<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_03_2358233</id>
	<title>At Current Rates, Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262520120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader excerpts from an interesting article at Ars Technica, which begins <i>"There are 3,706,650,624 usable IPv4 addresses. On January 1, 2000, approximately 1,615 million (44 percent) were in use and 2,092 million were still available. Today, ten years later, 2,985 million addresses (81 percent) are in use, and 722 million are still free. In that time, the number of addresses used per year increased from 79 million in 2000 to 203 million in 2009. So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/dont-publish-the-decade-in-ipv4-addresses.ars">we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]</a>. (Even if he doesn't get re-elected.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader excerpts from an interesting article at Ars Technica , which begins " There are 3,706,650,624 usable IPv4 addresses .
On January 1 , 2000 , approximately 1,615 million ( 44 percent ) were in use and 2,092 million were still available .
Today , ten years later , 2,985 million addresses ( 81 percent ) are in use , and 722 million are still free .
In that time , the number of addresses used per year increased from 79 million in 2000 to 203 million in 2009 .
So it 's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House , we 'll be out of IPv4 address [ es ] .
( Even if he does n't get re-elected .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader excerpts from an interesting article at Ars Technica, which begins "There are 3,706,650,624 usable IPv4 addresses.
On January 1, 2000, approximately 1,615 million (44 percent) were in use and 2,092 million were still available.
Today, ten years later, 2,985 million addresses (81 percent) are in use, and 722 million are still free.
In that time, the number of addresses used per year increased from 79 million in 2000 to 203 million in 2009.
So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es].
(Even if he doesn't get re-elected.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262524800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I love reading this story over and over again about every 2 years. It'll happen any day now!! We pinky-swear!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I love reading this story over and over again about every 2 years .
It 'll happen any day now ! !
We pinky-swear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I love reading this story over and over again about every 2 years.
It'll happen any day now!!
We pinky-swear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636582</id>
	<title>Pretty much</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1262530500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I'm sure eventually IP address scarcity will become a real problem, it just doesn't seem to be at this point, and doesn't really seem to be near it. Part of the reason is that there is a fair bit of unassigned IP space still, and a fair bit that is very underused. Organizations that got Class As way back in the day but have no need for all that. Then of course there's NAT, which has made the space go much further. There are lots of situations where NAT can be used, and even is desirable.</p><p>There's no question that a move to IPv6 will eventually be necessary, and it is a good idea over all. However I'm more than a little tired of hearing these "sky is falling" stories on IP space. Maybe this really is the time this time, but I'm doubtful because, as you said, people keep crying wolf about it. I've been hearing about the death of IP for at least a decade now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm sure eventually IP address scarcity will become a real problem , it just does n't seem to be at this point , and does n't really seem to be near it .
Part of the reason is that there is a fair bit of unassigned IP space still , and a fair bit that is very underused .
Organizations that got Class As way back in the day but have no need for all that .
Then of course there 's NAT , which has made the space go much further .
There are lots of situations where NAT can be used , and even is desirable.There 's no question that a move to IPv6 will eventually be necessary , and it is a good idea over all .
However I 'm more than a little tired of hearing these " sky is falling " stories on IP space .
Maybe this really is the time this time , but I 'm doubtful because , as you said , people keep crying wolf about it .
I 've been hearing about the death of IP for at least a decade now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm sure eventually IP address scarcity will become a real problem, it just doesn't seem to be at this point, and doesn't really seem to be near it.
Part of the reason is that there is a fair bit of unassigned IP space still, and a fair bit that is very underused.
Organizations that got Class As way back in the day but have no need for all that.
Then of course there's NAT, which has made the space go much further.
There are lots of situations where NAT can be used, and even is desirable.There's no question that a move to IPv6 will eventually be necessary, and it is a good idea over all.
However I'm more than a little tired of hearing these "sky is falling" stories on IP space.
Maybe this really is the time this time, but I'm doubtful because, as you said, people keep crying wolf about it.
I've been hearing about the death of IP for at least a decade now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637650</id>
	<title>Re:No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1262541720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to be a common theme in comments from posters in the US. 5 IP addresses, 32 IP addresses... Meanwhile in the rest of the world, you get one, and you're lucky if it is not NAT'ed.  It seems the US treats IP addresses the same way they treat oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be a common theme in comments from posters in the US .
5 IP addresses , 32 IP addresses... Meanwhile in the rest of the world , you get one , and you 're lucky if it is not NAT'ed .
It seems the US treats IP addresses the same way they treat oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be a common theme in comments from posters in the US.
5 IP addresses, 32 IP addresses... Meanwhile in the rest of the world, you get one, and you're lucky if it is not NAT'ed.
It seems the US treats IP addresses the same way they treat oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064</id>
	<title>recover unused/abandoned IP blocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262526300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the idiots in charge would just go about recovering the HUGE blocks of IP's issued to companies and entities that no longer exist this issue would not exist either, but then as someone else mentioned just implementing NAT in all the appropriate places would also avoid the issue, but from a corporate point of view, then there would be no market for NEW hardware that is IPV6 compliant and it is much harder to track activity from a NAT'd source than it would be if every electronic device in he world had its' own ip. I personally don't WANT my refrigerator feeding Safeway Inc. information on what's in my freezer box, or enabling them to target more ads based on what I buy even though I have gone to the trouble to get a members' club card under a false phone number with NO NAME associated with it...<br>This "problem" isn't a real problem it just interfers with the corporate right to make a profit of anything they feel like...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the idiots in charge would just go about recovering the HUGE blocks of IP 's issued to companies and entities that no longer exist this issue would not exist either , but then as someone else mentioned just implementing NAT in all the appropriate places would also avoid the issue , but from a corporate point of view , then there would be no market for NEW hardware that is IPV6 compliant and it is much harder to track activity from a NAT 'd source than it would be if every electronic device in he world had its ' own ip .
I personally do n't WANT my refrigerator feeding Safeway Inc. information on what 's in my freezer box , or enabling them to target more ads based on what I buy even though I have gone to the trouble to get a members ' club card under a false phone number with NO NAME associated with it...This " problem " is n't a real problem it just interfers with the corporate right to make a profit of anything they feel like.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the idiots in charge would just go about recovering the HUGE blocks of IP's issued to companies and entities that no longer exist this issue would not exist either, but then as someone else mentioned just implementing NAT in all the appropriate places would also avoid the issue, but from a corporate point of view, then there would be no market for NEW hardware that is IPV6 compliant and it is much harder to track activity from a NAT'd source than it would be if every electronic device in he world had its' own ip.
I personally don't WANT my refrigerator feeding Safeway Inc. information on what's in my freezer box, or enabling them to target more ads based on what I buy even though I have gone to the trouble to get a members' club card under a false phone number with NO NAME associated with it...This "problem" isn't a real problem it just interfers with the corporate right to make a profit of anything they feel like...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637786</id>
	<title>It'll happen</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1262543580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'll happen but not a second sooner then it absolutely has to. Think about it, if there's no driving force to roll out a new technology, as a company why would you? What's the return on a philosophic investment for a service provider? Customers don't want it, eventually they'll simply need it. Not to mention it's really a chicken/egg thing where early adopters (like the parent) will be tunneling anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll happen but not a second sooner then it absolutely has to .
Think about it , if there 's no driving force to roll out a new technology , as a company why would you ?
What 's the return on a philosophic investment for a service provider ?
Customers do n't want it , eventually they 'll simply need it .
Not to mention it 's really a chicken/egg thing where early adopters ( like the parent ) will be tunneling anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll happen but not a second sooner then it absolutely has to.
Think about it, if there's no driving force to roll out a new technology, as a company why would you?
What's the return on a philosophic investment for a service provider?
Customers don't want it, eventually they'll simply need it.
Not to mention it's really a chicken/egg thing where early adopters (like the parent) will be tunneling anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796</id>
	<title>I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>haus</author>
	<datestamp>1262524440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636972</id>
	<title>Re:Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>hughperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1262534460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In China, I have home internet, through ADSL, and we each have *external* ip addresses!  Basically, we connect to the wifi point using wifi, and then use ppp over ethernet to connect to the isp's  modem, and get an external address.</p><p>Pretty nice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In China , I have home internet , through ADSL , and we each have * external * ip addresses !
Basically , we connect to the wifi point using wifi , and then use ppp over ethernet to connect to the isp 's modem , and get an external address.Pretty nice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In China, I have home internet, through ADSL, and we each have *external* ip addresses!
Basically, we connect to the wifi point using wifi, and then use ppp over ethernet to connect to the isp's  modem, and get an external address.Pretty nice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636040</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1262526180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.</p></div><p>At over 200 million new addresses needed per year, returning all of those class As wouldn't buy more than 2-3 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.At over 200 million new addresses needed per year , returning all of those class As would n't buy more than 2-3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has not yet become a big enough of a problem for the large sections of unused address by universities such as MIT and Harvard to be recalled.At over 200 million new addresses needed per year, returning all of those class As wouldn't buy more than 2-3 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912</id>
	<title>No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>bizitch</author>
	<datestamp>1262525280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just helped out a friend who lives in a remote rural section outside of Chicago.  I tried for years and years to get her lit up on decent broadband service.</p><p>Finally, we got a relay from a WiMAX provider --</p><p>When I went to connect her broadband with a Cisco router - I discovered that she was assigned a FRIGGIN<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/27 of public numbers!! (i.e. she now personally burns 32 usefull IPV4's)</p><p>I was gonna call their support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but why bother?</p><p>You never know if she's gonna need 30+ public ip numbers right?  Just because she lives alone - she may get many friends real soon!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just helped out a friend who lives in a remote rural section outside of Chicago .
I tried for years and years to get her lit up on decent broadband service.Finally , we got a relay from a WiMAX provider --When I went to connect her broadband with a Cisco router - I discovered that she was assigned a FRIGGIN /27 of public numbers ! !
( i.e. she now personally burns 32 usefull IPV4 's ) I was gon na call their support ... but why bother ? You never know if she 's gon na need 30 + public ip numbers right ?
Just because she lives alone - she may get many friends real soon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just helped out a friend who lives in a remote rural section outside of Chicago.
I tried for years and years to get her lit up on decent broadband service.Finally, we got a relay from a WiMAX provider --When I went to connect her broadband with a Cisco router - I discovered that she was assigned a FRIGGIN /27 of public numbers!!
(i.e. she now personally burns 32 usefull IPV4's)I was gonna call their support ... but why bother?You never know if she's gonna need 30+ public ip numbers right?
Just because she lives alone - she may get many friends real soon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635772</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say ...</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1262524200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4 octets should be enough for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 octets should be enough for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 octets should be enough for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637960</id>
	<title>Re:No, that's propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262546640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zocalo, you are right about the crunch in Asia.</p><p>You can get the IP address allocation by country from the <a href="http://www.ip2location.com/ip2location-internet-ip-address-2010-report.aspx" title="ip2location.com" rel="nofollow">IP Address Report 2010</a> [ip2location.com].</p><p>Apparently, APNIC is getting the pressure and likely to consume all remaining IPv4 space soon.</p><p>-Tim</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zocalo , you are right about the crunch in Asia.You can get the IP address allocation by country from the IP Address Report 2010 [ ip2location.com ] .Apparently , APNIC is getting the pressure and likely to consume all remaining IPv4 space soon.-Tim</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zocalo, you are right about the crunch in Asia.You can get the IP address allocation by country from the IP Address Report 2010 [ip2location.com].Apparently, APNIC is getting the pressure and likely to consume all remaining IPv4 space soon.-Tim</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</id>
	<title>Ah but...!</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1262524620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself, 127.0.0.1 !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself , 127.0.0.1 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself, 127.0.0.1 !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640808</id>
	<title>Re:Now if IPv6 could get fixed...</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1262621280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really NEED IPv6-capable PXE? What's wrong with keeping IPv4 on your LAN, the same as Windows 7 still does with NetBIOS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really NEED IPv6-capable PXE ?
What 's wrong with keeping IPv4 on your LAN , the same as Windows 7 still does with NetBIOS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really NEED IPv6-capable PXE?
What's wrong with keeping IPv4 on your LAN, the same as Windows 7 still does with NetBIOS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30653996</id>
	<title>ah the first ipv6 post of the year</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262702460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv4 has suposedly been running out soon for the last fracking decade or so - and WTF does President Obama have to do with this</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv4 has suposedly been running out soon for the last fracking decade or so - and WTF does President Obama have to do with this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv4 has suposedly been running out soon for the last fracking decade or so - and WTF does President Obama have to do with this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636774</id>
	<title>I wish they would just do it already</title>
	<author>Captian Spazzz</author>
	<datestamp>1262532540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been hearing for years about how by this time in X years we'll have no IPv4 addresses left.  I wish people would knock off the doomsday predictions or just freaking adopt already.  While I don't see a lack of being able to connect because of lack of an IPv4 address yet but I do see some device makers trying to force users to use IPv6 by default and making it a pain in the ass to switch back to IPv4 easily.  Which frankly pisses me off because most ISP's don't support it yet. (Hey Canonical, I'm looking at YOUUUUUUUUU Ubuntu Devs!)</p><p>That being said I would like to see some routers and devices being made that can sign an IPv6 address out on the LAN side and accept either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses on the WAN side that way users can start transitioning over and will be ready when the ISP's finally start upgrading their infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hearing for years about how by this time in X years we 'll have no IPv4 addresses left .
I wish people would knock off the doomsday predictions or just freaking adopt already .
While I do n't see a lack of being able to connect because of lack of an IPv4 address yet but I do see some device makers trying to force users to use IPv6 by default and making it a pain in the ass to switch back to IPv4 easily .
Which frankly pisses me off because most ISP 's do n't support it yet .
( Hey Canonical , I 'm looking at YOUUUUUUUUU Ubuntu Devs !
) That being said I would like to see some routers and devices being made that can sign an IPv6 address out on the LAN side and accept either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses on the WAN side that way users can start transitioning over and will be ready when the ISP 's finally start upgrading their infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hearing for years about how by this time in X years we'll have no IPv4 addresses left.
I wish people would knock off the doomsday predictions or just freaking adopt already.
While I don't see a lack of being able to connect because of lack of an IPv4 address yet but I do see some device makers trying to force users to use IPv6 by default and making it a pain in the ass to switch back to IPv4 easily.
Which frankly pisses me off because most ISP's don't support it yet.
(Hey Canonical, I'm looking at YOUUUUUUUUU Ubuntu Devs!
)That being said I would like to see some routers and devices being made that can sign an IPv6 address out on the LAN side and accept either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses on the WAN side that way users can start transitioning over and will be ready when the ISP's finally start upgrading their infrastructure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635906</id>
	<title>Re:How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1262525220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they don't take away 69.69.69.69 from it's owner:</p><p>$ host 69.69.69.69<br>69.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they do n't take away 69.69.69.69 from it 's owner : $ host 69.69.69.6969.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they don't take away 69.69.69.69 from it's owner:$ host 69.69.69.6969.69.69.69.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer the-coolest-ip-on-the-net.com.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636012</id>
	<title>Re:Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262526060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, not really. There's companies with whole fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:</p></div><p>The block you listed contain a total of 301,989,888 addresses.  At 2009's rate of 203 million addresses per year, returning those blocks would buy us less than 18 months.  Big whoop.

</p><p>Also, some of those companies actually do make significant use of the addresses they have.  For example, I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really .
There 's companies with whole fucking /8 [ iana.org ] that have no real purpose to own them , but they 've just always had them : The block you listed contain a total of 301,989,888 addresses .
At 2009 's rate of 203 million addresses per year , returning those blocks would buy us less than 18 months .
Big whoop .
Also , some of those companies actually do make significant use of the addresses they have .
For example , I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.
There's companies with whole fucking /8 [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:The block you listed contain a total of 301,989,888 addresses.
At 2009's rate of 203 million addresses per year, returning those blocks would buy us less than 18 months.
Big whoop.
Also, some of those companies actually do make significant use of the addresses they have.
For example, I happen to know that IBM uses a good chunk of the 9.0.0.0 space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310</id>
	<title>Now if IPv6 could get fixed...</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1262527920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many ways IPv6 remains broken and too many of the people with influence can tend to say 'working as designed'.</p><p>I know that's controversial, so I'll enumerate my pain points:<br>-DHCPv6 DUID is a pain to 'pre-provision'.  When any operating system or firmware instance dhcpv6 for the first time, it sends out something that you'll never know what it would be ahead of time.  In 99\% of cases, the DUID is a generated value at 'OS Install time' that is used only for that specific OS, and a reinstall or livecd boot will change it out completely.  stateless boot, multi-boot systems and multi-stage booting (i.e. pxe -&gt; os) cannot hold together a coherent identity because DHCPv6 is explicitly designed not to do that.  Binding by MAC is considered 'evil', but it has been the strategy used for ages.  I wouldn't mind so much if DUID was commonly implemented as a value retrieved from motherboard firmware tables, but no one is stepping up to drive that behavior in a spec visible to all parties.</p><p>No PXE/bootp boot.  I believe they are trying to reinvent, from scratch the boot design from IPv4, and are nearing completion.  I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater (i.e. 'root-path' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6).</p><p>Some standards are missing the capability to operate in IPv6.  I.e. IPMI hase some IPv4 specific portions of the standard without IPv6 capable equivalents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many ways IPv6 remains broken and too many of the people with influence can tend to say 'working as designed'.I know that 's controversial , so I 'll enumerate my pain points : -DHCPv6 DUID is a pain to 'pre-provision' .
When any operating system or firmware instance dhcpv6 for the first time , it sends out something that you 'll never know what it would be ahead of time .
In 99 \ % of cases , the DUID is a generated value at 'OS Install time ' that is used only for that specific OS , and a reinstall or livecd boot will change it out completely .
stateless boot , multi-boot systems and multi-stage booting ( i.e .
pxe - &gt; os ) can not hold together a coherent identity because DHCPv6 is explicitly designed not to do that .
Binding by MAC is considered 'evil ' , but it has been the strategy used for ages .
I would n't mind so much if DUID was commonly implemented as a value retrieved from motherboard firmware tables , but no one is stepping up to drive that behavior in a spec visible to all parties.No PXE/bootp boot .
I believe they are trying to reinvent , from scratch the boot design from IPv4 , and are nearing completion .
I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater ( i.e .
'root-path ' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6 ) .Some standards are missing the capability to operate in IPv6 .
I.e. IPMI hase some IPv4 specific portions of the standard without IPv6 capable equivalents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many ways IPv6 remains broken and too many of the people with influence can tend to say 'working as designed'.I know that's controversial, so I'll enumerate my pain points:-DHCPv6 DUID is a pain to 'pre-provision'.
When any operating system or firmware instance dhcpv6 for the first time, it sends out something that you'll never know what it would be ahead of time.
In 99\% of cases, the DUID is a generated value at 'OS Install time' that is used only for that specific OS, and a reinstall or livecd boot will change it out completely.
stateless boot, multi-boot systems and multi-stage booting (i.e.
pxe -&gt; os) cannot hold together a coherent identity because DHCPv6 is explicitly designed not to do that.
Binding by MAC is considered 'evil', but it has been the strategy used for ages.
I wouldn't mind so much if DUID was commonly implemented as a value retrieved from motherboard firmware tables, but no one is stepping up to drive that behavior in a spec visible to all parties.No PXE/bootp boot.
I believe they are trying to reinvent, from scratch the boot design from IPv4, and are nearing completion.
I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater (i.e.
'root-path' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6).Some standards are missing the capability to operate in IPv6.
I.e. IPMI hase some IPv4 specific portions of the standard without IPv6 capable equivalents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30668942</id>
	<title>The Future of Deja Vu</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1262790360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Linux on the desktop<br>2. Exhaustion of ipv4 address space<br>3. Duke Nukem Forever</p><p>Warning: date order may differ in your universe<br>--<br>Let's make another big bang so we can test it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Linux on the desktop2 .
Exhaustion of ipv4 address space3 .
Duke Nukem ForeverWarning : date order may differ in your universe--Let 's make another big bang so we can test it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Linux on the desktop2.
Exhaustion of ipv4 address space3.
Duke Nukem ForeverWarning: date order may differ in your universe--Let's make another big bang so we can test it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636896</id>
	<title>Re:Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1262533500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great, so NAT not only gives your consumer customers shitty service and winnows out the biggies willing to pay big bucks for static IPs, but it also has the neat side effect of wrecking p2p applications that often attract the attention of the big bad MAFIAA.</p><p>What isp would not love NAT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , so NAT not only gives your consumer customers shitty service and winnows out the biggies willing to pay big bucks for static IPs , but it also has the neat side effect of wrecking p2p applications that often attract the attention of the big bad MAFIAA.What isp would not love NAT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, so NAT not only gives your consumer customers shitty service and winnows out the biggies willing to pay big bucks for static IPs, but it also has the neat side effect of wrecking p2p applications that often attract the attention of the big bad MAFIAA.What isp would not love NAT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962</id>
	<title>Re:No, that's propaganda</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1262525640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know you are joking, but there is a very good reason why Asia is so keen on IPv6 adoption; they are going to feel the crunch first and they know it.  IANA has in place an agreement that as soon as one of the RIRs is assigned one of the five final<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8s each of the other four RIRs receives one of the remaining<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8s and IANA washes their hands of the whole mess.  That's without a doubt the most critical milestone along the path to IPv4 exhaustion, so let's look at that instant from the point of each of the RIRs:

<ul>
<li>AfriNIC: Incredibly slow burn rate.  They're probably still good for another decade or two at this point.</li>
<li>APNIC: Includes China and India, two of the fastest developing nations on the planet with correspondingly high IPv4 assignment requests.  There's no two ways about it; without wholesale IPv6 adoption, they're going to be the ones running out first.</li>
<li>ARIN: Capitalists to the end, they are on record as saying IPv4 exhaustion is not their problem to solve; it's first come first served and when they are all gone that's it.  Even so, there are plenty of US institutions with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8s that could mostly be handed back and reassigned if push came to shove.</li>
<li>LACNIC: Not quite as low AfriNIC due to developing countries like Brazil, but are still able to sit back and let any problems with IPv6 get resolved before they make the leap.</li>
<li>RIPE: Have already got the strictest IP assignment policies of the RIRs and will probably just continue to tighten the screw right up until the point of exhaustion; LIR assignment windows are typically about one quarter of what they would have been five years ago.  It's a pretty fair bet that APNIC and ARIN will both beat them to the wall.</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you are joking , but there is a very good reason why Asia is so keen on IPv6 adoption ; they are going to feel the crunch first and they know it .
IANA has in place an agreement that as soon as one of the RIRs is assigned one of the five final /8s each of the other four RIRs receives one of the remaining /8s and IANA washes their hands of the whole mess .
That 's without a doubt the most critical milestone along the path to IPv4 exhaustion , so let 's look at that instant from the point of each of the RIRs : AfriNIC : Incredibly slow burn rate .
They 're probably still good for another decade or two at this point .
APNIC : Includes China and India , two of the fastest developing nations on the planet with correspondingly high IPv4 assignment requests .
There 's no two ways about it ; without wholesale IPv6 adoption , they 're going to be the ones running out first .
ARIN : Capitalists to the end , they are on record as saying IPv4 exhaustion is not their problem to solve ; it 's first come first served and when they are all gone that 's it .
Even so , there are plenty of US institutions with /8s that could mostly be handed back and reassigned if push came to shove .
LACNIC : Not quite as low AfriNIC due to developing countries like Brazil , but are still able to sit back and let any problems with IPv6 get resolved before they make the leap .
RIPE : Have already got the strictest IP assignment policies of the RIRs and will probably just continue to tighten the screw right up until the point of exhaustion ; LIR assignment windows are typically about one quarter of what they would have been five years ago .
It 's a pretty fair bet that APNIC and ARIN will both beat them to the wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you are joking, but there is a very good reason why Asia is so keen on IPv6 adoption; they are going to feel the crunch first and they know it.
IANA has in place an agreement that as soon as one of the RIRs is assigned one of the five final /8s each of the other four RIRs receives one of the remaining /8s and IANA washes their hands of the whole mess.
That's without a doubt the most critical milestone along the path to IPv4 exhaustion, so let's look at that instant from the point of each of the RIRs:


AfriNIC: Incredibly slow burn rate.
They're probably still good for another decade or two at this point.
APNIC: Includes China and India, two of the fastest developing nations on the planet with correspondingly high IPv4 assignment requests.
There's no two ways about it; without wholesale IPv6 adoption, they're going to be the ones running out first.
ARIN: Capitalists to the end, they are on record as saying IPv4 exhaustion is not their problem to solve; it's first come first served and when they are all gone that's it.
Even so, there are plenty of US institutions with /8s that could mostly be handed back and reassigned if push came to shove.
LACNIC: Not quite as low AfriNIC due to developing countries like Brazil, but are still able to sit back and let any problems with IPv6 get resolved before they make the leap.
RIPE: Have already got the strictest IP assignment policies of the RIRs and will probably just continue to tighten the screw right up until the point of exhaustion; LIR assignment windows are typically about one quarter of what they would have been five years ago.
It's a pretty fair bet that APNIC and ARIN will both beat them to the wall.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30654030</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1262702700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fm6 classfull routing hasnt been used for years reusing a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 is not a major problem</htmltext>
<tokenext>fm6 classfull routing hasnt been used for years reusing a /8 is not a major problem</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fm6 classfull routing hasnt been used for years reusing a /8 is not a major problem</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637076</id>
	<title>Re:Now if IPv6 could get fixed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262535540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is interesting. What I miss from most of these IPv4-stories is a summary of what went wrong with IPv6. How should it have been done if we wanted a smoother transition? Is the issue technical or is it more of a political/financial problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is interesting .
What I miss from most of these IPv4-stories is a summary of what went wrong with IPv6 .
How should it have been done if we wanted a smoother transition ?
Is the issue technical or is it more of a political/financial problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is interesting.
What I miss from most of these IPv4-stories is a summary of what went wrong with IPv6.
How should it have been done if we wanted a smoother transition?
Is the issue technical or is it more of a political/financial problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639824</id>
	<title>Assigned, not used.   How many of them are dark?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262615100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of the current<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/32  is in use or addressable right now?</p><p>Should cell phones be full citizens on the net, or should they be NAT'd<br>by definition?  Should a cell phone be running a server?  Should a cell phone<br>have a fixed IP address?</p><p>I am tired of hearing about IPv6.   Personally, I think IPv6 is horrible,<br>thoughtless design.  And I am tired of hearing about it.  Both sides have<br>to be able to use IPv6 for IPv6 to work.  For IPv6 to work without a tunnel,<br>every device between the two systems has to know IPv6.   Every modem, every<br>router, every firewall, every OS.</p><p>IPv6 will be implemented....half way.   They will force everyone to run<br>IPv6.  But not ALL of the intermediary hardware will be replaced for decades.</p><p>We will spend DECADES in tunneling hell because of the poor design decisions<br>of a few people just had to re-invent the wheel...and force every wheel to<br>be replaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of the current /32 is in use or addressable right now ? Should cell phones be full citizens on the net , or should they be NAT'dby definition ?
Should a cell phone be running a server ?
Should a cell phonehave a fixed IP address ? I am tired of hearing about IPv6 .
Personally , I think IPv6 is horrible,thoughtless design .
And I am tired of hearing about it .
Both sides haveto be able to use IPv6 for IPv6 to work .
For IPv6 to work without a tunnel,every device between the two systems has to know IPv6 .
Every modem , everyrouter , every firewall , every OS.IPv6 will be implemented....half way .
They will force everyone to runIPv6 .
But not ALL of the intermediary hardware will be replaced for decades.We will spend DECADES in tunneling hell because of the poor design decisionsof a few people just had to re-invent the wheel...and force every wheel tobe replaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of the current /32  is in use or addressable right now?Should cell phones be full citizens on the net, or should they be NAT'dby definition?
Should a cell phone be running a server?
Should a cell phonehave a fixed IP address?I am tired of hearing about IPv6.
Personally, I think IPv6 is horrible,thoughtless design.
And I am tired of hearing about it.
Both sides haveto be able to use IPv6 for IPv6 to work.
For IPv6 to work without a tunnel,every device between the two systems has to know IPv6.
Every modem, everyrouter, every firewall, every OS.IPv6 will be implemented....half way.
They will force everyone to runIPv6.
But not ALL of the intermediary hardware will be replaced for decades.We will spend DECADES in tunneling hell because of the poor design decisionsof a few people just had to re-invent the wheel...and force every wheel tobe replaced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636872</id>
	<title>Re:Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>drmerope</author>
	<datestamp>1262533380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less scare oriented analysis have shown less than 50\% of the IPv4 space in actual use.  IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes.  Its basically unusable with mobile networks (WiMax, WiFi, etc).  It significantly increases the cost of routers, switches, etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path.  i.e., by trapping to the control CPU.</p><p>The IP network was designed to be a gateway network, not to connect every dippy host to every other one.  Which is a broken, insecure, nonsensical practice.  If you believe in it, you should review the <a href="http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html" title="plausiblydeniable.com">Geek Social Fallacies.</a> [plausiblydeniable.com] </p><p>The truth will be in the pudding.  Once address space begins to be clawed back, abusive users (like IBM; IBM does NOT have millions of protocol compliant IPs: they ought to be NATed), will face a cost of reconfiguring their broken network topologies using IPv4 or switching to IPv6.  Then we'll know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less scare oriented analysis have shown less than 50 \ % of the IPv4 space in actual use .
IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes .
Its basically unusable with mobile networks ( WiMax , WiFi , etc ) .
It significantly increases the cost of routers , switches , etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path .
i.e. , by trapping to the control CPU.The IP network was designed to be a gateway network , not to connect every dippy host to every other one .
Which is a broken , insecure , nonsensical practice .
If you believe in it , you should review the Geek Social Fallacies .
[ plausiblydeniable.com ] The truth will be in the pudding .
Once address space begins to be clawed back , abusive users ( like IBM ; IBM does NOT have millions of protocol compliant IPs : they ought to be NATed ) , will face a cost of reconfiguring their broken network topologies using IPv4 or switching to IPv6 .
Then we 'll know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less scare oriented analysis have shown less than 50\% of the IPv4 space in actual use.
IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes.
Its basically unusable with mobile networks (WiMax, WiFi, etc).
It significantly increases the cost of routers, switches, etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path.
i.e., by trapping to the control CPU.The IP network was designed to be a gateway network, not to connect every dippy host to every other one.
Which is a broken, insecure, nonsensical practice.
If you believe in it, you should review the Geek Social Fallacies.
[plausiblydeniable.com] The truth will be in the pudding.
Once address space begins to be clawed back, abusive users (like IBM; IBM does NOT have millions of protocol compliant IPs: they ought to be NATed), will face a cost of reconfiguring their broken network topologies using IPv4 or switching to IPv6.
Then we'll know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636440</id>
	<title>Re:recover unused/abandoned IP blocks</title>
	<author>Jonner</author>
	<datestamp>1262529240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You clearly don't understand the way the Internet is supposed to work, which is as a bunch of peers, all able to communicate with each other. NATs only work to the extent that they can preserve the illusion of a peer to peer network. A shortage of addresses resulting in more NATs gives the man more ways to control us, not the opposite.</p><p>"Private" IP addresses have little to do with human privacy. If you don't want a fridge giving out private information, don't buy fridge capable of doing that or don't connect it to a network. If you think NATs keep your network secure or keep your data private, you're in for a big surprise, especially if there are devices in your network actively trying to leak private information. What can be helpful in keeping a network secure is a stateful firewall (though that wouldn't necessarily prevent a malicious device such as the hypothetical fridge from leaking private information), and since most routers that do NAT also have stateful firewalls, many people seem to confuse the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You clearly do n't understand the way the Internet is supposed to work , which is as a bunch of peers , all able to communicate with each other .
NATs only work to the extent that they can preserve the illusion of a peer to peer network .
A shortage of addresses resulting in more NATs gives the man more ways to control us , not the opposite .
" Private " IP addresses have little to do with human privacy .
If you do n't want a fridge giving out private information , do n't buy fridge capable of doing that or do n't connect it to a network .
If you think NATs keep your network secure or keep your data private , you 're in for a big surprise , especially if there are devices in your network actively trying to leak private information .
What can be helpful in keeping a network secure is a stateful firewall ( though that would n't necessarily prevent a malicious device such as the hypothetical fridge from leaking private information ) , and since most routers that do NAT also have stateful firewalls , many people seem to confuse the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You clearly don't understand the way the Internet is supposed to work, which is as a bunch of peers, all able to communicate with each other.
NATs only work to the extent that they can preserve the illusion of a peer to peer network.
A shortage of addresses resulting in more NATs gives the man more ways to control us, not the opposite.
"Private" IP addresses have little to do with human privacy.
If you don't want a fridge giving out private information, don't buy fridge capable of doing that or don't connect it to a network.
If you think NATs keep your network secure or keep your data private, you're in for a big surprise, especially if there are devices in your network actively trying to leak private information.
What can be helpful in keeping a network secure is a stateful firewall (though that wouldn't necessarily prevent a malicious device such as the hypothetical fridge from leaking private information), and since most routers that do NAT also have stateful firewalls, many people seem to confuse the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640784</id>
	<title>Re:A few statistics</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1262621160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the question is: WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES?</i></p><p>China and the Department of Defence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the question is : WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES ? China and the Department of Defence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the question is: WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES?China and the Department of Defence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637612</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1262541180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A decade ago, common houseplants weren't <a href="http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/add2/" title="thinkgeek.com">sending twitter updates</a> [thinkgeek.com] to the Internet at large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A decade ago , common houseplants were n't sending twitter updates [ thinkgeek.com ] to the Internet at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decade ago, common houseplants weren't sending twitter updates [thinkgeek.com] to the Internet at large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639196</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame no doubt, depending on how the single public IP is managed with port forwarding etc.</p><p>But mostly it will be an issue for law enforcement.</p><p>I can see it now:</p><p>Officer: I got a [insert infringement here] from [insert company here] at this IP, now where is the computer responsible for this?</p><p>Now, if the ISP responsible monitors every single packet with DPI/other means, this may be OK (depending on encryption etc), otherwise:</p><p>ISP: Well, you have about 30,000 homes to search, sorry about that.</p><p>This is already a problem in hotels and hotspots where the end user is not easily (and cost effectively) identifiable.</p><p>So, perhaps the governement will push this through just for tracking purposes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame no doubt , depending on how the single public IP is managed with port forwarding etc.But mostly it will be an issue for law enforcement.I can see it now : Officer : I got a [ insert infringement here ] from [ insert company here ] at this IP , now where is the computer responsible for this ? Now , if the ISP responsible monitors every single packet with DPI/other means , this may be OK ( depending on encryption etc ) , otherwise : ISP : Well , you have about 30,000 homes to search , sorry about that.This is already a problem in hotels and hotspots where the end user is not easily ( and cost effectively ) identifiable.So , perhaps the governement will push this through just for tracking purposes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame no doubt, depending on how the single public IP is managed with port forwarding etc.But mostly it will be an issue for law enforcement.I can see it now:Officer: I got a [insert infringement here] from [insert company here] at this IP, now where is the computer responsible for this?Now, if the ISP responsible monitors every single packet with DPI/other means, this may be OK (depending on encryption etc), otherwise:ISP: Well, you have about 30,000 homes to search, sorry about that.This is already a problem in hotels and hotspots where the end user is not easily (and cost effectively) identifiable.So, perhaps the governement will push this through just for tracking purposes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636520</id>
	<title>Re:No need to panic.</title>
	<author>Jonner</author>
	<datestamp>1262530080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you're right about the Internet thing. But Gore did invent global warming! I just wonder how long before we have to start getting a giant ice cube from a distant planetoid every once in a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you 're right about the Internet thing .
But Gore did invent global warming !
I just wonder how long before we have to start getting a giant ice cube from a distant planetoid every once in a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you're right about the Internet thing.
But Gore did invent global warming!
I just wonder how long before we have to start getting a giant ice cube from a distant planetoid every once in a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639118</id>
	<title>Address scarcity predictions</title>
	<author>oojah</author>
	<datestamp>1262607060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure many of you have seen the <a href="http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html" title="potaroo.net" rel="nofollow">IPv4 Address Report</a> [potaroo.net], which attempts to predict when the IANA and RIRs will exhaust the unallocated pool of IPv4 addresses.<br>
I've been tracking the results of those daily predictions for a while now and since this time last year, they've moved further away by about 6 months. There are graphs online at <a href="http://atchoo.org/ipv4/" title="atchoo.org" rel="nofollow">http://atchoo.org/ipv4/</a> [atchoo.org] <br>
We're still roughly at the same place we were back when this was discussed in April (<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4</a> [slashdot.org]).
<br> <br>
Cheers,<br>Roger</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure many of you have seen the IPv4 Address Report [ potaroo.net ] , which attempts to predict when the IANA and RIRs will exhaust the unallocated pool of IPv4 addresses .
I 've been tracking the results of those daily predictions for a while now and since this time last year , they 've moved further away by about 6 months .
There are graphs online at http : //atchoo.org/ipv4/ [ atchoo.org ] We 're still roughly at the same place we were back when this was discussed in April ( ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4 [ slashdot.org ] ) .
Cheers,Roger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure many of you have seen the IPv4 Address Report [potaroo.net], which attempts to predict when the IANA and RIRs will exhaust the unallocated pool of IPv4 addresses.
I've been tracking the results of those daily predictions for a while now and since this time last year, they've moved further away by about 6 months.
There are graphs online at http://atchoo.org/ipv4/ [atchoo.org] 
We're still roughly at the same place we were back when this was discussed in April (ARIN Letter Says Two More Years of IPv4 [slashdot.org]).
Cheers,Roger</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636816</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262532840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235<br>http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/22/1348210<br>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/17/1152211</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/30/2051235http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/02/22/1348210http : //slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 05/10/17/1152211</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/30/2051235http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/22/1348210http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/17/1152211</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910</id>
	<title>We've been hearing this for a while</title>
	<author>badger.foo</author>
	<datestamp>1262525280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.
<p>
We should not forget that within IPv4 space, reallocations do happen.  Some organizations are AFAIK still sitting on routeable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8s for no good reason whatsoever, and possibly, maybe, some of that space will be redistributed one way or the other. Then of course those parts of the world that have actually switched to IPv6 are not likely to switch back (but you'd have to pry their 4to6 and 6to4 gateways from their dead, cold fingers), and actuall large segments of the Western world lives quite comfortably (fsvo) behind one or more layers of NAT.
</p><p>
So are we actually that close to running out?
</p><p>
Could be. It could also be that reallocations happen in IPv4 space that make the matter a little less urgent for just long enough that IPv6 wins the hearts and minds of the resisters or their objections are in fact addressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been hearing this for quite a while , and for some odd reason IPv6 is n't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings .
We should not forget that within IPv4 space , reallocations do happen .
Some organizations are AFAIK still sitting on routeable /8s for no good reason whatsoever , and possibly , maybe , some of that space will be redistributed one way or the other .
Then of course those parts of the world that have actually switched to IPv6 are not likely to switch back ( but you 'd have to pry their 4to6 and 6to4 gateways from their dead , cold fingers ) , and actuall large segments of the Western world lives quite comfortably ( fsvo ) behind one or more layers of NAT .
So are we actually that close to running out ?
Could be .
It could also be that reallocations happen in IPv4 space that make the matter a little less urgent for just long enough that IPv6 wins the hearts and minds of the resisters or their objections are in fact addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.
We should not forget that within IPv4 space, reallocations do happen.
Some organizations are AFAIK still sitting on routeable /8s for no good reason whatsoever, and possibly, maybe, some of that space will be redistributed one way or the other.
Then of course those parts of the world that have actually switched to IPv6 are not likely to switch back (but you'd have to pry their 4to6 and 6to4 gateways from their dead, cold fingers), and actuall large segments of the Western world lives quite comfortably (fsvo) behind one or more layers of NAT.
So are we actually that close to running out?
Could be.
It could also be that reallocations happen in IPv4 space that make the matter a little less urgent for just long enough that IPv6 wins the hearts and minds of the resisters or their objections are in fact addressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638530</id>
	<title>I wonder how true this prediction really is ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1262597580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it like one of those "the web has to change" predictions which will be groundbreaking in 2009 ?</p><p><a href="http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q2/0007.html" title="webhistory.org">http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q2/0007.html</a> [webhistory.org] if you want a reference<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it like one of those " the web has to change " predictions which will be groundbreaking in 2009 ? http : //1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q2/0007.html [ webhistory.org ] if you want a reference ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it like one of those "the web has to change" predictions which will be groundbreaking in 2009 ?http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q2/0007.html [webhistory.org] if you want a reference ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636052</id>
	<title>yuo Fa1l It!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262526240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fucking percent of the last nigHt of BSD machines,</htmltext>
<tokenext>fucking percent of the last nigHt of BSD machines,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fucking percent of the last nigHt of BSD machines,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639342</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1262610120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses</i> </p><p>They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.</p></div><p>No, but still-untapped address pools are becoming harder and harder to access, needing ever longer pipes to reach them. Eventually, the return on investment is just going to be too small to be worth it.&lt;/bad analogy&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a Few More Years ' Worth of IPv4 Addresses They ( vested interest groups ) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what , we have n't run out yet.No , but still-untapped address pools are becoming harder and harder to access , needing ever longer pipes to reach them .
Eventually , the return on investment is just going to be too small to be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.No, but still-untapped address pools are becoming harder and harder to access, needing ever longer pipes to reach them.
Eventually, the return on investment is just going to be too small to be worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639702</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>BriGal</author>
	<datestamp>1262614140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. I call Y2K on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I call Y2K on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I call Y2K on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636608</id>
	<title>Re:recover unused/abandoned IP blocks</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262530800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I honestly wouldn't be surprised if home appliances were subsidized pretty soon.  I know it's a joke for now, but I'm sure a few executives have been drooling over the idea of pushing targeted ads into the homes, and being able to "remind" customers to restock particular items.  From what I've seen, most grocery store items are not RFID tagged quite yet, but I'm sure they will be soon enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I honestly would n't be surprised if home appliances were subsidized pretty soon .
I know it 's a joke for now , but I 'm sure a few executives have been drooling over the idea of pushing targeted ads into the homes , and being able to " remind " customers to restock particular items .
From what I 've seen , most grocery store items are not RFID tagged quite yet , but I 'm sure they will be soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if home appliances were subsidized pretty soon.
I know it's a joke for now, but I'm sure a few executives have been drooling over the idea of pushing targeted ads into the homes, and being able to "remind" customers to restock particular items.
From what I've seen, most grocery store items are not RFID tagged quite yet, but I'm sure they will be soon enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637376</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>pwthoma</author>
	<datestamp>1262538540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are several issues with that.</p><p>1) The CPEs (DSL/Cable Modems) that most service providers don't support IPv6.  No major ISP will force the firmware upgrade of millions of CPE just to enable IPv6.  Even then who knows what all the folks home network uses (wireless, OS versions, etc).  Imagine the calls to the helpdesk.</p><p>2) Most of the DSLAMs in the DSL market aren't IP aware.  Those cost more than the ones doing simple ATM VP/VC mapping or ATM&gt;Ethernet (dot1q / QinQ) conversion.  That offering will need to roll up to the BRAS which probably won't be able to support that many NAT translations as the big boys terminate 100k+ sessions.  I can't speak for CMTS stuff.</p><p>3) The big boys customer is no longer the subscriber but it's actually wall street.  That's who they care about making happy.  So imagine the opportunity they have once they figure out a way to NAT all their non premium subscribers.  That's another $5 a month for anyone that needs a public *dynamic* ip address.  Then another $10 on top of that for a public static IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are several issues with that.1 ) The CPEs ( DSL/Cable Modems ) that most service providers do n't support IPv6 .
No major ISP will force the firmware upgrade of millions of CPE just to enable IPv6 .
Even then who knows what all the folks home network uses ( wireless , OS versions , etc ) .
Imagine the calls to the helpdesk.2 ) Most of the DSLAMs in the DSL market are n't IP aware .
Those cost more than the ones doing simple ATM VP/VC mapping or ATM &gt; Ethernet ( dot1q / QinQ ) conversion .
That offering will need to roll up to the BRAS which probably wo n't be able to support that many NAT translations as the big boys terminate 100k + sessions .
I ca n't speak for CMTS stuff.3 ) The big boys customer is no longer the subscriber but it 's actually wall street .
That 's who they care about making happy .
So imagine the opportunity they have once they figure out a way to NAT all their non premium subscribers .
That 's another $ 5 a month for anyone that needs a public * dynamic * ip address .
Then another $ 10 on top of that for a public static IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are several issues with that.1) The CPEs (DSL/Cable Modems) that most service providers don't support IPv6.
No major ISP will force the firmware upgrade of millions of CPE just to enable IPv6.
Even then who knows what all the folks home network uses (wireless, OS versions, etc).
Imagine the calls to the helpdesk.2) Most of the DSLAMs in the DSL market aren't IP aware.
Those cost more than the ones doing simple ATM VP/VC mapping or ATM&gt;Ethernet (dot1q / QinQ) conversion.
That offering will need to roll up to the BRAS which probably won't be able to support that many NAT translations as the big boys terminate 100k+ sessions.
I can't speak for CMTS stuff.3) The big boys customer is no longer the subscriber but it's actually wall street.
That's who they care about making happy.
So imagine the opportunity they have once they figure out a way to NAT all their non premium subscribers.
That's another $5 a month for anyone that needs a public *dynamic* ip address.
Then another $10 on top of that for a public static IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639392</id>
	<title>Re:Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262610900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes.</p></div><p>If this were wikipedia, that would be tagged with 'weasel words' and 'citation needed'.  As it's Slashdot, can you point to someone who actually argues this rationally?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Its basically unusable with mobile networks (WiMax, WiFi, etc).</p></div><p>Absolute nonsense.  Mobile IPv6 uses the fact that IPv6 requires IPSec support to allow the routing tables to be updated dynamically by the device (once you've been assigned an IP address, you can push routing table updates for that IP when you hop to a different network) which eliminates the triangle routing that Mobile IPv4 needs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> It significantly increases the cost of routers, switches, etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path. i.e., by trapping to the control CPU.</p></div><p>Again, nonsense.  The sparse nature of IPv6 allocation means that it you need to inspect fewer bits in each packet to route it than with IPv4.  Mobile IPv6 is an exception to this in some cases, but only if a host has moved a long way away from where it started without dropping connections (e.g. if you move from China to the UK overland keeping connections active).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes.If this were wikipedia , that would be tagged with 'weasel words ' and 'citation needed' .
As it 's Slashdot , can you point to someone who actually argues this rationally ?
Its basically unusable with mobile networks ( WiMax , WiFi , etc ) .Absolute nonsense .
Mobile IPv6 uses the fact that IPv6 requires IPSec support to allow the routing tables to be updated dynamically by the device ( once you 've been assigned an IP address , you can push routing table updates for that IP when you hop to a different network ) which eliminates the triangle routing that Mobile IPv4 needs .
It significantly increases the cost of routers , switches , etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path .
i.e. , by trapping to the control CPU.Again , nonsense .
The sparse nature of IPv6 allocation means that it you need to inspect fewer bits in each packet to route it than with IPv4 .
Mobile IPv6 is an exception to this in some cases , but only if a host has moved a long way away from where it started without dropping connections ( e.g .
if you move from China to the UK overland keeping connections active ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> IPv6 is considered a to be a broken ill-designed protocol that screws up more than it fixes.If this were wikipedia, that would be tagged with 'weasel words' and 'citation needed'.
As it's Slashdot, can you point to someone who actually argues this rationally?
Its basically unusable with mobile networks (WiMax, WiFi, etc).Absolute nonsense.
Mobile IPv6 uses the fact that IPv6 requires IPSec support to allow the routing tables to be updated dynamically by the device (once you've been assigned an IP address, you can push routing table updates for that IP when you hop to a different network) which eliminates the triangle routing that Mobile IPv4 needs.
It significantly increases the cost of routers, switches, etc--the exceptions being those hardware that treat IPv6 in the slow-path.
i.e., by trapping to the control CPU.Again, nonsense.
The sparse nature of IPv6 allocation means that it you need to inspect fewer bits in each packet to route it than with IPv4.
Mobile IPv6 is an exception to this in some cases, but only if a host has moved a long way away from where it started without dropping connections (e.g.
if you move from China to the UK overland keeping connections active).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637690</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262542320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the 80's, my science textbook said scientists said oil would run out in 20 years, coal in 40 years...  guess what, we haven't run out yet.</p><p>Not sure whether I'll prove your point or disprove it.</p><p>Have a nice day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the 80 's , my science textbook said scientists said oil would run out in 20 years , coal in 40 years... guess what , we have n't run out yet.Not sure whether I 'll prove your point or disprove it.Have a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the 80's, my science textbook said scientists said oil would run out in 20 years, coal in 40 years...  guess what, we haven't run out yet.Not sure whether I'll prove your point or disprove it.Have a nice day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637902</id>
	<title>Re:How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262545740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet it would be much easier to do something sane and move the reserved class E block (1/16 of the total internet address space ~262m addresses) into the avaliable address pool.</p><p>The IETF in their infinite wisdom decided now of all times its better to release it into the reserved private network space.</p><p>I know this may reflect poorly on me but I just fricking hate IPv6... God 128-bit addresses...?? really? why? (IETF chorous: Autoconfiguration, route complexity)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We have DHCP, noone is interested in having their MAC be part of their internet routable IP thank you very much.  And you morons fragmentation over time in an unconstrained space will only increase routing table sizes in the DFZ **NOT REDUCE IT**  It does not take simulation or a statistical genius to point out the obvious.</p><p>Just two fricking extra bytes (source + destination pairs) in the IPv4 header or maybe zero if you take out the packet option crap would have solved the problem for all of time here on earth and last I checked IPv4 even has a fricking version field in the header specifically just for this sort of thing.</p><p>All we needed to do was increment version add two extra bytes and deploy systems with support for it.  No dual stacking and exotic addressing nonsense.  Sure it is still an unimaginably massive undertaking to support just a single extra octets throughout but at least it would be deployed in the operating systems and basic network access software (browsers) allowing at least partial communication on the expanded network space rather than the current all or nothing approach... Just the idea of redoing addressing from scratch without at least inheriting the current network topology as a subset of the larger space is moronic to say the least.</p><p>Attn IETF...the best way to waste years of ones life working on a protocol and have noone care about it is:</p><p>1. That it be a disruptive change<br>2. Provide little or no benefit over what is already deployed<br>3. Solve academic problems rather than real issues existing here on earth</p><p>Take your AAAA:BBBB:CCCC:DDDD:EEEE:FFFF:1111:2222 and shove it!!  I'm pissed and I have a right to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet it would be much easier to do something sane and move the reserved class E block ( 1/16 of the total internet address space ~ 262m addresses ) into the avaliable address pool.The IETF in their infinite wisdom decided now of all times its better to release it into the reserved private network space.I know this may reflect poorly on me but I just fricking hate IPv6... God 128-bit addresses... ? ?
really ? why ?
( IETF chorous : Autoconfiguration , route complexity ) ... We have DHCP , noone is interested in having their MAC be part of their internet routable IP thank you very much .
And you morons fragmentation over time in an unconstrained space will only increase routing table sizes in the DFZ * * NOT REDUCE IT * * It does not take simulation or a statistical genius to point out the obvious.Just two fricking extra bytes ( source + destination pairs ) in the IPv4 header or maybe zero if you take out the packet option crap would have solved the problem for all of time here on earth and last I checked IPv4 even has a fricking version field in the header specifically just for this sort of thing.All we needed to do was increment version add two extra bytes and deploy systems with support for it .
No dual stacking and exotic addressing nonsense .
Sure it is still an unimaginably massive undertaking to support just a single extra octets throughout but at least it would be deployed in the operating systems and basic network access software ( browsers ) allowing at least partial communication on the expanded network space rather than the current all or nothing approach... Just the idea of redoing addressing from scratch without at least inheriting the current network topology as a subset of the larger space is moronic to say the least.Attn IETF...the best way to waste years of ones life working on a protocol and have noone care about it is : 1 .
That it be a disruptive change2 .
Provide little or no benefit over what is already deployed3 .
Solve academic problems rather than real issues existing here on earthTake your AAAA : BBBB : CCCC : DDDD : EEEE : FFFF : 1111 : 2222 and shove it ! !
I 'm pissed and I have a right to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet it would be much easier to do something sane and move the reserved class E block (1/16 of the total internet address space ~262m addresses) into the avaliable address pool.The IETF in their infinite wisdom decided now of all times its better to release it into the reserved private network space.I know this may reflect poorly on me but I just fricking hate IPv6... God 128-bit addresses...??
really? why?
(IETF chorous: Autoconfiguration, route complexity) ... We have DHCP, noone is interested in having their MAC be part of their internet routable IP thank you very much.
And you morons fragmentation over time in an unconstrained space will only increase routing table sizes in the DFZ **NOT REDUCE IT**  It does not take simulation or a statistical genius to point out the obvious.Just two fricking extra bytes (source + destination pairs) in the IPv4 header or maybe zero if you take out the packet option crap would have solved the problem for all of time here on earth and last I checked IPv4 even has a fricking version field in the header specifically just for this sort of thing.All we needed to do was increment version add two extra bytes and deploy systems with support for it.
No dual stacking and exotic addressing nonsense.
Sure it is still an unimaginably massive undertaking to support just a single extra octets throughout but at least it would be deployed in the operating systems and basic network access software (browsers) allowing at least partial communication on the expanded network space rather than the current all or nothing approach... Just the idea of redoing addressing from scratch without at least inheriting the current network topology as a subset of the larger space is moronic to say the least.Attn IETF...the best way to waste years of ones life working on a protocol and have noone care about it is:1.
That it be a disruptive change2.
Provide little or no benefit over what is already deployed3.
Solve academic problems rather than real issues existing here on earthTake your AAAA:BBBB:CCCC:DDDD:EEEE:FFFF:1111:2222 and shove it!!
I'm pissed and I have a right to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642388</id>
	<title>IPv4.2</title>
	<author>binkzz</author>
	<datestamp>1262627280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not switch to IPv4.2?<br> <br>

i.e.: 9999.9999.9999.9999 instead of 9999.9999.9999.9999.9999.9999 or 255.255.255.255.<br> <br>

We'd have 9996000599960001 addresses, or 2327375 times as many as we do now, and the current addresses would still be valid and usable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not switch to IPv4.2 ?
i.e. : 9999.9999.9999.9999 instead of 9999.9999.9999.9999.9999.9999 or 255.255.255.255 .
We 'd have 9996000599960001 addresses , or 2327375 times as many as we do now , and the current addresses would still be valid and usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not switch to IPv4.2?
i.e.: 9999.9999.9999.9999 instead of 9999.9999.9999.9999.9999.9999 or 255.255.255.255.
We'd have 9996000599960001 addresses, or 2327375 times as many as we do now, and the current addresses would still be valid and usable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637106</id>
	<title>Don't kill USPS yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262535840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you thought only the USPS could deliver to the wrong address!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you thought only the USPS could deliver to the wrong address !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you thought only the USPS could deliver to the wrong address!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30651110</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all the hype about IPv6 here in Japan, what you describe is exactly what most providers here implement: they just assign customers private IP addresses and NAT them to a small pool of globally-routeable IPs.  Like your experience in SF, I have yet to find a consumer-grade provider in Tokyo that supports non-tunneled IPv6...and Japan is a lot shorter on IPs than the U.S. is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the hype about IPv6 here in Japan , what you describe is exactly what most providers here implement : they just assign customers private IP addresses and NAT them to a small pool of globally-routeable IPs .
Like your experience in SF , I have yet to find a consumer-grade provider in Tokyo that supports non-tunneled IPv6...and Japan is a lot shorter on IPs than the U.S. is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the hype about IPv6 here in Japan, what you describe is exactly what most providers here implement: they just assign customers private IP addresses and NAT them to a small pool of globally-routeable IPs.
Like your experience in SF, I have yet to find a consumer-grade provider in Tokyo that supports non-tunneled IPv6...and Japan is a lot shorter on IPs than the U.S. is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636226</id>
	<title>Re:No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1262527320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, that just tells that all of this "we are running out of ip addresses!" is just nonsense still, especially if ISP's are able to give 32 public ip's to a single home customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , that just tells that all of this " we are running out of ip addresses !
" is just nonsense still , especially if ISP 's are able to give 32 public ip 's to a single home customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, that just tells that all of this "we are running out of ip addresses!
" is just nonsense still, especially if ISP's are able to give 32 public ip's to a single home customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635862</id>
	<title>Re:How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>Chang</author>
	<datestamp>1262524980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are consuming a little more than a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 every month and if every single<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 was reclaimed from a corporation that was assigned prior to 1995 how much extra time would that buy us?</p><p>How many years and millions would be spent getting them to renumber or forcing them to renumber through some sort of legal process?</p><p>How long is it going to take to transition to IPv6 - probably 10 years or more.</p><p>Where is the time and money better spent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are consuming a little more than a /8 every month and if every single /8 was reclaimed from a corporation that was assigned prior to 1995 how much extra time would that buy us ? How many years and millions would be spent getting them to renumber or forcing them to renumber through some sort of legal process ? How long is it going to take to transition to IPv6 - probably 10 years or more.Where is the time and money better spent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are consuming a little more than a /8 every month and if every single /8 was reclaimed from a corporation that was assigned prior to 1995 how much extra time would that buy us?How many years and millions would be spent getting them to renumber or forcing them to renumber through some sort of legal process?How long is it going to take to transition to IPv6 - probably 10 years or more.Where is the time and money better spent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642364</id>
	<title>Re:So, how many applications break?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262627220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot, as the IPv6 spec is not equivalent to the IPv4 spec, it just has a lot more addresses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot , as the IPv6 spec is not equivalent to the IPv4 spec , it just has a lot more addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot, as the IPv6 spec is not equivalent to the IPv4 spec, it just has a lot more addresses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635766</id>
	<title>No need to panic.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1262524140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]...</p></div><p>Ah, that's OK.  I hear he's still got Al Gores number.  Hell, they're practically Nobel Prize bosom buddies now.  Al should have an answer.  After all, he invented this whole thing, right?  You know, kind of like how he invented Global Warming?</p><p>Ah, nothing like a hot cup of sarcasm with a touch of irony to keep warm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...So it 's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House , we 'll be out of IPv4 address [ es ] ...Ah , that 's OK. I hear he 's still got Al Gores number .
Hell , they 're practically Nobel Prize bosom buddies now .
Al should have an answer .
After all , he invented this whole thing , right ?
You know , kind of like how he invented Global Warming ? Ah , nothing like a hot cup of sarcasm with a touch of irony to keep warm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]...Ah, that's OK.  I hear he's still got Al Gores number.
Hell, they're practically Nobel Prize bosom buddies now.
Al should have an answer.
After all, he invented this whole thing, right?
You know, kind of like how he invented Global Warming?Ah, nothing like a hot cup of sarcasm with a touch of irony to keep warm...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636926</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262533800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked at the predictions from 2000 and from more recently and the estimated dates of exhaustion have been the same within a few months of each other the entire time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at the predictions from 2000 and from more recently and the estimated dates of exhaustion have been the same within a few months of each other the entire time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked at the predictions from 2000 and from more recently and the estimated dates of exhaustion have been the same within a few months of each other the entire time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635974</id>
	<title>So act now!  Operators are standing by...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262525700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the headline, I didn't even have to RTFS.</p><p><i>For a limited time only, you can now purchase a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net address and get Internet sanctioned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.biz and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tv addresses ABSOLUTELY FREE...!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the headline , I did n't even have to RTFS.For a limited time only , you can now purchase a .net address and get Internet sanctioned .biz and .tv addresses ABSOLUTELY FREE... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the headline, I didn't even have to RTFS.For a limited time only, you can now purchase a .net address and get Internet sanctioned .biz and .tv addresses ABSOLUTELY FREE...!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638114</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262548560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhhh the 'doomsday' prediction isn't changing though. You can't 'cry wolf' by saying the wolf is an hour out, 10mins away, at the door. That's not crying wolf at all, it is being insistent. <br> <br>Hell, I remember back in 2000 the fear was that we'd be having big address problems by 2010~2015 if IPv6 wasn't taken up. So... there isn't a ton of revision going on here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh the 'doomsday ' prediction is n't changing though .
You ca n't 'cry wolf ' by saying the wolf is an hour out , 10mins away , at the door .
That 's not crying wolf at all , it is being insistent .
Hell , I remember back in 2000 the fear was that we 'd be having big address problems by 2010 ~ 2015 if IPv6 was n't taken up .
So... there is n't a ton of revision going on here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh the 'doomsday' prediction isn't changing though.
You can't 'cry wolf' by saying the wolf is an hour out, 10mins away, at the door.
That's not crying wolf at all, it is being insistent.
Hell, I remember back in 2000 the fear was that we'd be having big address problems by 2010~2015 if IPv6 wasn't taken up.
So... there isn't a ton of revision going on here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636284</id>
	<title>Workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262527680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es]. (Even if he doesn't get re-elected.)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So if we change the Constitution to extend the President's term of office to eternity, we'll be OK?  No election, no problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House , we 'll be out of IPv4 address [ es ] .
( Even if he does n't get re-elected .
) So if we change the Constitution to extend the President 's term of office to eternity , we 'll be OK ?
No election , no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address[es].
(Even if he doesn't get re-elected.
)

So if we change the Constitution to extend the President's term of office to eternity, we'll be OK?
No election, no problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639194</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we won't run out, because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available, and as ipv6 uptake accelerates, ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate, and it will stop just shy of actually running out.</p></div><p>That's not true. Because IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible, you'll still need an IPv4 address to talk to IPv4-only servers. IPv4 address usage will only start to decline <em>after</em> this transition period. This transition period (dual-stack operation) was planned to start about ten years ago, so I wouldn't count on IPv4 address usage declining until after 2015.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we wo n't run out , because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available , and as ipv6 uptake accelerates , ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate , and it will stop just shy of actually running out.That 's not true .
Because IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible , you 'll still need an IPv4 address to talk to IPv4-only servers .
IPv4 address usage will only start to decline after this transition period .
This transition period ( dual-stack operation ) was planned to start about ten years ago , so I would n't count on IPv4 address usage declining until after 2015 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we won't run out, because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available, and as ipv6 uptake accelerates, ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate, and it will stop just shy of actually running out.That's not true.
Because IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible, you'll still need an IPv4 address to talk to IPv4-only servers.
IPv4 address usage will only start to decline after this transition period.
This transition period (dual-stack operation) was planned to start about ten years ago, so I wouldn't count on IPv4 address usage declining until after 2015.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636992</id>
	<title>sonic.net</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262534640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They offer IPv6. It's tunneled as far as I can tell, but it's tunneled within their own network so it works well.</p><p>sonic.net is the best, you just can't get fast service from them in most places. Lucky for you one of the places you can get it is downtown San Francisco.</p><p><a href="http://sonic.net/features/ipv6/" title="sonic.net">http://sonic.net/features/ipv6/</a> [sonic.net]</p><p>It'd be better if they supported native IPv6, but then again my home router doesn't support native IPv6 either (but it does support tunneling).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They offer IPv6 .
It 's tunneled as far as I can tell , but it 's tunneled within their own network so it works well.sonic.net is the best , you just ca n't get fast service from them in most places .
Lucky for you one of the places you can get it is downtown San Francisco.http : //sonic.net/features/ipv6/ [ sonic.net ] It 'd be better if they supported native IPv6 , but then again my home router does n't support native IPv6 either ( but it does support tunneling ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They offer IPv6.
It's tunneled as far as I can tell, but it's tunneled within their own network so it works well.sonic.net is the best, you just can't get fast service from them in most places.
Lucky for you one of the places you can get it is downtown San Francisco.http://sonic.net/features/ipv6/ [sonic.net]It'd be better if they supported native IPv6, but then again my home router doesn't support native IPv6 either (but it does support tunneling).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635978</id>
	<title>Re:Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262525700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the article (which I haven't read yet BTW) all those<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8's listed total what, 18 months worth of addresses? And the legal battles to get them will take how long?<p>T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article ( which I have n't read yet BTW ) all those /8 's listed total what , 18 months worth of addresses ?
And the legal battles to get them will take how long ? T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article (which I haven't read yet BTW) all those /8's listed total what, 18 months worth of addresses?
And the legal battles to get them will take how long?T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635896</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Cmdr-Absurd</author>
	<datestamp>1262525160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Commercial fusion power will be a reality in 20 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial fusion power will be a reality in 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial fusion power will be a reality in 20 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636712</id>
	<title>Re:Ah but...!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262532060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself, 127.0.0.1</i></p><p>I took a look at your website.</p><p>I have to say, it looks excellent. But then again it looks a lot like mine, so I'm probably biased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself , 127.0.0.1I took a look at your website.I have to say , it looks excellent .
But then again it looks a lot like mine , so I 'm probably biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah but nobody will take away the IPv4 address I got myself, 127.0.0.1I took a look at your website.I have to say, it looks excellent.
But then again it looks a lot like mine, so I'm probably biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637596</id>
	<title>Re:We've been hearing this for a while</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1262540820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings. </i></p><p>I blame this on the "last mover" attitude, where companies won't do something until they see the competition doing something. For the average user it won't happen until the ISPs or companies get themselves in gear and for a majority of these it won't be until the backbone is IPv6 enabled - in other words they won't do it until it is convenient. It takes a company interesting in leading the pack to do something before we see everyone scrambling to make up for lost time.</p><p>I am using 6to4 on my Apple Airport Extreme and all of the time I find myself connecting to gateways in Europe, even though I am in Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been hearing this for quite a while , and for some odd reason IPv6 is n't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings .
I blame this on the " last mover " attitude , where companies wo n't do something until they see the competition doing something .
For the average user it wo n't happen until the ISPs or companies get themselves in gear and for a majority of these it wo n't be until the backbone is IPv6 enabled - in other words they wo n't do it until it is convenient .
It takes a company interesting in leading the pack to do something before we see everyone scrambling to make up for lost time.I am using 6to4 on my Apple Airport Extreme and all of the time I find myself connecting to gateways in Europe , even though I am in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.
I blame this on the "last mover" attitude, where companies won't do something until they see the competition doing something.
For the average user it won't happen until the ISPs or companies get themselves in gear and for a majority of these it won't be until the backbone is IPv6 enabled - in other words they won't do it until it is convenient.
It takes a company interesting in leading the pack to do something before we see everyone scrambling to make up for lost time.I am using 6to4 on my Apple Airport Extreme and all of the time I find myself connecting to gateways in Europe, even though I am in Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</id>
	<title>Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses...</title>
	<author>jimpop</author>
	<datestamp>1262526060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses</i></p><p>They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a Few More Years ' Worth of IPv4 AddressesThey ( vested interest groups ) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what , we have n't run out yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 AddressesThey (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635740</id>
	<title>Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262524020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument?  Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the " NAT will save us " argument ?
Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off , IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument?
Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635930</id>
	<title>Here's what's going to happen...</title>
	<author>WebManWalking</author>
	<datestamp>1262525400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... We'll run out. People won't be able to get new IP addresses. Entrepreneurs will see a market to sell IPv6 addresses. We'll have IPv6 addresses. <br>
<br>
Some entrepreneurs will start earlier than others, and they'll have an edge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... We 'll run out .
People wo n't be able to get new IP addresses .
Entrepreneurs will see a market to sell IPv6 addresses .
We 'll have IPv6 addresses .
Some entrepreneurs will start earlier than others , and they 'll have an edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... We'll run out.
People won't be able to get new IP addresses.
Entrepreneurs will see a market to sell IPv6 addresses.
We'll have IPv6 addresses.
Some entrepreneurs will start earlier than others, and they'll have an edge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637398</id>
	<title>Re:idea: switch to alphanumeric</title>
	<author>iphayd</author>
	<datestamp>1262538720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, you don't understand what the octets are, do you?</p><p>11000000.10101000.00000000.00000001. Now convert these into four base10 numbers. What do you end up with?</p><p>192.168.0.1</p><p>Now, if you convert to "alphanumeric" (I think you mean ascii) \_every\_ letter and number gets eight bits.<br>0011000101101000 0011001001110100 0111100101101010 0011010100110110 0110101000110000<br>
&nbsp; 0110000101110011</p><p>Or, padding this with another two octet pairs of zeroes...</p><p>3274:796A:3536:6A30:6173::</p><p>And then you don't have to worry about those unwritable ascii codes either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , you do n't understand what the octets are , do you ? 11000000.10101000.00000000.00000001 .
Now convert these into four base10 numbers .
What do you end up with ? 192.168.0.1Now , if you convert to " alphanumeric " ( I think you mean ascii ) \ _every \ _ letter and number gets eight bits.0011000101101000 0011001001110100 0111100101101010 0011010100110110 0110101000110000   0110000101110011Or , padding this with another two octet pairs of zeroes...3274 : 796A : 3536 : 6A30 : 6173 : : And then you do n't have to worry about those unwritable ascii codes either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, you don't understand what the octets are, do you?11000000.10101000.00000000.00000001.
Now convert these into four base10 numbers.
What do you end up with?192.168.0.1Now, if you convert to "alphanumeric" (I think you mean ascii) \_every\_ letter and number gets eight bits.0011000101101000 0011001001110100 0111100101101010 0011010100110110 0110101000110000
  0110000101110011Or, padding this with another two octet pairs of zeroes...3274:796A:3536:6A30:6173::And then you don't have to worry about those unwritable ascii codes either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30648008</id>
	<title>Re:On the other hand...</title>
	<author>neokushan</author>
	<datestamp>1262607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For that to be the case, there has to be an actual uptake of IPv6. I live in the UK and I don't know of a single residential provider that's offering IPv6 to anyone and nobody seems to have plans to, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For that to be the case , there has to be an actual uptake of IPv6 .
I live in the UK and I do n't know of a single residential provider that 's offering IPv6 to anyone and nobody seems to have plans to , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that to be the case, there has to be an actual uptake of IPv6.
I live in the UK and I don't know of a single residential provider that's offering IPv6 to anyone and nobody seems to have plans to, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639782</id>
	<title>NAT Hater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I Hate NAT</p><p>I not only buy the service of internet client , I buy the service of internet server too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Hate NATI not only buy the service of internet client , I buy the service of internet server too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Hate NATI not only buy the service of internet client , I buy the service of internet server too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636308</id>
	<title>Re:Ah but...!</title>
	<author>Teancum</author>
	<datestamp>1262527920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was more worried about my own private<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 block:</p><p>10.0.0.0</p><p>Of course I could still settle with simply</p><p>192.168.0.0</p><p>I've used both plenty of times.</p><p>I am curious.... how did you know the address to my web server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was more worried about my own private /8 block : 10.0.0.0Of course I could still settle with simply192.168.0.0I 've used both plenty of times.I am curious.... how did you know the address to my web server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was more worried about my own private /8 block:10.0.0.0Of course I could still settle with simply192.168.0.0I've used both plenty of times.I am curious.... how did you know the address to my web server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</id>
	<title>Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262525340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in one of the most tech-focused parts of the country (downtown San Francisco) and as far as I can tell there's no way for a normal consumer to order native (i.e. not tunneled) IPv6 here.</p><p>When I moved to my current apartment in 2004 I specifically went with Speakeasy because they were talking about rolling out IPv6 to customers. Over 5 years later, those plans are still stalled as far as I can tell.  None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.  If I'm wrong, someone please correct me - I'd love to switch to an IPv6-capable provider.</p><p>I've pretty much concluded that IPv6 just isn't going to happen -- instead providers will just force all of us normal people into shared IP addresses.  From a technical perspective this isn't hard to do: just move the software that's currently running in your home NAT router onto the DSLAM and only provide a NATed view.  For the ISPs there's no downside to this since not only can they avoid rolling out IPv6, it means they have complete control of your network connection.</p><p>I bet in 10 years we still won't have IPv6 in our homes, and the idea of having your own IP address (even a dynamically allocated one) will just be a memory.  It's a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in one of the most tech-focused parts of the country ( downtown San Francisco ) and as far as I can tell there 's no way for a normal consumer to order native ( i.e .
not tunneled ) IPv6 here.When I moved to my current apartment in 2004 I specifically went with Speakeasy because they were talking about rolling out IPv6 to customers .
Over 5 years later , those plans are still stalled as far as I can tell .
None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it .
If I 'm wrong , someone please correct me - I 'd love to switch to an IPv6-capable provider.I 've pretty much concluded that IPv6 just is n't going to happen -- instead providers will just force all of us normal people into shared IP addresses .
From a technical perspective this is n't hard to do : just move the software that 's currently running in your home NAT router onto the DSLAM and only provide a NATed view .
For the ISPs there 's no downside to this since not only can they avoid rolling out IPv6 , it means they have complete control of your network connection.I bet in 10 years we still wo n't have IPv6 in our homes , and the idea of having your own IP address ( even a dynamically allocated one ) will just be a memory .
It 's a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in one of the most tech-focused parts of the country (downtown San Francisco) and as far as I can tell there's no way for a normal consumer to order native (i.e.
not tunneled) IPv6 here.When I moved to my current apartment in 2004 I specifically went with Speakeasy because they were talking about rolling out IPv6 to customers.
Over 5 years later, those plans are still stalled as far as I can tell.
None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.
If I'm wrong, someone please correct me - I'd love to switch to an IPv6-capable provider.I've pretty much concluded that IPv6 just isn't going to happen -- instead providers will just force all of us normal people into shared IP addresses.
From a technical perspective this isn't hard to do: just move the software that's currently running in your home NAT router onto the DSLAM and only provide a NATed view.
For the ISPs there's no downside to this since not only can they avoid rolling out IPv6, it means they have complete control of your network connection.I bet in 10 years we still won't have IPv6 in our homes, and the idea of having your own IP address (even a dynamically allocated one) will just be a memory.
It's a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636320</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1262527980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; If I remember right, it's been less than a year since the last "the IP sky is falling" story here.  Even then, we were numbered in months, not years.  I know the deadline was in 2009.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I have a lot of faith in it's failure though. It'll fall apart, and we're going to all die, or at least not be able to twitter quite as much.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    If I remember right , it 's been less than a year since the last " the IP sky is falling " story here .
Even then , we were numbered in months , not years .
I know the deadline was in 2009. : ) I have a lot of faith in it 's failure though .
It 'll fall apart , and we 're going to all die , or at least not be able to twitter quite as much .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    If I remember right, it's been less than a year since the last "the IP sky is falling" story here.
Even then, we were numbered in months, not years.
I know the deadline was in 2009. :)  I have a lot of faith in it's failure though.
It'll fall apart, and we're going to all die, or at least not be able to twitter quite as much.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640832</id>
	<title>Native IPv6 connectivity, widely available</title>
	<author>xororand</author>
	<datestamp>1262621400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some users insist that there's no way for consumers to get affordable native IPv6 at home. Consider this: <a href="http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native" title="sixxs.net">http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native</a> [sixxs.net]<br>You can get native IPv6 DSL almost anywhere in Germany. I'm going to switch soon as well. Also more and more data centers provide native IPv6 at no additional cost as well because they're actually running out of IPv4 addresses already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some users insist that there 's no way for consumers to get affordable native IPv6 at home .
Consider this : http : //www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/ ? faq = native [ sixxs.net ] You can get native IPv6 DSL almost anywhere in Germany .
I 'm going to switch soon as well .
Also more and more data centers provide native IPv6 at no additional cost as well because they 're actually running out of IPv4 addresses already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some users insist that there's no way for consumers to get affordable native IPv6 at home.
Consider this: http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native [sixxs.net]You can get native IPv6 DSL almost anywhere in Germany.
I'm going to switch soon as well.
Also more and more data centers provide native IPv6 at no additional cost as well because they're actually running out of IPv4 addresses already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30669948</id>
	<title>Future may be somewhat difficult to predict</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1262795400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the word "asymptotic" absent from these recurring screamfests?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the word " asymptotic " absent from these recurring screamfests ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the word "asymptotic" absent from these recurring screamfests?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860</id>
	<title>Re:Don't say "NAT"</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1262524980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not really. There's <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/" title="iana.org" rel="nofollow">companies with whole fucking<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8</a> [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:</p><p>003/8 General Electric Company 1994-05 LEGACY<br>004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY<br>008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY   (two<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8's ?)<br>009/8 IBM 1992-08 LEGACY<br>013/8 Xerox Corporation  1991-09 LEGACY<br>015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY<br>016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY<br>017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 1992-07 LEGACY<br>019/8 Ford Motor Company  1995-05 LEGACY<br>034/8 Halliburton Company 1993-03 LEGACY<br>044/8 Amateur Radio Digital Communications   1992-07 LEGACY<br>045/8 Interop Show Network  1995-01 LEGACY<br>047/8 Bell-Northern Research 1991-01 LEGACY<br>048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 1995-05 LEGACY<br>052/8 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.   1991-12 LEGACY<br>053/8 Cap Debis CCS  1993-10 LEGACY<br>054/8 Merck and Co., Inc. 1992-03 LEGACY<br>056/8 US Postal Service  1994-06 LEGACY</p><p>Just get rid of the companies that are reserving such huge spaces without having a real reason to do so, other than that they were there to reserve them in start of 90's. Also US and UK army and defence and other ministers have several<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8, but why really? Other countries do just fine without too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really .
There 's companies with whole fucking /8 [ iana.org ] that have no real purpose to own them , but they 've just always had them : 003/8 General Electric Company 1994-05 LEGACY004/8 Level 3 Communications , Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY008/8 Level 3 Communications , Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY ( two /8 's ?
) 009/8 IBM 1992-08 LEGACY013/8 Xerox Corporation 1991-09 LEGACY015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 1992-07 LEGACY019/8 Ford Motor Company 1995-05 LEGACY034/8 Halliburton Company 1993-03 LEGACY044/8 Amateur Radio Digital Communications 1992-07 LEGACY045/8 Interop Show Network 1995-01 LEGACY047/8 Bell-Northern Research 1991-01 LEGACY048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 1995-05 LEGACY052/8 E.I .
duPont de Nemours and Co. , Inc. 1991-12 LEGACY053/8 Cap Debis CCS 1993-10 LEGACY054/8 Merck and Co. , Inc. 1992-03 LEGACY056/8 US Postal Service 1994-06 LEGACYJust get rid of the companies that are reserving such huge spaces without having a real reason to do so , other than that they were there to reserve them in start of 90 's .
Also US and UK army and defence and other ministers have several /8 , but why really ?
Other countries do just fine without too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.
There's companies with whole fucking /8 [iana.org] that have no real purpose to own them, but they've just always had them:003/8 General Electric Company 1994-05 LEGACY004/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY008/8 Level 3 Communications, Inc. 1992-12 LEGACY   (two /8's ?
)009/8 IBM 1992-08 LEGACY013/8 Xerox Corporation  1991-09 LEGACY015/8 Hewlett-Packard Company 1994-07 LEGACY016/8 Digital Equipment Corporation 1994-11 LEGACY017/8 Apple Computer Inc. 1992-07 LEGACY019/8 Ford Motor Company  1995-05 LEGACY034/8 Halliburton Company 1993-03 LEGACY044/8 Amateur Radio Digital Communications   1992-07 LEGACY045/8 Interop Show Network  1995-01 LEGACY047/8 Bell-Northern Research 1991-01 LEGACY048/8 Prudential Securities Inc. 1995-05 LEGACY052/8 E.I.
duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.   1991-12 LEGACY053/8 Cap Debis CCS  1993-10 LEGACY054/8 Merck and Co., Inc. 1992-03 LEGACY056/8 US Postal Service  1994-06 LEGACYJust get rid of the companies that are reserving such huge spaces without having a real reason to do so, other than that they were there to reserve them in start of 90's.
Also US and UK army and defence and other ministers have several /8, but why really?
Other countries do just fine without too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636438</id>
	<title>Re:No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1262529240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize I am by far an extreme case, but in a house of four, I run one server, two mythtv frontends, one networked tuner, one networked POTS ATA, one game console, three WiFi access points, one networked printer, one networked RAID card, three desktops, four laptops, three internet capable phones, and a handful of other old machines that I occasionally bring online for various uses.  That's 21 devices which could be using their own IP.  Throw in half a dozen applications I'm running on the server which each have their own IP as well, and I would nearly fill that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/27.</p><p>Now sure, a number of those devices shouldn't have internet access, and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router, but I would love to not have to.  Meanwhile, VOIP services, networked consoles, NAS boxes, networked media players, and even networking in bluray players and TVs means the number of addresses used per-person is going to skyrocket in the next few years.  This is exactly what IPv6 is supposed to allow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize I am by far an extreme case , but in a house of four , I run one server , two mythtv frontends , one networked tuner , one networked POTS ATA , one game console , three WiFi access points , one networked printer , one networked RAID card , three desktops , four laptops , three internet capable phones , and a handful of other old machines that I occasionally bring online for various uses .
That 's 21 devices which could be using their own IP .
Throw in half a dozen applications I 'm running on the server which each have their own IP as well , and I would nearly fill that /27.Now sure , a number of those devices should n't have internet access , and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router , but I would love to not have to .
Meanwhile , VOIP services , networked consoles , NAS boxes , networked media players , and even networking in bluray players and TVs means the number of addresses used per-person is going to skyrocket in the next few years .
This is exactly what IPv6 is supposed to allow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize I am by far an extreme case, but in a house of four, I run one server, two mythtv frontends, one networked tuner, one networked POTS ATA, one game console, three WiFi access points, one networked printer, one networked RAID card, three desktops, four laptops, three internet capable phones, and a handful of other old machines that I occasionally bring online for various uses.
That's 21 devices which could be using their own IP.
Throw in half a dozen applications I'm running on the server which each have their own IP as well, and I would nearly fill that /27.Now sure, a number of those devices shouldn't have internet access, and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router, but I would love to not have to.
Meanwhile, VOIP services, networked consoles, NAS boxes, networked media players, and even networking in bluray players and TVs means the number of addresses used per-person is going to skyrocket in the next few years.
This is exactly what IPv6 is supposed to allow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637646</id>
	<title>Router Advertisements</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1262541660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a good number of cases you don't even need DHCPv6. Router advertisements will do the reset. Basically the router announces the prefix it is using to the LAN and then the computers there will pair it with their own MAC address to create a unique IPv6 address. If you wish to control which computers on the subnet have access to the outside world, then just configure your firewall as necessary.</p><p>My Windows 2000 PC supported this 5 years ago and was able to connect to an IPv6 network this way.</p><p>I am not saying that router advertisements will solve all the problems, its will simply be good enough for most people.</p><p>Note there is a more recent specification for also announcing the DNS server via router advertisements too, though in most case it would probably a safe hack to assume "subnet prefix" + "::1" is the router which is also acting as DNS proxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a good number of cases you do n't even need DHCPv6 .
Router advertisements will do the reset .
Basically the router announces the prefix it is using to the LAN and then the computers there will pair it with their own MAC address to create a unique IPv6 address .
If you wish to control which computers on the subnet have access to the outside world , then just configure your firewall as necessary.My Windows 2000 PC supported this 5 years ago and was able to connect to an IPv6 network this way.I am not saying that router advertisements will solve all the problems , its will simply be good enough for most people.Note there is a more recent specification for also announcing the DNS server via router advertisements too , though in most case it would probably a safe hack to assume " subnet prefix " + " : : 1 " is the router which is also acting as DNS proxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a good number of cases you don't even need DHCPv6.
Router advertisements will do the reset.
Basically the router announces the prefix it is using to the LAN and then the computers there will pair it with their own MAC address to create a unique IPv6 address.
If you wish to control which computers on the subnet have access to the outside world, then just configure your firewall as necessary.My Windows 2000 PC supported this 5 years ago and was able to connect to an IPv6 network this way.I am not saying that router advertisements will solve all the problems, its will simply be good enough for most people.Note there is a more recent specification for also announcing the DNS server via router advertisements too, though in most case it would probably a safe hack to assume "subnet prefix" + "::1" is the router which is also acting as DNS proxy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636758</id>
	<title>Re:Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1262532420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because there isn't a good implementation of Teredo doesn't mean free software is late with IPv6 adoption. It has had IPv6 support way before anyone else and Teredo isn't even true IPv6. It uses UDP to send IPv6 packets through an IPv4 network.</p><p>Lastly what's stopping you from writing the implementation yourself? You seem interested in the subject, patches are welcome more then complaining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there is n't a good implementation of Teredo does n't mean free software is late with IPv6 adoption .
It has had IPv6 support way before anyone else and Teredo is n't even true IPv6 .
It uses UDP to send IPv6 packets through an IPv4 network.Lastly what 's stopping you from writing the implementation yourself ?
You seem interested in the subject , patches are welcome more then complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there isn't a good implementation of Teredo doesn't mean free software is late with IPv6 adoption.
It has had IPv6 support way before anyone else and Teredo isn't even true IPv6.
It uses UDP to send IPv6 packets through an IPv4 network.Lastly what's stopping you from writing the implementation yourself?
You seem interested in the subject, patches are welcome more then complaining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954</id>
	<title>But why?</title>
	<author>dn15</author>
	<datestamp>1262534160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just an academic question at this point, but why are all these new addresses neeeded?</p><p>Yes, I know NAT isn't a real solution for a shortage of addresses. But really, the vast majority of Internet-connected devices don't need a public address.</p><p>Home Internet connections, cell phones, etc. have no need for public addresses. Which begs the question, are these companies just being selfish in requesting so many more? I don't see any real legitimate need. And if this is the case, why are they still actually being given more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just an academic question at this point , but why are all these new addresses neeeded ? Yes , I know NAT is n't a real solution for a shortage of addresses .
But really , the vast majority of Internet-connected devices do n't need a public address.Home Internet connections , cell phones , etc .
have no need for public addresses .
Which begs the question , are these companies just being selfish in requesting so many more ?
I do n't see any real legitimate need .
And if this is the case , why are they still actually being given more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just an academic question at this point, but why are all these new addresses neeeded?Yes, I know NAT isn't a real solution for a shortage of addresses.
But really, the vast majority of Internet-connected devices don't need a public address.Home Internet connections, cell phones, etc.
have no need for public addresses.
Which begs the question, are these companies just being selfish in requesting so many more?
I don't see any real legitimate need.
And if this is the case, why are they still actually being given more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637544</id>
	<title>Re:No, that's propaganda</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1262540340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this rate until North America finally decides to gets on board IPv6, there will be the great wall of North America. That is while everyone else in the world is already using IPv6, North America will still be claiming that there is no IPv4 exhaustion issue, only to finally realise why they could no longer ping non North America servers. Its a rather cynical point of view, but based on what I am seeing we could find ourselves to some degree in that scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this rate until North America finally decides to gets on board IPv6 , there will be the great wall of North America .
That is while everyone else in the world is already using IPv6 , North America will still be claiming that there is no IPv4 exhaustion issue , only to finally realise why they could no longer ping non North America servers .
Its a rather cynical point of view , but based on what I am seeing we could find ourselves to some degree in that scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this rate until North America finally decides to gets on board IPv6, there will be the great wall of North America.
That is while everyone else in the world is already using IPv6, North America will still be claiming that there is no IPv4 exhaustion issue, only to finally realise why they could no longer ping non North America servers.
Its a rather cynical point of view, but based on what I am seeing we could find ourselves to some degree in that scenario.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30644482</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1262636160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And with software for MSN, which was supposed to be Microsoft's AOL killer. But the web had already rendered the "online service" concept obsolete.</p><p>Microsoft had anticipated the growth of the Internet just fine. Their mistake was believing that the web was just a passing fad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And with software for MSN , which was supposed to be Microsoft 's AOL killer .
But the web had already rendered the " online service " concept obsolete.Microsoft had anticipated the growth of the Internet just fine .
Their mistake was believing that the web was just a passing fad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with software for MSN, which was supposed to be Microsoft's AOL killer.
But the web had already rendered the "online service" concept obsolete.Microsoft had anticipated the growth of the Internet just fine.
Their mistake was believing that the web was just a passing fad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30647328</id>
	<title>A traditional indian saying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only after the last domain registration has been given, Only after the last DNS has been poisoned, Only after the IPv4 router has been sold, Only then will you find that no more IPv4 addresses cannot be consumed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only after the last domain registration has been given , Only after the last DNS has been poisoned , Only after the IPv4 router has been sold , Only then will you find that no more IPv4 addresses can not be consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only after the last domain registration has been given, Only after the last DNS has been poisoned, Only after the IPv4 router has been sold, Only then will you find that no more IPv4 addresses cannot be consumed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636018</id>
	<title>Refrigerator ....</title>
	<author>Mansing</author>
	<datestamp>1262526060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... can't get a DHCP address<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Film at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... ca n't get a DHCP address .... Film at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... can't get a DHCP address .... Film at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638528</id>
	<title>so rare now that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>last year my work bought 8,000 IP addresses at a dollar each<br>we ended up not doing anything with them so it's back in the pool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>last year my work bought 8,000 IP addresses at a dollar eachwe ended up not doing anything with them so it 's back in the pool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>last year my work bought 8,000 IP addresses at a dollar eachwe ended up not doing anything with them so it's back in the pool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636072</id>
	<title>Re:Ah but...!</title>
	<author>t0y</author>
	<datestamp>1262526300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8... The address fairy will soon revoke it from you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a /8... The address fairy will soon revoke it from you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a /8... The address fairy will soon revoke it from you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638888</id>
	<title>The first and foremost issue:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>$ host -t AAAA google.com<br>google.com has no AAAA record</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ host -t AAAA google.comgoogle.com has no AAAA record</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$ host -t AAAA google.comgoogle.com has no AAAA record</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636494</id>
	<title>Demand IPv6 and it will come</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262529780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most, if not all of the major backbones are all IPv6 ready - it's the last mile (once again) that are holding back progress. Those cheap cable / DSL modems your ISP gives you are likely not IPv6 compatible, nor are their last mile systems. They will likely resort to NATting multiple customers before spending money to upgrade to IPv6.</p><p>Call your ISP and ask them when you will be able to get a native public routable IPv6 address. Ask Linksys when their routers will be able to route IPv6. E-mail your favorite game developers and ask why their game isn't IPv6 ready (which is inexcusable these days considering there is no extra code needed for IPv6 compatibility).</p><p>The only reason IPv6 isn't already in widespread use is because there is no consumer demand yet. Think of the amount of headaches and connectivity problems NAT causes and it would all be gone with IPv6. No more messing around with port forwarding, no more rebooting shitty routers when their NAT table overflows, no more issues with symmetric NATs breaking NAT traversal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most , if not all of the major backbones are all IPv6 ready - it 's the last mile ( once again ) that are holding back progress .
Those cheap cable / DSL modems your ISP gives you are likely not IPv6 compatible , nor are their last mile systems .
They will likely resort to NATting multiple customers before spending money to upgrade to IPv6.Call your ISP and ask them when you will be able to get a native public routable IPv6 address .
Ask Linksys when their routers will be able to route IPv6 .
E-mail your favorite game developers and ask why their game is n't IPv6 ready ( which is inexcusable these days considering there is no extra code needed for IPv6 compatibility ) .The only reason IPv6 is n't already in widespread use is because there is no consumer demand yet .
Think of the amount of headaches and connectivity problems NAT causes and it would all be gone with IPv6 .
No more messing around with port forwarding , no more rebooting shitty routers when their NAT table overflows , no more issues with symmetric NATs breaking NAT traversal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most, if not all of the major backbones are all IPv6 ready - it's the last mile (once again) that are holding back progress.
Those cheap cable / DSL modems your ISP gives you are likely not IPv6 compatible, nor are their last mile systems.
They will likely resort to NATting multiple customers before spending money to upgrade to IPv6.Call your ISP and ask them when you will be able to get a native public routable IPv6 address.
Ask Linksys when their routers will be able to route IPv6.
E-mail your favorite game developers and ask why their game isn't IPv6 ready (which is inexcusable these days considering there is no extra code needed for IPv6 compatibility).The only reason IPv6 isn't already in widespread use is because there is no consumer demand yet.
Think of the amount of headaches and connectivity problems NAT causes and it would all be gone with IPv6.
No more messing around with port forwarding, no more rebooting shitty routers when their NAT table overflows, no more issues with symmetric NATs breaking NAT traversal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636792</id>
	<title>So, what can I do?</title>
	<author>philmck</author>
	<datestamp>1262532660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I currently use two IP4 static addresses - one at the webhosting company I use in the US, essential for the SSL certificate (shared between several domains, yech!) and one at my home address in the UK, not essential but losing it and using dyndns wouldn't really free up another address. Last year I asked both suppliers what plans they had for IPv6 adoption, and both replied "none". It seems to me they're leaving it a bit late, especially at the hosting end. If I think of all the places where I currently have an opportunity to input an IPv4 port number (even though it's usually just left at the default) it comes to quite a large number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently use two IP4 static addresses - one at the webhosting company I use in the US , essential for the SSL certificate ( shared between several domains , yech !
) and one at my home address in the UK , not essential but losing it and using dyndns would n't really free up another address .
Last year I asked both suppliers what plans they had for IPv6 adoption , and both replied " none " .
It seems to me they 're leaving it a bit late , especially at the hosting end .
If I think of all the places where I currently have an opportunity to input an IPv4 port number ( even though it 's usually just left at the default ) it comes to quite a large number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently use two IP4 static addresses - one at the webhosting company I use in the US, essential for the SSL certificate (shared between several domains, yech!
) and one at my home address in the UK, not essential but losing it and using dyndns wouldn't really free up another address.
Last year I asked both suppliers what plans they had for IPv6 adoption, and both replied "none".
It seems to me they're leaving it a bit late, especially at the hosting end.
If I think of all the places where I currently have an opportunity to input an IPv4 port number (even though it's usually just left at the default) it comes to quite a large number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637524</id>
	<title>Re:Ah but...!</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1262540160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer mine, 172.16.0.7</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer mine , 172.16.0.7</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer mine, 172.16.0.7</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856</id>
	<title>Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262524980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody not paying for a business line will being going through so many layers of NAT in the near future that getting bittorrent to work will be quite difficult...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody not paying for a business line will being going through so many layers of NAT in the near future that getting bittorrent to work will be quite difficult.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody not paying for a business line will being going through so many layers of NAT in the near future that getting bittorrent to work will be quite difficult...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635884</id>
	<title>Re:Ah but...!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262525160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey!   That's <b>MY</b> IP address, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
That 's MY IP address , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
That's MY IP address, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1262526960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think the current owners are hanging onto their address spaces out of pure spite? If they rely on the Internet to do business, this crisis hurts them more than anybody.</p><p>This mess happened because of the simplistic addressing schemes that were implemented without taking into account the explosive growth of the Internet. One result is that that some early adopters ended up with <a href="http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t\_IPAddressClassABandCNetworkandHostCapacities.htm" title="tcpipguide.com">Class A</a> [tcpipguide.com] networks (16 <i>million</i> addresses) because they needed more than the 64 thousand addresses in a Class B network. Only one Class A space belongs to a university (MIT). (There used to be two, but Stanford gave its IP space back.) Other owners include Halliburton, Apple, IBM, and Xerox PARC. HP has <i>two</i>, counting the one that was originally issued to DEC. DoD has <i>eight</i>.</p><p>Reassigning all these addresses would be a logistical nightmare, because you're changing the basic logic of network routing. Imagine all the routers that would have to be reprogrammed or replaced, and the expensive down time that would result. Much more cost effective  to just go to IPv6 already. Plus there are other features of IPv6 we really, really need.</p><p>Except that nobody's doing it. I used to work at Sun, where I kept suggesting that our <a href="http://www.sun.com/systemmanagement/ilom.jsp" title="sun.com">embedded lights-out management system</a> [sun.com] (all Sun servers have them) start supporting IPv6. The answer I always got was, "customers aren't asking for it." Which means that everybody is putting off this problem until the last minute. As usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think the current owners are hanging onto their address spaces out of pure spite ?
If they rely on the Internet to do business , this crisis hurts them more than anybody.This mess happened because of the simplistic addressing schemes that were implemented without taking into account the explosive growth of the Internet .
One result is that that some early adopters ended up with Class A [ tcpipguide.com ] networks ( 16 million addresses ) because they needed more than the 64 thousand addresses in a Class B network .
Only one Class A space belongs to a university ( MIT ) .
( There used to be two , but Stanford gave its IP space back .
) Other owners include Halliburton , Apple , IBM , and Xerox PARC .
HP has two , counting the one that was originally issued to DEC. DoD has eight.Reassigning all these addresses would be a logistical nightmare , because you 're changing the basic logic of network routing .
Imagine all the routers that would have to be reprogrammed or replaced , and the expensive down time that would result .
Much more cost effective to just go to IPv6 already .
Plus there are other features of IPv6 we really , really need.Except that nobody 's doing it .
I used to work at Sun , where I kept suggesting that our embedded lights-out management system [ sun.com ] ( all Sun servers have them ) start supporting IPv6 .
The answer I always got was , " customers are n't asking for it .
" Which means that everybody is putting off this problem until the last minute .
As usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think the current owners are hanging onto their address spaces out of pure spite?
If they rely on the Internet to do business, this crisis hurts them more than anybody.This mess happened because of the simplistic addressing schemes that were implemented without taking into account the explosive growth of the Internet.
One result is that that some early adopters ended up with Class A [tcpipguide.com] networks (16 million addresses) because they needed more than the 64 thousand addresses in a Class B network.
Only one Class A space belongs to a university (MIT).
(There used to be two, but Stanford gave its IP space back.
) Other owners include Halliburton, Apple, IBM, and Xerox PARC.
HP has two, counting the one that was originally issued to DEC. DoD has eight.Reassigning all these addresses would be a logistical nightmare, because you're changing the basic logic of network routing.
Imagine all the routers that would have to be reprogrammed or replaced, and the expensive down time that would result.
Much more cost effective  to just go to IPv6 already.
Plus there are other features of IPv6 we really, really need.Except that nobody's doing it.
I used to work at Sun, where I kept suggesting that our embedded lights-out management system [sun.com] (all Sun servers have them) start supporting IPv6.
The answer I always got was, "customers aren't asking for it.
" Which means that everybody is putting off this problem until the last minute.
As usual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636782</id>
	<title>This again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262532600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that IPv4 addresses will be bought and sold like any other commodity once new ones run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that IPv4 addresses will be bought and sold like any other commodity once new ones run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that IPv4 addresses will be bought and sold like any other commodity once new ones run out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572</id>
	<title>So, how many applications break?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262530440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the question is, how many applications break on the switch to ipv6?  Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6, we would have done it already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the question is , how many applications break on the switch to ipv6 ?
Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6 , we would have done it already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the question is, how many applications break on the switch to ipv6?
Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6, we would have done it already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639576</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262612880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> cell phones, etc. have no need for public addresses</p></div><p>Don't they?  They already have a public address; it's called the phone number.  When we start using all-IP networks (which LTE requires) they will need a public address for SIP to work (not necessarily a public IP address, but that makes life a lot easier).  And that's just for making calls.  What about other push services?  Why can't my laptop connect to my mobile phone whenever I edit my address book and sync the changes?  Why can't my phone run an SMTP daemon and have emails pushed to it?  My phone is currently NAT'd on the 10/8 subnet so none of these things work without ugly and unreliable hacks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cell phones , etc .
have no need for public addressesDo n't they ?
They already have a public address ; it 's called the phone number .
When we start using all-IP networks ( which LTE requires ) they will need a public address for SIP to work ( not necessarily a public IP address , but that makes life a lot easier ) .
And that 's just for making calls .
What about other push services ?
Why ca n't my laptop connect to my mobile phone whenever I edit my address book and sync the changes ?
Why ca n't my phone run an SMTP daemon and have emails pushed to it ?
My phone is currently NAT 'd on the 10/8 subnet so none of these things work without ugly and unreliable hacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> cell phones, etc.
have no need for public addressesDon't they?
They already have a public address; it's called the phone number.
When we start using all-IP networks (which LTE requires) they will need a public address for SIP to work (not necessarily a public IP address, but that makes life a lot easier).
And that's just for making calls.
What about other push services?
Why can't my laptop connect to my mobile phone whenever I edit my address book and sync the changes?
Why can't my phone run an SMTP daemon and have emails pushed to it?
My phone is currently NAT'd on the 10/8 subnet so none of these things work without ugly and unreliable hacks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637618</id>
	<title>Re:No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>nabsltd</author>
	<datestamp>1262541360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now sure, a number of those devices shouldn't have internet access, and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router, but I would love to not have to.</p></div><p>You'd still have to configure an IPv6 firewall in pretty much exactly the same way as you would your NAT device (if you want to let connections through to these devices).</p><p>For well-known, inbound-only ports (HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc.), IPv6 offers essentially nothing over NAT as long as you have enough public IPs for each duplicated port (i.e., if you want eight different physical servers to be contacted on port 80, you need 8 public IPs).  Since every IPv6 address is public, this isn't an issue.</p><p>IPv6 <b>will</b> help for things like P2P that can dynamically allocate a server port, but these sorts of protocols need some sort of "control server" that <b>is</b> listening on a well-known port (like torrent trackers).  But, you can usually just configure the software for a fixed port (not "well-known") and then add a rule to the NAT device.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Plug\_and\_Play" title="wikipedia.org">UPnP</a> [wikipedia.org] can help with this in most current cases where you just can't pre-allocate the port number.</p><p>I do have some older software that stupidly sent the local IP address as part of its connection setup, and there was no way to configure it to not automatically discover the IP, so it sent the private address.  IPv6 would also solve this, but most modern software understands that both ends may be behind a NAT device.</p><p>One real problem with NAT is that for very large private networks, the NAT device may run out of ports for outbound connections (depending on the implementation).  Although it's possible to use the same outgoing port for connections to two different IP addresses, this does have some security issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now sure , a number of those devices should n't have internet access , and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router , but I would love to not have to.You 'd still have to configure an IPv6 firewall in pretty much exactly the same way as you would your NAT device ( if you want to let connections through to these devices ) .For well-known , inbound-only ports ( HTTP , FTP , SSH , etc .
) , IPv6 offers essentially nothing over NAT as long as you have enough public IPs for each duplicated port ( i.e. , if you want eight different physical servers to be contacted on port 80 , you need 8 public IPs ) .
Since every IPv6 address is public , this is n't an issue.IPv6 will help for things like P2P that can dynamically allocate a server port , but these sorts of protocols need some sort of " control server " that is listening on a well-known port ( like torrent trackers ) .
But , you can usually just configure the software for a fixed port ( not " well-known " ) and then add a rule to the NAT device .
UPnP [ wikipedia.org ] can help with this in most current cases where you just ca n't pre-allocate the port number.I do have some older software that stupidly sent the local IP address as part of its connection setup , and there was no way to configure it to not automatically discover the IP , so it sent the private address .
IPv6 would also solve this , but most modern software understands that both ends may be behind a NAT device.One real problem with NAT is that for very large private networks , the NAT device may run out of ports for outbound connections ( depending on the implementation ) .
Although it 's possible to use the same outgoing port for connections to two different IP addresses , this does have some security issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now sure, a number of those devices shouldn't have internet access, and I can run NAT like a normal person with a consumer router, but I would love to not have to.You'd still have to configure an IPv6 firewall in pretty much exactly the same way as you would your NAT device (if you want to let connections through to these devices).For well-known, inbound-only ports (HTTP, FTP, SSH, etc.
), IPv6 offers essentially nothing over NAT as long as you have enough public IPs for each duplicated port (i.e., if you want eight different physical servers to be contacted on port 80, you need 8 public IPs).
Since every IPv6 address is public, this isn't an issue.IPv6 will help for things like P2P that can dynamically allocate a server port, but these sorts of protocols need some sort of "control server" that is listening on a well-known port (like torrent trackers).
But, you can usually just configure the software for a fixed port (not "well-known") and then add a rule to the NAT device.
UPnP [wikipedia.org] can help with this in most current cases where you just can't pre-allocate the port number.I do have some older software that stupidly sent the local IP address as part of its connection setup, and there was no way to configure it to not automatically discover the IP, so it sent the private address.
IPv6 would also solve this, but most modern software understands that both ends may be behind a NAT device.One real problem with NAT is that for very large private networks, the NAT device may run out of ports for outbound connections (depending on the implementation).
Although it's possible to use the same outgoing port for connections to two different IP addresses, this does have some security issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636222</id>
	<title>Internet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262527320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that thing still around?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that thing still around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that thing still around?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638492</id>
	<title>A few statistics</title>
	<author>jamyskis</author>
	<datestamp>1262597160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The population of the earth is 6.8 billion. There are just under 4 billion IPv4 addresses available. That means that, theoretically speaking, the Internet is doomed to failure because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around.</p><p><b>BUT</b></p><p>About 80 \% of the world's population live in poverty. They can't afford a bite to eat, let alone a PC with internet access. That leaves us with 850 million people.</p><p>Of those 850 million, around 25\% are children with no internet access of their own. With 20\% of the population being elderly (60+), let's assume that half are in care. So, minus 35\%, that leaves us with roughly 550 million people. I'm not going to include technophobes or those incapable of using a PC for physical or mental reasons, nor am I going to go into the complexities of dynamic IP allocation, which applies for the vast majority of the lay population. A library or school, for example, despite having perhaps 100 computers, will only have one global fixed IP address. The local 192.168.*.* addresses obviously don't count as being usable. Let's also assume that the 180 million websites out there each have their own IP (I know this is not the case - many webspace providers simply allocate one fixed IP to several sites on their server)</p><p>That means theoretically that there would be enough IPs for everyone to have at least six of their own. So the question is: WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The population of the earth is 6.8 billion .
There are just under 4 billion IPv4 addresses available .
That means that , theoretically speaking , the Internet is doomed to failure because there are n't enough IPv4 addresses to go around.BUTAbout 80 \ % of the world 's population live in poverty .
They ca n't afford a bite to eat , let alone a PC with internet access .
That leaves us with 850 million people.Of those 850 million , around 25 \ % are children with no internet access of their own .
With 20 \ % of the population being elderly ( 60 + ) , let 's assume that half are in care .
So , minus 35 \ % , that leaves us with roughly 550 million people .
I 'm not going to include technophobes or those incapable of using a PC for physical or mental reasons , nor am I going to go into the complexities of dynamic IP allocation , which applies for the vast majority of the lay population .
A library or school , for example , despite having perhaps 100 computers , will only have one global fixed IP address .
The local 192.168. * .
* addresses obviously do n't count as being usable .
Let 's also assume that the 180 million websites out there each have their own IP ( I know this is not the case - many webspace providers simply allocate one fixed IP to several sites on their server ) That means theoretically that there would be enough IPs for everyone to have at least six of their own .
So the question is : WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The population of the earth is 6.8 billion.
There are just under 4 billion IPv4 addresses available.
That means that, theoretically speaking, the Internet is doomed to failure because there aren't enough IPv4 addresses to go around.BUTAbout 80 \% of the world's population live in poverty.
They can't afford a bite to eat, let alone a PC with internet access.
That leaves us with 850 million people.Of those 850 million, around 25\% are children with no internet access of their own.
With 20\% of the population being elderly (60+), let's assume that half are in care.
So, minus 35\%, that leaves us with roughly 550 million people.
I'm not going to include technophobes or those incapable of using a PC for physical or mental reasons, nor am I going to go into the complexities of dynamic IP allocation, which applies for the vast majority of the lay population.
A library or school, for example, despite having perhaps 100 computers, will only have one global fixed IP address.
The local 192.168.*.
* addresses obviously don't count as being usable.
Let's also assume that the 180 million websites out there each have their own IP (I know this is not the case - many webspace providers simply allocate one fixed IP to several sites on their server)That means theoretically that there would be enough IPs for everyone to have at least six of their own.
So the question is: WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN HOGGING ALL MY IP ADDRESSES?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637346</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262538240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comcast is moving to DOCSIS 3.0, and they already have a IPv6 testbed. Given how long it took them to get their bandwidth usage meter out, they might deploy IPv6 before 2020, but still..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comcast is moving to DOCSIS 3.0 , and they already have a IPv6 testbed .
Given how long it took them to get their bandwidth usage meter out , they might deploy IPv6 before 2020 , but still. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comcast is moving to DOCSIS 3.0, and they already have a IPv6 testbed.
Given how long it took them to get their bandwidth usage meter out, they might deploy IPv6 before 2020, but still..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636138</id>
	<title>ipv6</title>
	<author>Dayofswords</author>
	<datestamp>1262526660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lets just switch to ipv6 and just end it already, you hear me ISPs, get you butts in motion!</htmltext>
<tokenext>lets just switch to ipv6 and just end it already , you hear me ISPs , get you butts in motion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets just switch to ipv6 and just end it already, you hear me ISPs, get you butts in motion!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638570</id>
	<title>Content providers need to get on IPv6</title>
	<author>adaviel</author>
	<datestamp>1262598420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A comment from an IPv6 workshop I attended last  year, from (I think) Tata.com : content providers need to get on IPv6 else they will be left behind. As customers start to move to v6 (perhaps starting in Asia, but it doesn't really matter), any org that puts hurdles in the way of customers connecting at full speed is going to lose out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A comment from an IPv6 workshop I attended last year , from ( I think ) Tata.com : content providers need to get on IPv6 else they will be left behind .
As customers start to move to v6 ( perhaps starting in Asia , but it does n't really matter ) , any org that puts hurdles in the way of customers connecting at full speed is going to lose out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comment from an IPv6 workshop I attended last  year, from (I think) Tata.com : content providers need to get on IPv6 else they will be left behind.
As customers start to move to v6 (perhaps starting in Asia, but it doesn't really matter), any org that puts hurdles in the way of customers connecting at full speed is going to lose out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637036</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1262535060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.</p></div><p>Comcast is planning to start deploying residential IPv6 this year.  They haven't said how long it will take for a full rollout to all of their customers, but if they do get there, that will be a significant chunk of the US residential market that has native IPv6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.Comcast is planning to start deploying residential IPv6 this year .
They have n't said how long it will take for a full rollout to all of their customers , but if they do get there , that will be a significant chunk of the US residential market that has native IPv6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of the other providers seem to be even making a peep about it.Comcast is planning to start deploying residential IPv6 this year.
They haven't said how long it will take for a full rollout to all of their customers, but if they do get there, that will be a significant chunk of the US residential market that has native IPv6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637222</id>
	<title>Re:idea: switch to alphanumeric</title>
	<author>ocip</author>
	<datestamp>1262536980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a waste of bytes that would be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a waste of bytes that would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a waste of bytes that would be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636722</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262532180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thus, solving the problem once and for all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus , solving the problem once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus, solving the problem once and for all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636038</id>
	<title>Re:How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262526180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at it this way - the year we run out of IPv4 addresses is the same year that linux will be the desktop OS of choice - because Duke Nukem Forever will only be available on linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at it this way - the year we run out of IPv4 addresses is the same year that linux will be the desktop OS of choice - because Duke Nukem Forever will only be available on linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at it this way - the year we run out of IPv4 addresses is the same year that linux will be the desktop OS of choice - because Duke Nukem Forever will only be available on linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637012</id>
	<title>SSL burns up quite a bit of IP space as well</title>
	<author>DarthBart</author>
	<datestamp>1262534760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used to be one IP per HTTP Vhost until named-based virtual hosting came along.  You can't do that with SSL, though.  When I worked at a major hosting provider, it was not uncommon for a single server to have 25-30 IPs on it to run a bunch of SSL vhosts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used to be one IP per HTTP Vhost until named-based virtual hosting came along .
You ca n't do that with SSL , though .
When I worked at a major hosting provider , it was not uncommon for a single server to have 25-30 IPs on it to run a bunch of SSL vhosts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used to be one IP per HTTP Vhost until named-based virtual hosting came along.
You can't do that with SSL, though.
When I worked at a major hosting provider, it was not uncommon for a single server to have 25-30 IPs on it to run a bunch of SSL vhosts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639434</id>
	<title>Re:Now if IPv6 could get fixed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262611440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No PXE/bootp boot.  I believe they are trying to reinvent, from scratch the boot design from IPv4, and are nearing completion.  I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater (i.e. 'root-path' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6).</p></div><p>Would you want to boot over the Internet? Because if you're administering a business network, you can keep using IPv4 on your internal network until the end of days...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No PXE/bootp boot .
I believe they are trying to reinvent , from scratch the boot design from IPv4 , and are nearing completion .
I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater ( i.e .
'root-path ' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6 ) .Would you want to boot over the Internet ?
Because if you 're administering a business network , you can keep using IPv4 on your internal network until the end of days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No PXE/bootp boot.
I believe they are trying to reinvent, from scratch the boot design from IPv4, and are nearing completion.
I fear the extent to which the baby has been tossed out with the bathwater (i.e.
'root-path' was dropped and no one has pulled it into dhcpv6).Would you want to boot over the Internet?
Because if you're administering a business network, you can keep using IPv4 on your internal network until the end of days...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638778</id>
	<title>Back to FidoNet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No worries; when IPv4 runs out and IPv6 isn't ready its time for FidoNet'ing!</p><p>zone:network/node, and the numbers don't even stop at 255! And you can even perform "NAT" by assigning points! zone:network/node:point. So for example; 1:2012/13, and the list is endless. And since we'll be doing line switching networking again we don't even need firewalls anymore!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No worries ; when IPv4 runs out and IPv6 is n't ready its time for FidoNet'ing ! zone : network/node , and the numbers do n't even stop at 255 !
And you can even perform " NAT " by assigning points !
zone : network/node : point. So for example ; 1 : 2012/13 , and the list is endless .
And since we 'll be doing line switching networking again we do n't even need firewalls anymore !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No worries; when IPv4 runs out and IPv6 isn't ready its time for FidoNet'ing!zone:network/node, and the numbers don't even stop at 255!
And you can even perform "NAT" by assigning points!
zone:network/node:point. So for example; 1:2012/13, and the list is endless.
And since we'll be doing line switching networking again we don't even need firewalls anymore!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635868</id>
	<title>Re:No need to panic.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262525040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really irritating to still be hearing that long since debunked claim that Gore claimed to invent the internet. In the video where he supposedly claimed that he invented the internet he says nothing more than that he took initiative on the internet. Implying that it must have previously existed to take initiative on. Which for politicians of that day was somewhat remarkable considering the almost complete lack of competence in the area in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really irritating to still be hearing that long since debunked claim that Gore claimed to invent the internet .
In the video where he supposedly claimed that he invented the internet he says nothing more than that he took initiative on the internet .
Implying that it must have previously existed to take initiative on .
Which for politicians of that day was somewhat remarkable considering the almost complete lack of competence in the area in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really irritating to still be hearing that long since debunked claim that Gore claimed to invent the internet.
In the video where he supposedly claimed that he invented the internet he says nothing more than that he took initiative on the internet.
Implying that it must have previously existed to take initiative on.
Which for politicians of that day was somewhat remarkable considering the almost complete lack of competence in the area in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636534</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1262530140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the explosive growth took every ceo or pundit in the tech sector with their pants down.</p><p>hell, win95 shipped originally without a web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the explosive growth took every ceo or pundit in the tech sector with their pants down.hell , win95 shipped originally without a web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the explosive growth took every ceo or pundit in the tech sector with their pants down.hell, win95 shipped originally without a web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636408</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262529000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, where I live it's impossible to get a fixed IPv4 address for a reasonable fee. So yes I certainly believe it - for all practical purposes addresses have already run out. Arguing about recalling addresses previously handed out sort of circles around the main problem, namely that there are so few addresses that they are a scarce resource. Even if only half the addresses or so would be actually assigned, that would probably still impose a monetary value on something which could be free, were it not for the fact that we're only using four bytes and doing so for no good reason at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , where I live it 's impossible to get a fixed IPv4 address for a reasonable fee .
So yes I certainly believe it - for all practical purposes addresses have already run out .
Arguing about recalling addresses previously handed out sort of circles around the main problem , namely that there are so few addresses that they are a scarce resource .
Even if only half the addresses or so would be actually assigned , that would probably still impose a monetary value on something which could be free , were it not for the fact that we 're only using four bytes and doing so for no good reason at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, where I live it's impossible to get a fixed IPv4 address for a reasonable fee.
So yes I certainly believe it - for all practical purposes addresses have already run out.
Arguing about recalling addresses previously handed out sort of circles around the main problem, namely that there are so few addresses that they are a scarce resource.
Even if only half the addresses or so would be actually assigned, that would probably still impose a monetary value on something which could be free, were it not for the fact that we're only using four bytes and doing so for no good reason at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636444</id>
	<title>There's an incredible amount of waste in IPs</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1262529300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know of one organization, for example, that was originally awarded 11 Class C's. These are permanently assigned. One Class C was used to knit together nine routers (That's all.) Another was assigned to a branch office that had five PCs, one hub, and one router. Later they added an IP-addressable copy machine and printer, so that's nine IPs hard coded out of one Class C. When their main office got a little crowded they did manage to subnet this Class C into two and swipe half of it away, but overall I think they had 2700+ IPs and were using about 300 of them. There are so many other ways they could have handled it, but in the early years they gave them away. Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know of one organization , for example , that was originally awarded 11 Class C 's .
These are permanently assigned .
One Class C was used to knit together nine routers ( That 's all .
) Another was assigned to a branch office that had five PCs , one hub , and one router .
Later they added an IP-addressable copy machine and printer , so that 's nine IPs hard coded out of one Class C. When their main office got a little crowded they did manage to subnet this Class C into two and swipe half of it away , but overall I think they had 2700 + IPs and were using about 300 of them .
There are so many other ways they could have handled it , but in the early years they gave them away .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know of one organization, for example, that was originally awarded 11 Class C's.
These are permanently assigned.
One Class C was used to knit together nine routers (That's all.
) Another was assigned to a branch office that had five PCs, one hub, and one router.
Later they added an IP-addressable copy machine and printer, so that's nine IPs hard coded out of one Class C. When their main office got a little crowded they did manage to subnet this Class C into two and swipe half of it away, but overall I think they had 2700+ IPs and were using about 300 of them.
There are so many other ways they could have handled it, but in the early years they gave them away.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636244</id>
	<title>Take back his Nobel Prize!!</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1262527440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 address</p><p>When Bush left, there was still plenty of IPv4! Shame to you, Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So it 's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House , we 'll be out of IPv4 addressWhen Bush left , there was still plenty of IPv4 !
Shame to you , Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So it's a near certainty that before Barack Obama vacates the White House, we'll be out of IPv4 addressWhen Bush left, there was still plenty of IPv4!
Shame to you, Obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636510</id>
	<title>Re:Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>klapaucjusz</author>
	<datestamp>1262529960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BitTorrent is already running over IPv6.  Anyone running Torrent on a recent enough version of Windows automatically uses IPv6 to cross NAT boxes using a technology known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo\_tunneling" title="wikipedia.org">Teredo</a> [wikipedia.org].

</p><p>The Free Software world is late with IPv6 adoption.  In the words of one of the Torrent developers (Greg), "platforms which are not Windows [...] need to get their collective Teredo asses in gear."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BitTorrent is already running over IPv6 .
Anyone running Torrent on a recent enough version of Windows automatically uses IPv6 to cross NAT boxes using a technology known as Teredo [ wikipedia.org ] .
The Free Software world is late with IPv6 adoption .
In the words of one of the Torrent developers ( Greg ) , " platforms which are not Windows [ ... ] need to get their collective Teredo asses in gear .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BitTorrent is already running over IPv6.
Anyone running Torrent on a recent enough version of Windows automatically uses IPv6 to cross NAT boxes using a technology known as Teredo [wikipedia.org].
The Free Software world is late with IPv6 adoption.
In the words of one of the Torrent developers (Greg), "platforms which are not Windows [...] need to get their collective Teredo asses in gear.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637798</id>
	<title>convergence</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1262543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it may not happen quite as quickly as people trying to get you to read their article or sell you new hardware want you to think, I don't see how we'll be able to put this off forever. Eventually, everything will get swallowed up by the internet. Your phone, your tv, your radio, you dog, and you house will ALL have their own IP addresses eventually.</p><p>Think of the adorable puppies!! How will the people of the future have adorable puppies if we don't migrate to IPv6?!!!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it may not happen quite as quickly as people trying to get you to read their article or sell you new hardware want you to think , I do n't see how we 'll be able to put this off forever .
Eventually , everything will get swallowed up by the internet .
Your phone , your tv , your radio , you dog , and you house will ALL have their own IP addresses eventually.Think of the adorable puppies ! !
How will the people of the future have adorable puppies if we do n't migrate to IPv6 ? ! ! !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it may not happen quite as quickly as people trying to get you to read their article or sell you new hardware want you to think, I don't see how we'll be able to put this off forever.
Eventually, everything will get swallowed up by the internet.
Your phone, your tv, your radio, you dog, and you house will ALL have their own IP addresses eventually.Think of the adorable puppies!!
How will the people of the future have adorable puppies if we don't migrate to IPv6?!!!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637588</id>
	<title>Change is inevitable</title>
	<author>dasherjan</author>
	<datestamp>1262540760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 is a done deal. To borrow a quote from B5..."the avalanche has already started, it's to late for the pebbles to vote". It's even required on most networking certs now. With more adding it as time goes on. I only hope that OS companies will shift more resources into research for preventing host exploitations. As others have stated. You can use NAT to append your private IPv4 IP's to your IPv6 IP from your ISP, but that will cost a delay in latency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 is a done deal .
To borrow a quote from B5... " the avalanche has already started , it 's to late for the pebbles to vote " .
It 's even required on most networking certs now .
With more adding it as time goes on .
I only hope that OS companies will shift more resources into research for preventing host exploitations .
As others have stated .
You can use NAT to append your private IPv4 IP 's to your IPv6 IP from your ISP , but that will cost a delay in latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 is a done deal.
To borrow a quote from B5..."the avalanche has already started, it's to late for the pebbles to vote".
It's even required on most networking certs now.
With more adding it as time goes on.
I only hope that OS companies will shift more resources into research for preventing host exploitations.
As others have stated.
You can use NAT to append your private IPv4 IP's to your IPv6 IP from your ISP, but that will cost a delay in latency.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746</id>
	<title>How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>toxygen01</author>
	<datestamp>1262524020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is zillionth news article I read about running of ipv4 addresses, first in 2000, then 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014... what next?<br>
some corporations are given<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 subnets, they clearly don't take use of all of it, so it's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges.<br>
<br>
i'm pretty sure, if we are in trouble, we can find "few" millions of unused ip's...<br>
<br>
<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map\_of\_the\_internet.jpg" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map\_of\_the\_internet.jpg</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is zillionth news article I read about running of ipv4 addresses , first in 2000 , then 2004 , 2006 , 2007 , 2009 , 2014... what next ?
some corporations are given /8 subnets , they clearly do n't take use of all of it , so it 's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges .
i 'm pretty sure , if we are in trouble , we can find " few " millions of unused ip 's.. . http : //imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map \ _of \ _the \ _internet.jpg [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is zillionth news article I read about running of ipv4 addresses, first in 2000, then 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2014... what next?
some corporations are given /8 subnets, they clearly don't take use of all of it, so it's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges.
i'm pretty sure, if we are in trouble, we can find "few" millions of unused ip's...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/map\_of\_the\_internet.jpg [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936</id>
	<title>On the other hand...</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1262525400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we won't run out, because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available, and as ipv6 uptake accelerates, ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate, and it will stop just shy of actually running out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we wo n't run out , because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available , and as ipv6 uptake accelerates , ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate , and it will stop just shy of actually running out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we won't run out, because more and more of the addresses in use will also become available, and as ipv6 uptake accelerates, ipv4 uptake will dramatically decelerate, and it will stop just shy of actually running out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636988</id>
	<title>This should the first banned topic here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262534580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be the first banned topic here.  Every 6 months you hear that we have "3 years left."  Now, this has been since what, 2001 we've been hearing this rubbish.  It hasn't happened yet, when it does, or when we're actually close to it, THEN say something, it's getting old.  Even the comments are the same repeated nonsense.  Just make it a banned topic and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be the first banned topic here .
Every 6 months you hear that we have " 3 years left .
" Now , this has been since what , 2001 we 've been hearing this rubbish .
It has n't happened yet , when it does , or when we 're actually close to it , THEN say something , it 's getting old .
Even the comments are the same repeated nonsense .
Just make it a banned topic and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be the first banned topic here.
Every 6 months you hear that we have "3 years left.
"  Now, this has been since what, 2001 we've been hearing this rubbish.
It hasn't happened yet, when it does, or when we're actually close to it, THEN say something, it's getting old.
Even the comments are the same repeated nonsense.
Just make it a banned topic and be done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638340</id>
	<title>Re:No real scarcity yet</title>
	<author>ockegheim</author>
	<datestamp>1262637900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, there's a limit to how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere, and plenty of people are buying Hummers.</p><p>In this case, and with global warming, I think the stick of IP scarcity/ weather or sea-level disasters will be much more effective than any early adoption by nerds/ environmentally conscious people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , there 's a limit to how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere , and plenty of people are buying Hummers.In this case , and with global warming , I think the stick of IP scarcity/ weather or sea-level disasters will be much more effective than any early adoption by nerds/ environmentally conscious people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, there's a limit to how much carbon we can put into the atmosphere, and plenty of people are buying Hummers.In this case, and with global warming, I think the stick of IP scarcity/ weather or sea-level disasters will be much more effective than any early adoption by nerds/ environmentally conscious people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636678</id>
	<title>Re:Bono should be pleased...</title>
	<author>aXis100</author>
	<datestamp>1262531580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, they'll just switch to hole punching to get through the NAT, just like Skype.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , they 'll just switch to hole punching to get through the NAT , just like Skype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, they'll just switch to hole punching to get through the NAT, just like Skype.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636210</id>
	<title>A possible solution</title>
	<author>RoccamOccam</author>
	<datestamp>1262527260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Two words: <i>offshore drilling</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : offshore drilling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: offshore drilling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636640</id>
	<title>Re:Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262531160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses</i> </p><p>They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.</p></div><p>What "vested interest groups"?</p><p>We're not talking about Big Oil or Big Agra or Big Whomever. It's not a big fucking deal to be ready for IPv6 in advance. Most companies have a 2-3 year tech refresh schedule, just add IPv6 to it and be done with it. It's not like you have to roll out your entire infrastructure with it, just add a check box on your RFP for IPv6 for routers and firewalls, and when you need the routing configure auto-config.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a Few More Years ' Worth of IPv4 Addresses They ( vested interest groups ) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what , we have n't run out yet.What " vested interest groups " ? We 're not talking about Big Oil or Big Agra or Big Whomever .
It 's not a big fucking deal to be ready for IPv6 in advance .
Most companies have a 2-3 year tech refresh schedule , just add IPv6 to it and be done with it .
It 's not like you have to roll out your entire infrastructure with it , just add a check box on your RFP for IPv6 for routers and firewalls , and when you need the routing configure auto-config .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Only a Few More Years' Worth of IPv4 Addresses They (vested interest groups) have been saying that for a decade now.... guess what, we haven't run out yet.What "vested interest groups"?We're not talking about Big Oil or Big Agra or Big Whomever.
It's not a big fucking deal to be ready for IPv6 in advance.
Most companies have a 2-3 year tech refresh schedule, just add IPv6 to it and be done with it.
It's not like you have to roll out your entire infrastructure with it, just add a check box on your RFP for IPv6 for routers and firewalls, and when you need the routing configure auto-config.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637230</id>
	<title>Re:Great... now do I switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262537040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for an ISP with native IPv6. Too bad we're in Billings, Montana.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for an ISP with native IPv6 .
Too bad we 're in Billings , Montana .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for an ISP with native IPv6.
Too bad we're in Billings, Montana.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750</id>
	<title>No, that's propaganda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262524020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll never run out of IPv4 addresses. "Peak-IPv4" is a myth created by those who hate America and want Asia's IPv6 to take over. 4 octets forever!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll never run out of IPv4 addresses .
" Peak-IPv4 " is a myth created by those who hate America and want Asia 's IPv6 to take over .
4 octets forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll never run out of IPv4 addresses.
"Peak-IPv4" is a myth created by those who hate America and want Asia's IPv6 to take over.
4 octets forever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636046</id>
	<title>2012?</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1262526180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Mayans were right about 2012!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mayans were right about 2012 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mayans were right about 2012!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637754</id>
	<title>Re:But why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262543220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a number of assumptions that are incorrect or may be currently correct but maybe not in the future.</p><p>1) That a device won't need to be publicly addressable.. Some examples, phones can now run ssh servers(see default password vulnerability in iphones ).. The phone won't necessarily be on the same network as the computer your connecting from so will need a public address.. Other examples are p2p where your both server and client so need to be connected to.</p><p>2) That empty space is wasted space. Say your a start up service and with 14 hosts for your customers. Say your providing redundancy so you need portable address space.. You can't get  less than a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 (255addresses) because it would double the amount of routes that the Internet would need to propagate for you when you got your next host. It's more efficient for the routers to not allocate new routes every time somebody grows by a few \%. I've seen one organisation exhaust a class B network because they'd allocated much of it a little too sparingly. When they grew they had to re-address big chunks of the network but couldn't free up enough consecutive blocks to be useful. Of course some was over allocated but its hard to reclaim because it costs so much time and disruption to re-address.</p><p>3) That private networks shouldn't have public address space. Networks change all the time. Companies get new business relations or merge all the time. I've had an awful lot of difficulty with when both organisations had the same allocation plan so internal servers were sitting on the same 10.x.x.x subnets. IBM use their A for a lot of private  communications with their customers because they know it won't clash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a number of assumptions that are incorrect or may be currently correct but maybe not in the future.1 ) That a device wo n't need to be publicly addressable.. Some examples , phones can now run ssh servers ( see default password vulnerability in iphones ) .. The phone wo n't necessarily be on the same network as the computer your connecting from so will need a public address.. Other examples are p2p where your both server and client so need to be connected to.2 ) That empty space is wasted space .
Say your a start up service and with 14 hosts for your customers .
Say your providing redundancy so you need portable address space.. You ca n't get less than a /24 ( 255addresses ) because it would double the amount of routes that the Internet would need to propagate for you when you got your next host .
It 's more efficient for the routers to not allocate new routes every time somebody grows by a few \ % .
I 've seen one organisation exhaust a class B network because they 'd allocated much of it a little too sparingly .
When they grew they had to re-address big chunks of the network but could n't free up enough consecutive blocks to be useful .
Of course some was over allocated but its hard to reclaim because it costs so much time and disruption to re-address.3 ) That private networks should n't have public address space .
Networks change all the time .
Companies get new business relations or merge all the time .
I 've had an awful lot of difficulty with when both organisations had the same allocation plan so internal servers were sitting on the same 10.x.x.x subnets .
IBM use their A for a lot of private communications with their customers because they know it wo n't clash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a number of assumptions that are incorrect or may be currently correct but maybe not in the future.1) That a device won't need to be publicly addressable.. Some examples, phones can now run ssh servers(see default password vulnerability in iphones ).. The phone won't necessarily be on the same network as the computer your connecting from so will need a public address.. Other examples are p2p where your both server and client so need to be connected to.2) That empty space is wasted space.
Say your a start up service and with 14 hosts for your customers.
Say your providing redundancy so you need portable address space.. You can't get  less than a /24 (255addresses) because it would double the amount of routes that the Internet would need to propagate for you when you got your next host.
It's more efficient for the routers to not allocate new routes every time somebody grows by a few \%.
I've seen one organisation exhaust a class B network because they'd allocated much of it a little too sparingly.
When they grew they had to re-address big chunks of the network but couldn't free up enough consecutive blocks to be useful.
Of course some was over allocated but its hard to reclaim because it costs so much time and disruption to re-address.3) That private networks shouldn't have public address space.
Networks change all the time.
Companies get new business relations or merge all the time.
I've had an awful lot of difficulty with when both organisations had the same allocation plan so internal servers were sitting on the same 10.x.x.x subnets.
IBM use their A for a lot of private  communications with their customers because they know it won't clash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637984</id>
	<title>Re:No, that's propaganda</title>
	<author>Nocterro</author>
	<datestamp>1262547060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IANA has in place an agreement</p></div><p>Is anyone else's brain tripping on this as badly as mine? I Am Not A "Has in place an agreement"? What the hell is a "has in place an agreement", and why would your lack of being one make you unqualified?
</p><p>
Stupid memes, acronyms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANA has in place an agreementIs anyone else 's brain tripping on this as badly as mine ?
I Am Not A " Has in place an agreement " ?
What the hell is a " has in place an agreement " , and why would your lack of being one make you unqualified ?
Stupid memes , acronyms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANA has in place an agreementIs anyone else's brain tripping on this as badly as mine?
I Am Not A "Has in place an agreement"?
What the hell is a "has in place an agreement", and why would your lack of being one make you unqualified?
Stupid memes, acronyms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639260</id>
	<title>Re:So, how many applications break?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262609220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the question is, how many applications break on the switch to ipv6?  Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6, we would have done it already.</p></div><p>Well for starters, I know of no game server (steam, battle.net or otherwise) that is reachable via ipv6. The Wii does not have an IPv6 stack, not sure about the other game consoles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the question is , how many applications break on the switch to ipv6 ?
Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6 , we would have done it already.Well for starters , I know of no game server ( steam , battle.net or otherwise ) that is reachable via ipv6 .
The Wii does not have an IPv6 stack , not sure about the other game consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the question is, how many applications break on the switch to ipv6?
Seems to me that if it were so easy to port to ipv6, we would have done it already.Well for starters, I know of no game server (steam, battle.net or otherwise) that is reachable via ipv6.
The Wii does not have an IPv6 stack, not sure about the other game consoles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637334</id>
	<title>Re:We've been hearing this for a while</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1262538180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In companies I worked at, there is a fear of IPv6 even though most modern devices support it.  They weathered the packet storms and glitches of land, teardrop, SYN flooding, fake ICMP resets, smurf, ping of death, and so on with IPv4.</p><p>Now, the PHBs I've encountered are worried stiff about the same bugaboos once the Pandora's Box of IPV6 comes from the edge into the core fabric.  Some places may end up using IPv6 edge routing with hardened routers, but then use IPV4 and NAT so they can keep their internal machines (especially the older boxes which have no IPV6 support) going.  It is a kludge, because the beauty of IPv6 is being able to have such a large address space.  However, it might be the best in between technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In companies I worked at , there is a fear of IPv6 even though most modern devices support it .
They weathered the packet storms and glitches of land , teardrop , SYN flooding , fake ICMP resets , smurf , ping of death , and so on with IPv4.Now , the PHBs I 've encountered are worried stiff about the same bugaboos once the Pandora 's Box of IPV6 comes from the edge into the core fabric .
Some places may end up using IPv6 edge routing with hardened routers , but then use IPV4 and NAT so they can keep their internal machines ( especially the older boxes which have no IPV6 support ) going .
It is a kludge , because the beauty of IPv6 is being able to have such a large address space .
However , it might be the best in between technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In companies I worked at, there is a fear of IPv6 even though most modern devices support it.
They weathered the packet storms and glitches of land, teardrop, SYN flooding, fake ICMP resets, smurf, ping of death, and so on with IPv4.Now, the PHBs I've encountered are worried stiff about the same bugaboos once the Pandora's Box of IPV6 comes from the edge into the core fabric.
Some places may end up using IPv6 edge routing with hardened routers, but then use IPV4 and NAT so they can keep their internal machines (especially the older boxes which have no IPV6 support) going.
It is a kludge, because the beauty of IPv6 is being able to have such a large address space.
However, it might be the best in between technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034</id>
	<title>idea: switch to alphanumeric</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1262535000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, an address might look like:
<p>
1h2.tyj.56j.0as
</p><p>
I think that would solve the problem permanently.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , an address might look like : 1h2.tyj.56j.0as I think that would solve the problem permanently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, an address might look like:

1h2.tyj.56j.0as

I think that would solve the problem permanently.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637220</id>
	<title>The real answer...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262536980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is to go back to UUCP bang addresses.  Pathalias can handle routing.<br>--<br>ihnp4!stolaf!bungia!foundln!john</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is to go back to UUCP bang addresses .
Pathalias can handle routing.--ihnp4 ! stolaf ! bungia ! foundln ! john</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is to go back to UUCP bang addresses.
Pathalias can handle routing.--ihnp4!stolaf!bungia!foundln!john</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642152</id>
	<title>Burn Baby Burn</title>
	<author>kieran</author>
	<datestamp>1262626440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPv6 will not take off until there is stuff out there that people want to access that hasn't been able to get an IPv4 address.</p><p>Believe me, once that moment hits, IPv6 will become a differentiator and ISPs will race for it. Until then, they'll largely ignore it, because they can't justify the cost of setting it all up if no-one cares about it.</p><p>(I am an ISP Network Engineer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv6 will not take off until there is stuff out there that people want to access that has n't been able to get an IPv4 address.Believe me , once that moment hits , IPv6 will become a differentiator and ISPs will race for it .
Until then , they 'll largely ignore it , because they ca n't justify the cost of setting it all up if no-one cares about it .
( I am an ISP Network Engineer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv6 will not take off until there is stuff out there that people want to access that hasn't been able to get an IPv4 address.Believe me, once that moment hits, IPv6 will become a differentiator and ISPs will race for it.
Until then, they'll largely ignore it, because they can't justify the cost of setting it all up if no-one cares about it.
(I am an ISP Network Engineer)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637848</id>
	<title>Re:How many more times are we going to run out?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262544660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>so it's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges.</em> </p><p>
Yeah it is a problem; addresses can't be taken from them at all.
</p><p>
They have been allocated those ranges, and they were granted under the authority of the US DoD itself.</p><p>
I don't think any of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 holders have said anything on the subject @ the ARIN-PPML.
</p><p>
But a lot of holders of one legacy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 are <b>extremely vocal</b> on the subject, and claim since they were granted under authority of US DoD, by IANA at the time,  without any terms, only the US DoD  itself,  none of the current registries can force them to obey current rules (including utilization rules) or return addresses, without violating laws.
</p><p>
Make no mistake, IP addresses from these allocations cannot be recovered by force.
</p><p>
Maybe with a 10-year legal battle.
By the time the legacy holders stopped fighting, V4 would be exhausted anyways.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so it 's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges .
Yeah it is a problem ; addresses ca n't be taken from them at all .
They have been allocated those ranges , and they were granted under the authority of the US DoD itself .
I do n't think any of the /8 holders have said anything on the subject @ the ARIN-PPML .
But a lot of holders of one legacy /24 are extremely vocal on the subject , and claim since they were granted under authority of US DoD , by IANA at the time , without any terms , only the US DoD itself , none of the current registries can force them to obey current rules ( including utilization rules ) or return addresses , without violating laws .
Make no mistake , IP addresses from these allocations can not be recovered by force .
Maybe with a 10-year legal battle .
By the time the legacy holders stopped fighting , V4 would be exhausted anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> so it's not a problem to cut piece of cake from those ip ranges.
Yeah it is a problem; addresses can't be taken from them at all.
They have been allocated those ranges, and they were granted under the authority of the US DoD itself.
I don't think any of the /8 holders have said anything on the subject @ the ARIN-PPML.
But a lot of holders of one legacy /24 are extremely vocal on the subject, and claim since they were granted under authority of US DoD, by IANA at the time,  without any terms, only the US DoD  itself,  none of the current registries can force them to obey current rules (including utilization rules) or return addresses, without violating laws.
Make no mistake, IP addresses from these allocations cannot be recovered by force.
Maybe with a 10-year legal battle.
By the time the legacy holders stopped fighting, V4 would be exhausted anyways.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636532</id>
	<title>Always the same</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1262530140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You got a market-droid answer, once that happens in a font line computer company, you have 5 years to sell your stock and fix your 401K, the retire or start a new life. Why do you think C* negotiate a golden parachute, so they can participate in the stock pump &amp; dump before the implosion.<br><br>DEC, Compaq, Sun are just the biggest&amp;#160;and once, the best, to go down this road.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You got a market-droid answer , once that happens in a font line computer company , you have 5 years to sell your stock and fix your 401K , the retire or start a new life .
Why do you think C * negotiate a golden parachute , so they can participate in the stock pump &amp; dump before the implosion.DEC , Compaq , Sun are just the biggest   and once , the best , to go down this road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got a market-droid answer, once that happens in a font line computer company, you have 5 years to sell your stock and fix your 401K, the retire or start a new life.
Why do you think C* negotiate a golden parachute, so they can participate in the stock pump &amp; dump before the implosion.DEC, Compaq, Sun are just the biggest and once, the best, to go down this road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636546</id>
	<title>Re:2012?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1262530200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Mayans were right about 2012!</p></div><p>According to Autodesk Maya 2012 only really cares about the MAC address.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mayans were right about 2012 ! According to Autodesk Maya 2012 only really cares about the MAC address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mayans were right about 2012!According to Autodesk Maya 2012 only really cares about the MAC address.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636242</id>
	<title>Cool dashboard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262527440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm ready for IPv6.</p><p>This dude claims that we will run out of IPv4 addresses in March 2011, that is about 6 months before anybody else thinks we will.<br><a href="http://ipv4depletion.com/old.html" title="ipv4depletion.com" rel="nofollow">http://ipv4depletion.com/old.html</a> [ipv4depletion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ready for IPv6.This dude claims that we will run out of IPv4 addresses in March 2011 , that is about 6 months before anybody else thinks we will.http : //ipv4depletion.com/old.html [ ipv4depletion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ready for IPv6.This dude claims that we will run out of IPv4 addresses in March 2011, that is about 6 months before anybody else thinks we will.http://ipv4depletion.com/old.html [ipv4depletion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30654030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30651110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30648008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30644482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_2358233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30648008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30651110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30654030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30644482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636872
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30639392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30642388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30636038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30635910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30637596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_2358233.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30638492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_2358233.30640784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
