Err... sorry I want to ask the noob question here...
Does using IPV6 will increase our speed to the internet? Or perhaps, improve our connection to the overseas connection?

Who wanna bet that P1 will only give you a /128?
If only they will give out a /56 at least...

5.1 Initial IPv6 block for APNIC members with existing IPv4 space

A member that has an IPv4 assignment is eligible for a /48 IPv6 address block.

you ipv4 kids probably will love sitting behind a private ipv4 address behind a large cgn tm box sharing one tiny public ipv4 blocks with thousands of other users.

and the moment you want a public address, tm won't either to sell to you or have to pay premium for it.

good luck.

i'm already on ipv6.

---

Added on January 15, 2012, 1:16 am
dey thambi,

that's assignment to ISPs not end customers.

end customers up to ISPs la to decide. either /48 or /56 or /64.

but be prepared to laugh at ISPs who will give smaller than /64s for routed segment.

what the hell are you talking about?

you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

wah lieu, looks like i'm not the only one you have been picking fights lately.

1. That's a loooong line of logic with a lot of assumptions made. Applying Occam's Razor, the simpler way to think of it is that IPv6 and IPv4 are going to ride over the same layer-2/layer-1- it is this channel that determines congestion. Having said that, there *will* be a difference in routes between IPv4 and IPv6, since there's no practical way that all IPv4 BGP arrangements are going to be matched 1-1 isomorphically in IPv6. But it's not right to categorically assume that one will be less congested than the other.

2. At the ISP I subscribed to, they gave out dynamically assigned leases, citing operational reasons. I'll paraphrase what I can remember. Consider this - if you have multiple B-RASes serving the same subscriber footprint, as an upstream router how do you determine which B-RAS to forward a packet to? To do that, you'll need a route to each customer's static prefix - and for a provider the size of TM that's literally millions of routes, so I don't think they'll do this.

Alternatively, if each B-RAS were assigned its own /48 and gives out (dynamic) /64s in its own range, an upstream core router will only need to know one route per B-RAS.

duuuuuddddeeeee,

you know how i know you are bullshitting?

when you start putting God into your argument.

Ok both of you are going offtopic, knock it off please...

Well last I checked, IPv6 doesn't make you declare your assets in the packet header.  Please explain convincingly your analogy between them?

As for IP addresses letting you be tracked to your individual device through the MAC address, consider this. I've made a few forum posts here recently with IPv6 and out-of-the-box Windows 7. Vista's behavior is the same AFAIK, not sure about XP.

These are my IPs:

2405:4600:3004:0:5e8:764e:6c64:88ba
2405:4600:3004:0:78bc:d939:b11e:50fb
2405:4600:3004:0:e962:c9a9:8620:d8a
2405:4600:3004:0:f52e:9644:9144:45a7
2405:4600:3004:3:b091:165b:3c98:db0c

Questions:

1) Can you derive my MAC address?
2) Why does my IP keep changing throughout the week?

The division of IPv6 addresses into distinct topology and interface identifier portions raises an issue new to IPv6 in that a fixed portion of an IPv6 address (i.e., the interface identifier) can contain an identifier that remains constant even when the topology portion of an address changes (e.g., as the result of connecting to a different part of the Internet).  In IPv4, when an address changes, the entire address (including the local part of the address) usually changes.  It is this new issue that this document addresses.

A more troubling case concerns mobile devices (e.g., laptops, PDAs, etc.) that move topologically within the Internet. Whenever they move (in the absence of technology such as mobile IP [MOBILEIP]), they form new addresses for their current topological point of attachment.  This is typified today by the "road warrior" who has Internet connectivity both at home and at the office.  While the node's address changes as it moves, however, the interface identifier contained within the address remains the same (when derived from an IEEE Identifier).  In such cases, the interface identifier can beused to track the movement and usage of a particular machine.

For example, a server that logs usage information together with a source addresses, is also recording the interface identifier since it is embedded within an address.  Consequently, any data-mining technique that correlates activity based on addresses could easily be extended to do the same using the interface identifier.  This is of particular concern with the expected proliferation of next-generation network-connected devices (e.g.PDAs, cell phones, etc.) in which large numbers of devices are inpractice associated with individual users (i.e., not shared).  Thus, the interface identifier embedded within an address could be used to track activities of an individual, even as they move topologically within the internet.

I see why you're thinking that way. You think that $ISP will set aside dedicated copper/wavelengths for IPv6 traffic. I think they'll dual-stack existing links, so congestion that affects an IPv4 user will also affect an IPv6 user traversing the same path.

Oh my god You really are clutching at straws now if you're basing your argument on a satirical (if not paranoid) presentation.