Ok.. so you've provided proof. Excellent

However, it is mentioned that the following ISP's that are IPv6-equipped (Maxis, TM, DIGI, Jaring, NTT MSC, Celcom, Time Dot Com and MYNIC Berhad) only passed level 1 audit. They have yet to pass level 2 and 3. Nevertheless, you have made your point.

This post has been edited by Oga: Dec 25 2010, 01:33 AM

its merely an audit... for instance, Lowyat hosted its server at IPServerOne and IPServeOne Leased its service from ExtremeBB.

Lowyat is IPV6 ready meaning IPServerONe is IPV6 ready , thus ExtremeBB is Ipv6 ready. but do you see Extremebb inside the Audit 1 passed ISP list? no right?


if you work in ISP level you should know more. everymonth all ISP in malaysia (about 23 as of now) whom have the connectivity directly to IX will have a meeting. and everymonth Ipv6 is one of the main agenda that we talk about. as of today all IX members have their Core as v6 ready. but most of it didnt run it up to CE level reason because of their client does not have the capabilities to run it.

To run an ipv6 network first u need to have v6 ready network equipment, for instance a 12.4 ED (8.0) IOS of Cisco equipment and earlier unable to run v6. and IP Base IOS unable to run it, just to name few constraint. All this constraints requires one time investment (infra upgrade) to run v6. thus clients, with limited budget wont be able to use the v6. all this constraint us one of the reason why v6 is not widely use in Malaysia. That is only the investment between OSI Layer 1-3. We didnt touch yet between layer 4-7. FYI, Application is the most crucial part, most application was not written to run v6. Im talking bout those production application runs by SME's, MNC's and GLC's. again, to redeveloped the application, this requires huge investment.

Moving forward to v6 is pretty much straight forward with the only difference is the IP becomes larger (way large). but the investment needed to refresh this equipments, applications etc etc is the constraints. Got my point?

Oh yeah, i've run IPv6 on my company network since 2008. its not a big fuss. (not at my home tho...lol)

A little too detailed an explanation. But I get your drift. However, I disagree that moving to IPv6 is a straightforward process. Please see this video (4 parts) if you have time to see what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2clTKh2vFAE

Cheers!

This post has been edited by Oga: Dec 25 2010, 05:23 PM

if the ipv6 is implented, each node can have /64 prefix right or the /128 prefix?

ipv6 is a conspiracy of the west to control the media. when it is implemented, all things will have ip, even your TV. ipv4 is enough, seriously

lol.

This post has been edited by edwardstevens: Dec 25 2010, 05:18 PM

mana ada , so if ipv4 is enough, why the hell people create NAT...if i remember, pioneer of internet today are japan...not the old network from military stuff

I think each node can have the /128 prefix.

this is sad...
i thought nat will die with IPv6 implementation

This post has been edited by zerorating: Dec 25 2010, 05:38 PM

for ISP process the connectivity to v6 it is straighforward. but to implement as a whole, production..that is one pain in the @$$ process (back to my lengthy explanation earlier)

no fret on v6, even point to point connection where in v4 we use /30 in v6 (based on latest RFC) a point to point connection must use /64 subnet. why, that is what suggested by the RFC's.

end user might see it as a big fuss, but for some ppl it is achievable by having correct knowledge and as of know, the knowledge on v6 is evolving....

the challenge now is actually ..there is yet a solid standard to implement v6 unlike v4, thats the reason the RFC's keep on changing...

on the other hand, NAT is one of the solutions which they thought can overcome the v4 problem (i forgot which year but its about 8 years back)...but NAT is just ...well..in my word as a network guy..problematic for ISP level...it may be feasible for small scale..but not for anything big....

This post has been edited by emptycube: Dec 25 2010, 06:12 PM

How bout the keys to the internet?

but isp have the right not to follow rfc, even celcom broadband shares same ip within plenty customer

as of now, the RFC suggested the ISP to leased /48 subnet for each node.

let me break it down,

ISP will get /32 allocation ~ /32 subnet will have 2^16 (65536) of /48 subnet

each node will get /48 allocation ~ /48 subnet will have 2^16 (65536) of /64 subnet.

and each /64 subnet is equivalent ipv4 ^2 (which is double the number of current entire v4)

the number is freakingly large....


anyway my company v6 allocation address 2404:b8::/32..its not TM tho..but you can google it up... as of now, maintain the entire core network alone

your are absolutely correct sir, ISP do not need to follow RFC but as for my practice..i do follow RFC... coz im a one man show....pretty much hard to do self study. work smart...use suggested approach which is as written on RFC

actually /64 provides 2^64 addresses, not double up what ipv4 addresses have, what isp should give are network prefix not address liek currently they do to each customer, for example
2001:a:b:c:e:dead::/64

This post has been edited by zerorating: Dec 25 2010, 06:30 PM

haha/...my calculation might be wrong...since the number is superbly large... thanks for correcting it.

that will brings us to 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 IP

---

Added on December 25, 2010, 6:37 pm2001:a:b:c:e:dead::/64 nice example..

thinking bout getting this for my own using my current company allocation

2404:b8:a11:dead:: nice eh?

This post has been edited by emptycube: Dec 25 2010, 06:37 PM

what about apple? they dont use ip address instead of mac address.

And, when i do ipconfig /all i see ipv6 already in vista. If ipconfig in windows 7 i think got ipv7.

damn, dumb faggot gomen people not doing shit to migrate to IPv6

cost of migrate not cheap..if i remember ipv6 certified product must support ipsec right?

No IPv7 in Windows 7.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

i think so

with fews years of ip remaining, they should already pressing panic button for migration to go too full swing