TCP/IPv6

[Sylvia]

I have been having problems using an on-line bridge site since changing to
Vista. They recommended I go to Network & sharing Center and in Local Area
Connection Properties I should uncheck Internet Protocol Version 6
(TCP/IPv6) I don`t know what effect that would have and as I had to download
a Beta version of their software the problem could be in the software and
not the IPv6. Could anyone advise me please.

 

[Tim Slattery]

I have been having problems using an on-line bridge site since changing to
Vista. They recommended I go to Network & sharing Center and in Local Area
Connection Properties I should uncheck Internet Protocol Version 6
(TCP/IPv6) I don`t know what effect that would have and as I had to download
a Beta version of their software the problem could be in the software and
not the IPv6. Could anyone advise me please.

IPv6 is a new-and-improved Internet protocol that is not widely used
yet. Unchecking that will probably have no effect on your system.

OTOH, if you're using a beta version of this software, it could
certainly have a problem, that's what beta software is.

 

[DanS]

IPv6 is a new-and-improved Internet protocol that is not widely used
yet. Unchecking that will probably have no effect on your system.

I recall turning off IPv6 has the effect of making your internet connection
work properly.

And indeed, the first suggestion made when odd internet behavior is
experienced with Vista.

OTOH, if you're using a beta version of this software, it could
certainly have a problem, that's what beta software is.

I could be a beta software issue as well.

 

[Sylvia]

Thanks - will try unchecking but think its probably a software problem

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

I know that it supports more computers and devices on a network since TCP/IP
4 is running out of addresses.

 

[MICHAEL]

* Sylvia:

I have been having problems using an on-line bridge site since changing to
Vista. They recommended I go to Network & sharing Center and in Local Area
Connection Properties I should uncheck Internet Protocol Version 6
(TCP/IPv6) I don`t know what effect that would have and as I had to download
a Beta version of their software the problem could be in the software and
not the IPv6. Could anyone advise me please.

Uncheck it.... for now and the foreseeable future, IPv6 is not something
you will need. Since the Vista betas, disabling this has helped more users
than not.


-Michael

 

[AJR]

IPV6 is not a "problem" issue and cohabitates happily with IPV4 -Also, fopr
one, Vista Windows SideShow uses IVP6

 

[dennis@home]

I know that it supports more computers and devices on a network since
TCP/IP 4 is running out of addresses.

IPv4 wasn't really running out of addresses when they said it was.. it was
just running out of routable addresses due to the odd (now known to be
flawed) allocation mechanism (just who decided to allocate actual addresses
is a mystery and he probably wants to remain anonymous).
A lot of addresses were clawed back to rationalize the routing and bigger
routers were made that could handle bigger routing tables which is why we
are still using IPv4 now.

Of course if all 3g devices are to have IP addresses then IPv6 will be
needed then and they haven't repeated the mistake of allocating physical IP
addresses to users.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

I know that it supports more computers and devices on a network since
TCP/IP 4 is running out of addresses.

http://www.6bone.net/misc/case-for-ipv6.html

 

[Tim Slattery]

I know that it supports more computers and devices on a network since TCP/IP
4 is running out of addresses.

Right, IPv4 has a 32-bit address space, so that's about 4 billion
addresses, minus a handful that have been reserved for special
purposes (non-routable addresses for local nets, for example). IPv6
has a 128bit address space. I think that's enough for a unique address
for every man, woman, child, TV set, refrigerator.... you get the
idea.

China is moving to IPv6 much more quickly than the US for exactly that
reason.

 

[Tim Slattery]

IPv4 wasn't really running out of addresses when they said it was.. it was
just running out of routable addresses due to the odd (now known to be
flawed) allocation mechanism (just who decided to allocate actual addresses
is a mystery and he probably wants to remain anonymous).

There's something to that. Back in the depths of (Internet) time, when
everybody thought that 4 billion addresses would last forever,
addresses were handed out in huge blocks. A few companies and
institutions got class A addresses, which are blocks of 16,000,000
(about) addresses. More have class Bs (my agency does), which is
64,000 addresses. I think they get handed out now as class C (256
addresses) if they can be had at all.

 

[dennis@home]

There's something to that. Back in the depths of (Internet) time, when
everybody thought that 4 billion addresses would last forever,
addresses were handed out in huge blocks. A few companies and
institutions got class A addresses, which are blocks of 16,000,000
(about) addresses. More have class Bs (my agency does), which is
64,000 addresses. I think they get handed out now as class C (256
addresses) if they can be had at all.

Yes that was part of the fix.
However the real problem was in handing out IP addresses to companies at
all.
They should only ever have been handed out to ISPs and then they should
allocate them dynamically as it will be done on IPv6.
The concept of a company taking "their" IP address and moving it to another
provider, maybe in a different country, is silly.
You still get stupid things now as a result.. like companies that will only
accept connections from IP addresses rather than DNS names.
It also results in huge routing tables which only keep Cisco happy.
The huge reduction in router workload is probably the main reason IPv6 is
lagging, companies like Cisco don't want it as it reduces the need for
really big routing engines (just imagine one of the main nodes dropping from
~500,000 routes to ~2500 routes to get the idea).