that assumption for the heart of our network , and I 'm unsure how long I 'd keep my job if I made that case.As stated in TFA it sounds much easier to just shut the protocol off until there 's a pressing and urgent business need to enable it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a security point of view, I'm probably going to blackhole all IPv6 into a honeypot now.
Think about what this technology does.
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.
And I quote:Admin Tom Perrine, chiming in on the LOPSA forum when asked to contribute thoughts for this article, had four major DirectAccess concerns: As an Enterprise customer, he needs to be able to at least:.
set specific policies (no split tunneling).
force specific VPN technology including encryption algorithms (IPSEC, AES, etc.).
ensure proper key and credential management, including two-factor or challenge/response.
audit activities while user is connected to the VPN.The article goes on to discuss the first one.
Nothing whatsoever on the other three.
Not to mention that if the machine fails to get the updated GPO it fails OPEN.
Everything here I see says it 'just works' and there is almost no talk of admin control.
I'm having trouble coming up with a good enough string of expletives to cover my emotions.
Wow.  Just wow.What exactly is the security mechanism, then?
Username/Password?  I see comparisons in TFA being drawn to web portals.
Well I don't know about your shop, but around here we have planned for the web portal to be compromised at some point, and have limited the data available.
We have NOT made that assumption for the heart of our network, and I'm unsure how long I'd keep my job if I made that case.As stated in TFA it sounds much easier to just shut the protocol off until there's a pressing and urgent business need to enable it again.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531064</id>
	<title>I fixed it for 'ya</title>
	<author>PNutts</author>
	<datestamp>1261486500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"According to this article at IT Expert Voice, Desktop and Linux: Useful at Last?, we've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of Linux on the Desktop' that most of us have stopped listening. But Ubuntu may have new life breathed into it because Ubuntu is a requirement for my mom."</p></div><p>I kid, I kid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" According to this article at IT Expert Voice , Desktop and Linux : Useful at Last ? , we 've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of Linux on the Desktop ' that most of us have stopped listening .
But Ubuntu may have new life breathed into it because Ubuntu is a requirement for my mom .
" I kid , I kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"According to this article at IT Expert Voice, Desktop and Linux: Useful at Last?, we've had so many predictions that this will be 'the year of Linux on the Desktop' that most of us have stopped listening.
But Ubuntu may have new life breathed into it because Ubuntu is a requirement for my mom.
"I kid, I kid.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529386</id>
	<title>no VPN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't require a VPN because IPv6 has IPsec built in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't require a VPN because IPv6 has IPsec built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't require a VPN because IPv6 has IPsec built in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529114</id>
	<title>Exactly why we didn't deploy DirectAccess</title>
	<author>Bubba</author>
	<datestamp>1261476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We looked at deploying DirectAccess, but after months of talks and discussions with Microsoft, they finally came out and told us that it wouldn't work unless we rolled out IPV6 (and pushed other MS services (CA, DC) externally).  We passed.  We decided to stick with SSL VPN for most and Cisco AnyConnect client for our Win7 64 bit rollouts.   Maybe next time, Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We looked at deploying DirectAccess , but after months of talks and discussions with Microsoft , they finally came out and told us that it would n't work unless we rolled out IPV6 ( and pushed other MS services ( CA , DC ) externally ) .
We passed .
We decided to stick with SSL VPN for most and Cisco AnyConnect client for our Win7 64 bit rollouts .
Maybe next time , Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We looked at deploying DirectAccess, but after months of talks and discussions with Microsoft, they finally came out and told us that it wouldn't work unless we rolled out IPV6 (and pushed other MS services (CA, DC) externally).
We passed.
We decided to stick with SSL VPN for most and Cisco AnyConnect client for our Win7 64 bit rollouts.
Maybe next time, Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530106</id>
	<title>From the article:</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1261481280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IPv6, with its 128-bit addresses and the resulting <b>astronautical</b> address range seemed the perfect answer.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 , with its 128-bit addresses and the resulting astronautical address range seemed the perfect answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6, with its 128-bit addresses and the resulting astronautical address range seemed the perfect answer.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549286</id>
	<title>Again, Windows copies Mac - only 2 years behind</title>
	<author>coldcup</author>
	<datestamp>1261678380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been done on the Mac via <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back\_to\_My\_Mac" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Back to my Mac</a> [wikipedia.org] since Leopard (2007).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been done on the Mac via Back to my Mac [ wikipedia.org ] since Leopard ( 2007 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been done on the Mac via Back to my Mac [wikipedia.org] since Leopard (2007).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530078</id>
	<title>Hopefully not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261481160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 is eeeevuuuul. If this feature is a killer feature for IPv6 then i wish the fate of Vista to Windows 7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is eeeevuuuul .
If this feature is a killer feature for IPv6 then i wish the fate of Vista to Windows 7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 is eeeevuuuul.
If this feature is a killer feature for IPv6 then i wish the fate of Vista to Windows 7</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533678</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Com2Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1259748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ISPs aren't supporting it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Like for instance Comcast!  That huge nation wide cable modem ISP!  How dare they not support IPv6!</p><p><tt><br>Your IP is 2001:1af8:1:f006::6<br></tt><br>--- <a href="http://ipv6.whatismyipv6.net.ipv4.sixxs.org/" title="sixxs.org" rel="nofollow">http://ipv6.whatismyipv6.net.ipv4.sixxs.org/</a> [sixxs.org]</p><p>Oh wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ISPs are n't supporting it.Like for instance Comcast !
That huge nation wide cable modem ISP !
How dare they not support IPv6 ! Your IP is 2001 : 1af8 : 1 : f006 : : 6--- http : //ipv6.whatismyipv6.net.ipv4.sixxs.org/ [ sixxs.org ] Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ISPs aren't supporting it.Like for instance Comcast!
That huge nation wide cable modem ISP!
How dare they not support IPv6!Your IP is 2001:1af8:1:f006::6--- http://ipv6.whatismyipv6.net.ipv4.sixxs.org/ [sixxs.org]Oh wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533554</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitist</p></div><p>I don't really see how that is the cause of your problem. It might be nice to use as an ad hominem (look! I'm an elitist! I use non-tech jargon!), but to me it seems much more likely that your problem is caused by a lack of knowledge.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't. I don't really know. I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so.</p></div><p>The IETF disagrees with your "needs assessment". If you're a network admin by profession, then you should have known about IPv6 since 1995. Maybe not in as much detail as you should know IPv4, but "I don't know about IPv6" just doesn't cut it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else. Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.</p></div><p>Again, the IETF disagrees with you. The <em>entire Internet</em> and all its protocols are based on the premise of end-to-end connectivity. Break the end-to-end connectivity, break the Internet: you will get monstrosities like upnp (it doesn't deserve capitals) that are designed to punch holes in a NAT'ing device because your precious online games will not work without it. Or you get home devices that suddenly need to know the port usage of every application in existance, so that consumers only have to know the name of their program and place a checkmark next to it.</p><p>You shouldn't be advocating NAT at all. Not as a security mechanism, but neither as a workaround for whatever limitations of IPv4. If you need to use it at all (proxying should get the job done much cheaper), then <em>you don't talk about it</em>. And if your response to my mentioning of a proxy was "but not all programs work through a proxy", then you have understood why "it is necessary that everyhing can be set to route to everything else".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem , from your point of view , is that I 'm not an elitistI do n't really see how that is the cause of your problem .
It might be nice to use as an ad hominem ( look !
I 'm an elitist !
I use non-tech jargon !
) , but to me it seems much more likely that your problem is caused by a lack of knowledge.Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you ca n't .
I do n't really know .
I have n't researched it because there 's not really any great need to do so.The IETF disagrees with your " needs assessment " .
If you 're a network admin by profession , then you should have known about IPv6 since 1995 .
Maybe not in as much detail as you should know IPv4 , but " I do n't know about IPv6 " just does n't cut it.The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else .
Not only is this not necessary in any way , it is also the opposite of what is desired.Again , the IETF disagrees with you .
The entire Internet and all its protocols are based on the premise of end-to-end connectivity .
Break the end-to-end connectivity , break the Internet : you will get monstrosities like upnp ( it does n't deserve capitals ) that are designed to punch holes in a NAT'ing device because your precious online games will not work without it .
Or you get home devices that suddenly need to know the port usage of every application in existance , so that consumers only have to know the name of their program and place a checkmark next to it.You should n't be advocating NAT at all .
Not as a security mechanism , but neither as a workaround for whatever limitations of IPv4 .
If you need to use it at all ( proxying should get the job done much cheaper ) , then you do n't talk about it .
And if your response to my mentioning of a proxy was " but not all programs work through a proxy " , then you have understood why " it is necessary that everyhing can be set to route to everything else " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem, from your point of view, is that I'm not an elitistI don't really see how that is the cause of your problem.
It might be nice to use as an ad hominem (look!
I'm an elitist!
I use non-tech jargon!
), but to me it seems much more likely that your problem is caused by a lack of knowledge.Maybe you can get that on IPv6 and maybe you can't.
I don't really know.
I haven't researched it because there's not really any great need to do so.The IETF disagrees with your "needs assessment".
If you're a network admin by profession, then you should have known about IPv6 since 1995.
Maybe not in as much detail as you should know IPv4, but "I don't know about IPv6" just doesn't cut it.The inherent design behind IPv6 is that there are enough addresses so that everything can be set to route to everything else.
Not only is this not necessary in any way, it is also the opposite of what is desired.Again, the IETF disagrees with you.
The entire Internet and all its protocols are based on the premise of end-to-end connectivity.
Break the end-to-end connectivity, break the Internet: you will get monstrosities like upnp (it doesn't deserve capitals) that are designed to punch holes in a NAT'ing device because your precious online games will not work without it.
Or you get home devices that suddenly need to know the port usage of every application in existance, so that consumers only have to know the name of their program and place a checkmark next to it.You shouldn't be advocating NAT at all.
Not as a security mechanism, but neither as a workaround for whatever limitations of IPv4.
If you need to use it at all (proxying should get the job done much cheaper), then you don't talk about it.
And if your response to my mentioning of a proxy was "but not all programs work through a proxy", then you have understood why "it is necessary that everyhing can be set to route to everything else".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529800</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1261479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv6 wont become widespread until the millions upon million of existing routers that do not support it die of old age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 wont become widespread until the millions upon million of existing routers that do not support it die of old age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 wont become widespread until the millions upon million of existing routers that do not support it die of old age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529412</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdotted, but regarding VPNs</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1261478040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With your solution, you have to expose every device to the internet at large, and then filter.  With VPN, you do not even know what is behind it.  So they are not the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With your solution , you have to expose every device to the internet at large , and then filter .
With VPN , you do not even know what is behind it .
So they are not the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With your solution, you have to expose every device to the internet at large, and then filter.
With VPN, you do not even know what is behind it.
So they are not the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533776</id>
	<title>Re:Or DirectAccess may just sink it for good...</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1259750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Think about what this technology does. It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.</p></div><p>IPv6 does not permitthis in any way or form. Unless you configure it that way of course. Just like IPv4.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about what this technology does .
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.IPv6 does not permitthis in any way or form .
Unless you configure it that way of course .
Just like IPv4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about what this technology does.
It allows unsolicited connectivity into your network without audit.IPv6 does not permitthis in any way or form.
Unless you configure it that way of course.
Just like IPv4.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529682</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet.</p></div><p>That's simply not true, either. I've got around 2300 users behind a single NAT. Yes, some things get complicated but our setup is absolutely usable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days , if those computers are using the internet.That 's simply not true , either .
I 've got around 2300 users behind a single NAT .
Yes , some things get complicated but our setup is absolutely usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upper limit of usability is around 30-50 computers / public ip these days, if those computers are using the internet.That's simply not true, either.
I've got around 2300 users behind a single NAT.
Yes, some things get complicated but our setup is absolutely usable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531194</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1261487400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it won't be this bad live. first 64bits are your country/state/city/isp, the last 64 bits is you. It will be more like ABCD:DEAD:BEEF:1234::1</p><p>Since I'll have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs for my personal use, I would subnet my home network quite nicely. Yay for no more NAT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it wo n't be this bad live .
first 64bits are your country/state/city/isp , the last 64 bits is you .
It will be more like ABCD : DEAD : BEEF : 1234 : : 1Since I 'll have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs for my personal use , I would subnet my home network quite nicely .
Yay for no more NAT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it won't be this bad live.
first 64bits are your country/state/city/isp, the last 64 bits is you.
It will be more like ABCD:DEAD:BEEF:1234::1Since I'll have 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs for my personal use, I would subnet my home network quite nicely.
Yay for no more NAT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534084</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259758080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is anything bad said against IPv6 a troll? It's not like we're trolling, the addressing scheme is annoying, especially if your DNS is down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is anything bad said against IPv6 a troll ?
It 's not like we 're trolling , the addressing scheme is annoying , especially if your DNS is down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is anything bad said against IPv6 a troll?
It's not like we're trolling, the addressing scheme is annoying, especially if your DNS is down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702</id>
	<title>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will they</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261479360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will they make you pay? comcast may want $5 per pc.</p><p>also how many DSL and cable modems even can do IPv6? how many rented ones? routers? cable phone and HSI modems (that are forced rented?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP ?
or will they make you pay ?
comcast may want $ 5 per pc.also how many DSL and cable modems even can do IPv6 ?
how many rented ones ?
routers ? cable phone and HSI modems ( that are forced rented ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP?
or will they make you pay?
comcast may want $5 per pc.also how many DSL and cable modems even can do IPv6?
how many rented ones?
routers? cable phone and HSI modems (that are forced rented?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531058</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1261486380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What really bothers me is that there *is* an IPv4 address famine. It's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we haven't yet reached the point of outright crisis. If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful, then riddle me this: why can't I get a static IP for my home internet connection? In order to get a static IP, I have to upgrade to a "business" account which costs $200/month more and doesn't really offer any improvements other than a static IP. Yup. $200/month for a static IP.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And guess how much a single static IPv6 address will cost from your ISP? That's right, $200/month because you'll need a business account.</p><p>IPv6 gives you more addrss space. ISPs will still nickle and dime you. Even if your ISP is "wasteful" and gets you a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/96, they'll just make sure that xxxx:...:xxxx::1 actually reaches you (and everyone else gets the same, too), dsepite giving you a whole IPv4 set of address spaces. Buy another IP address, and they'll also give you xxxx::1 to keep all the routing simple. (Side note: also makes the virus and worm's jobs simpler). Heck, if they need to double their address space, they just use another bit, so your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/96 becomes a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/97, not that you could've used those 2 billion addresses they "stole".</p><p>NAT won't die, unless ISPs are willing to give up the money they're making on extra IPs. At best, while NATv6 is being worked on, everyone has to buy extra IP addresses so everyone's home PC, roaming laptop, etc., can be connected simultaneously. Linksys, D-Link and Netgear will be happy as they get to sell everyone IPv6 firewalls, then IPv6 "IP Sharing" routers that can save everyone money by not having to buy extra IPs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What really bothers me is that there * is * an IPv4 address famine .
It 's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we have n't yet reached the point of outright crisis .
If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful , then riddle me this : why ca n't I get a static IP for my home internet connection ?
In order to get a static IP , I have to upgrade to a " business " account which costs $ 200/month more and does n't really offer any improvements other than a static IP .
Yup. $ 200/month for a static IP .
And guess how much a single static IPv6 address will cost from your ISP ?
That 's right , $ 200/month because you 'll need a business account.IPv6 gives you more addrss space .
ISPs will still nickle and dime you .
Even if your ISP is " wasteful " and gets you a /96 , they 'll just make sure that xxxx : ... : xxxx : : 1 actually reaches you ( and everyone else gets the same , too ) , dsepite giving you a whole IPv4 set of address spaces .
Buy another IP address , and they 'll also give you xxxx : : 1 to keep all the routing simple .
( Side note : also makes the virus and worm 's jobs simpler ) .
Heck , if they need to double their address space , they just use another bit , so your /96 becomes a /97 , not that you could 've used those 2 billion addresses they " stole " .NAT wo n't die , unless ISPs are willing to give up the money they 're making on extra IPs .
At best , while NATv6 is being worked on , everyone has to buy extra IP addresses so everyone 's home PC , roaming laptop , etc. , can be connected simultaneously .
Linksys , D-Link and Netgear will be happy as they get to sell everyone IPv6 firewalls , then IPv6 " IP Sharing " routers that can save everyone money by not having to buy extra IPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really bothers me is that there *is* an IPv4 address famine.
It's just that the IPv4 addresses are being rationed well enough that we haven't yet reached the point of outright crisis.
If you really think that IPv4 addressed are plentiful, then riddle me this: why can't I get a static IP for my home internet connection?
In order to get a static IP, I have to upgrade to a "business" account which costs $200/month more and doesn't really offer any improvements other than a static IP.
Yup. $200/month for a static IP.
And guess how much a single static IPv6 address will cost from your ISP?
That's right, $200/month because you'll need a business account.IPv6 gives you more addrss space.
ISPs will still nickle and dime you.
Even if your ISP is "wasteful" and gets you a /96, they'll just make sure that xxxx:...:xxxx::1 actually reaches you (and everyone else gets the same, too), dsepite giving you a whole IPv4 set of address spaces.
Buy another IP address, and they'll also give you xxxx::1 to keep all the routing simple.
(Side note: also makes the virus and worm's jobs simpler).
Heck, if they need to double their address space, they just use another bit, so your /96 becomes a /97, not that you could've used those 2 billion addresses they "stole".NAT won't die, unless ISPs are willing to give up the money they're making on extra IPs.
At best, while NATv6 is being worked on, everyone has to buy extra IP addresses so everyone's home PC, roaming laptop, etc., can be connected simultaneously.
Linksys, D-Link and Netgear will be happy as they get to sell everyone IPv6 firewalls, then IPv6 "IP Sharing" routers that can save everyone money by not having to buy extra IPs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532866</id>
	<title>Direct Access = Back to my Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261507380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like Microsoft had another wonderful, brilliant idea! Direct Access is so cool, it is... just... like... OS X's Back to my Mac?</p><p>Yeah, it is almost the same. Major difference is BtmM on road since Leopard (?) days -- at least 2 years I would say.</p><p>Not suprised why Win7 is working quite good these days. Can we add this one to the "OS X features found on Win7" list?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Microsoft had another wonderful , brilliant idea !
Direct Access is so cool , it is... just... like... OS X 's Back to my Mac ? Yeah , it is almost the same .
Major difference is BtmM on road since Leopard ( ?
) days -- at least 2 years I would say.Not suprised why Win7 is working quite good these days .
Can we add this one to the " OS X features found on Win7 " list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Microsoft had another wonderful, brilliant idea!
Direct Access is so cool, it is... just... like... OS X's Back to my Mac?Yeah, it is almost the same.
Major difference is BtmM on road since Leopard (?
) days -- at least 2 years I would say.Not suprised why Win7 is working quite good these days.
Can we add this one to the "OS X features found on Win7" list?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530016</id>
	<title>Not localhost</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1261480860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1</p><p>or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::1 shorthand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : 1or : : 1 shorthand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1or ::1 shorthand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529056</id>
	<title>Re:Wah happen to ipv5?</title>
	<author>dlaudel</author>
	<datestamp>1261476540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/url?q=http://compnetworking.about.com/b/2008/11/05/what-happened-to-ipv5.htm&amp;ei=GDUxS637LYH7nAeM2KD8CA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=spellmeleon\_result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ct=result&amp;ved=0CAsQhgIwAQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNEoCo765TGNKrLuJ9SBcE09ZEXj3A" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Here's a brief explanation</a> [google.com]
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wah+happen+to+ipv5" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">And here's a snarkier internet response</a> [lmgtfy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a brief explanation [ google.com ] And here 's a snarkier internet response [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a brief explanation [google.com]


And here's a snarkier internet response [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529516</id>
	<title>Re:Article is so full of inaccuracies...</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1261478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful. The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.</i></p><p>Yep, like electric whip cream.</p><p>Wait, what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful .
The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy , feature-laden things that consumers actually want.Yep , like electric whip cream.Wait , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 is very useful the same way electricity in a socket is useful.
The two things both provide basic infrastructure for running more sexy, feature-laden things that consumers actually want.Yep, like electric whip cream.Wait, what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531352</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdotted, but regarding VPNs</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1261488720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of managing one or two cert/keys youre managing dozens all running with the quirks of the implementation of the application - and you lose two factor authentication, centralized management, site to site, and about a few other features.</p><p>Something tells me VPN is going to be here as long as tcp/ip is.  At least for serious applications. Heck, Joe Blow can remotedesktop/ssh to his computer and get some level of encryption by default now.  No need for ipv6 and direct connect.</p><p>On top of it, if adding SSL to old established protocols is so easy, then why arent we doing it for everything now. Sure, its not a technical challenge, but the inertia on the application end of things means that people wont implement it.  What percentage of smtp or ftp is encrypted? How many non-upgradable legacy solutions are out there?  The nice thing about VPN is that you sidestep the application level and you just take care of security on the network level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of managing one or two cert/keys youre managing dozens all running with the quirks of the implementation of the application - and you lose two factor authentication , centralized management , site to site , and about a few other features.Something tells me VPN is going to be here as long as tcp/ip is .
At least for serious applications .
Heck , Joe Blow can remotedesktop/ssh to his computer and get some level of encryption by default now .
No need for ipv6 and direct connect.On top of it , if adding SSL to old established protocols is so easy , then why arent we doing it for everything now .
Sure , its not a technical challenge , but the inertia on the application end of things means that people wont implement it .
What percentage of smtp or ftp is encrypted ?
How many non-upgradable legacy solutions are out there ?
The nice thing about VPN is that you sidestep the application level and you just take care of security on the network level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of managing one or two cert/keys youre managing dozens all running with the quirks of the implementation of the application - and you lose two factor authentication, centralized management, site to site, and about a few other features.Something tells me VPN is going to be here as long as tcp/ip is.
At least for serious applications.
Heck, Joe Blow can remotedesktop/ssh to his computer and get some level of encryption by default now.
No need for ipv6 and direct connect.On top of it, if adding SSL to old established protocols is so easy, then why arent we doing it for everything now.
Sure, its not a technical challenge, but the inertia on the application end of things means that people wont implement it.
What percentage of smtp or ftp is encrypted?
How many non-upgradable legacy solutions are out there?
The nice thing about VPN is that you sidestep the application level and you just take care of security on the network level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549318</id>
	<title>Re:IPV6 is fatally broke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261678860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so.... IPv6 is fatally broken because some companies are stupid and IPv4 is fatally broken? If a company doesn't go IPv6, screw them. All the big companies already have IPv6 connectivity anyway.</p><p>I think I remember this same argument with the Pentium Pro. It ran 16bit apps slowly but ran 32bit very fast. Since 16 bit is the future, who would buy a PPro?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so.... IPv6 is fatally broken because some companies are stupid and IPv4 is fatally broken ?
If a company does n't go IPv6 , screw them .
All the big companies already have IPv6 connectivity anyway.I think I remember this same argument with the Pentium Pro .
It ran 16bit apps slowly but ran 32bit very fast .
Since 16 bit is the future , who would buy a PPro ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so.... IPv6 is fatally broken because some companies are stupid and IPv4 is fatally broken?
If a company doesn't go IPv6, screw them.
All the big companies already have IPv6 connectivity anyway.I think I remember this same argument with the Pentium Pro.
It ran 16bit apps slowly but ran 32bit very fast.
Since 16 bit is the future, who would buy a PPro?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531318</id>
	<title>Re:Will ISP give more then one IPv6 IP? or will th</title>
	<author>Fenris Ulf</author>
	<datestamp>1261488480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast will give out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/64s from what I recall.  That's the smallest allowed network size for most IPv6 tools (radvd etc).</p><p>That leaves 2**64 addresses for your home network, or just let your hosts auto-create their local address which is the default config.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast will give out /64s from what I recall .
That 's the smallest allowed network size for most IPv6 tools ( radvd etc ) .That leaves 2 * * 64 addresses for your home network , or just let your hosts auto-create their local address which is the default config .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast will give out /64s from what I recall.
That's the smallest allowed network size for most IPv6 tools (radvd etc).That leaves 2**64 addresses for your home network, or just let your hosts auto-create their local address which is the default config.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We won't run out. It's like peak oil - we won't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics. It'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up, reducing consumption. Essentially, we'll never use 100\% of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies. Same with IPv4 addresses. They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system. IPv6 will come in slowly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We wo n't run out .
It 's like peak oil - we wo n't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics .
It 'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up , reducing consumption .
Essentially , we 'll never use 100 \ % of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies .
Same with IPv4 addresses .
They 'll become more and more valuable , universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up , and we 'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system .
IPv6 will come in slowly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We won't run out.
It's like peak oil - we won't just have one random guy scrape and hit rock bottom and suddenly the world panics.
It'll become gradually harder and harder to find and prices will slowly go up, reducing consumption.
Essentially, we'll never use 100\% of our oil until it is completely superseded by newer technologies.
Same with IPv4 addresses.
They'll become more and more valuable, universities with 16.7 million each will be forced to give them up, and we'll have more and more bureaucracy surrounding the IP address system.
IPv6 will come in slowly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533174</id>
	<title>Old technology</title>
	<author>jmkrtyuio</author>
	<datestamp>1261511340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft fielded this stuff in windows 2000. It will work just fine the same way, controlled by gpo's configuring ipsec settings, the same way it would have with ipv4, except that since almost all ipv4 internal networks are behind a nat firewall it doesnt work for vpn remote access. Instead it was touted as a way to harden your internal network.</p><p>To work across the internet this requires that the entire internal network be publicly ipv6 addressed and accessible, at least for the ipsec protocols and no ipv6 nat, which currently isnt expected to be in any real use, but who knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft fielded this stuff in windows 2000 .
It will work just fine the same way , controlled by gpo 's configuring ipsec settings , the same way it would have with ipv4 , except that since almost all ipv4 internal networks are behind a nat firewall it doesnt work for vpn remote access .
Instead it was touted as a way to harden your internal network.To work across the internet this requires that the entire internal network be publicly ipv6 addressed and accessible , at least for the ipsec protocols and no ipv6 nat , which currently isnt expected to be in any real use , but who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft fielded this stuff in windows 2000.
It will work just fine the same way, controlled by gpo's configuring ipsec settings, the same way it would have with ipv4, except that since almost all ipv4 internal networks are behind a nat firewall it doesnt work for vpn remote access.
Instead it was touted as a way to harden your internal network.To work across the internet this requires that the entire internal network be publicly ipv6 addressed and accessible, at least for the ipsec protocols and no ipv6 nat, which currently isnt expected to be in any real use, but who knows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533762</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1259749980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NAT and ipsec......now thats a nightmare...</htmltext>
<tokenext>NAT and ipsec......now thats a nightmare.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NAT and ipsec......now thats a nightmare...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529410</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1261478040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?</p></div><p>If you've never had a problem with NAT, you don't have enough uses for the internet. I used to be a firm believer that NAT was a seemless solution to the problem of not having enough IP's.</p><p>Once you try implementing it in the professional world, where you have to worry about not just NAT but NAPT, because you've got Webservers, Print Servers, Email Servers, Backup Servers, File Servers, Application Servers - and then you've got to implement some service such as Remote Desktop from a WebApp (that has to get past the Proxy, no less), so that those who want to work from home can Remote into their PC without a VPN - lets just say that even a small handful of extra IP's would help, and if we COULD get each PC it's own individual IP, it'd be much appreciated.</p><p>It's not that it's impossible to do what you want, its just that as things grow, things get more convoluted, and doing such tasks take far more troubleshooting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the internet sure , ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall ? If you 've never had a problem with NAT , you do n't have enough uses for the internet .
I used to be a firm believer that NAT was a seemless solution to the problem of not having enough IP 's.Once you try implementing it in the professional world , where you have to worry about not just NAT but NAPT , because you 've got Webservers , Print Servers , Email Servers , Backup Servers , File Servers , Application Servers - and then you 've got to implement some service such as Remote Desktop from a WebApp ( that has to get past the Proxy , no less ) , so that those who want to work from home can Remote into their PC without a VPN - lets just say that even a small handful of extra IP 's would help , and if we COULD get each PC it 's own individual IP , it 'd be much appreciated.It 's not that it 's impossible to do what you want , its just that as things grow , things get more convoluted , and doing such tasks take far more troubleshooting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the internet sure, ok....who the fuck going to connect a Windows box to the internet without NAT/Firewall?If you've never had a problem with NAT, you don't have enough uses for the internet.
I used to be a firm believer that NAT was a seemless solution to the problem of not having enough IP's.Once you try implementing it in the professional world, where you have to worry about not just NAT but NAPT, because you've got Webservers, Print Servers, Email Servers, Backup Servers, File Servers, Application Servers - and then you've got to implement some service such as Remote Desktop from a WebApp (that has to get past the Proxy, no less), so that those who want to work from home can Remote into their PC without a VPN - lets just say that even a small handful of extra IP's would help, and if we COULD get each PC it's own individual IP, it'd be much appreciated.It's not that it's impossible to do what you want, its just that as things grow, things get more convoluted, and doing such tasks take far more troubleshooting.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549260</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 sucks monkey bawls</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1261677900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like either a troll or someone is afraid of change, even when it's much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like either a troll or someone is afraid of change , even when it 's much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like either a troll or someone is afraid of change, even when it's much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528906</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1261476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you seriously believe "the addresses are really long" is going to be the main thing blocking IPv6 adoption? Or even something the average person will care about in the slightest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you seriously believe " the addresses are really long " is going to be the main thing blocking IPv6 adoption ?
Or even something the average person will care about in the slightest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you seriously believe "the addresses are really long" is going to be the main thing blocking IPv6 adoption?
Or even something the average person will care about in the slightest?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529592</id>
	<title>Hehe, I didn't even know I had native ipv6</title>
	<author>\_GNU\_</author>
	<datestamp>1261478880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>until I installed windows 7 and it got an ipv6 adress automatically without a hitch..  (only used straight XP boxes and a FreeBSD with static ipv4 ip before)</p><p>Apparently my isp has been doing native ipv6 for almost a year now and it works like a charm..  for ipv6 enabled sites and services that is.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>(Bahnhof in Sweden)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>until I installed windows 7 and it got an ipv6 adress automatically without a hitch.. ( only used straight XP boxes and a FreeBSD with static ipv4 ip before ) Apparently my isp has been doing native ipv6 for almost a year now and it works like a charm.. for ipv6 enabled sites and services that is .
; ) ( Bahnhof in Sweden )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>until I installed windows 7 and it got an ipv6 adress automatically without a hitch..  (only used straight XP boxes and a FreeBSD with static ipv4 ip before)Apparently my isp has been doing native ipv6 for almost a year now and it works like a charm..  for ipv6 enabled sites and services that is.
;)(Bahnhof in Sweden)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528850</id>
	<title>Re:IPv6 addresses are overly complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've heard of DNS right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've heard of DNS right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've heard of DNS right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_22_1828253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530384
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30549260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30535630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30547070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30530342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30534078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30528916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30532238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30533178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30531694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_22_1828253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_22_1828253.30529192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
