Today I received an allocation of IP6 addresses for some servers. I can 'play' with the last 2 of the 8 IP6 address segments. I always thought, mistakenly, IP6 was 6 segments, because it was IP6. IP4 had 4 segments. However IP6 is actually IP version 6 and it has 8 segments. The other interesting discovers are: :: means one or more 0 segments, example :: can mean 0:0:0: or just 0:0: or even 0:0:0:0: and, a real smile making favourite, is IP6 breaks Micro$oft's set-up. Micro$oft can not handle actual IP6 addresses because : is forbidden by Micro$oft in its 'Uniform Naming Convention (UNC) path names'. Naturally Micro%oft has invented a 'work around' solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_address#Literal_IPv6_addresses_in_UNC_path_names Because : is sometimes used in an address to indicate the start of a port number, example http://www.anyonejunk.com:1234, the IP6 address can be enclosed within [ ] with the port number remaining outside the square brackets. How will IP6 affect the software in Centos and what gradual changes should one make on the transition to a major Internet change with the ending of NAT for IP4 addresses and a more secure (IPsec) end to end transmission protocol? -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.
On 02/26/11 12:12 PM, Always Learning wrote:> Because : is sometimes used in an address to indicate the start of a > port number, examplehttp://www.anyonejunk.com:1234, the IP6 address can > be enclosed within [ ] with the port number remaining outside the square > brackets.Thats, MUST be enclosed within []... without those [ ], how would you resolve http://21DA:00D3::00FF:FE28:8080 is that... http://[21DA:00D3:0000:0000:0000:00FF:FE28:8080] or http://[21DA:00D3:0000:0000:0000:0000:00FF:FE28]:8080 ? Both of those are valid IPv6 addresses if anything, I'd put the blame on this squarely on the committee that decided to use : as the IPv6 seperator when it was already in wide use as the URL port separator.
>> Always learning wrote:>> I always thought, mistakenly, IP6 was 6 segments, because it was IP6. IP4 had 4 segments. However IP6 is >actually IP version 6 and it has 8 segments.I don't think I ever heard IP6, but always IPv6. Counting segments might not be as meaningful. IPv6 has twice (8) segments compared to IPv4 however each segment is 2 octets making IPv6 address space 4 times (128 bits) compared to IPv4 (32 bits). Thanks Sheraz Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 00:38 -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Always Learning <centos at g7.u22.net> wrote: > > > > Today I received an allocation of IP6 addresses for some servers. I can > > 'play' with the last 2 of the 8 IP6 address segments. > > I guess Will Rogers was correct after all :) > > You can label yourself as "special" since others get assignments of > IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > > <https://www.arin.net/policy/archive/ipv6_policy.html#25> says, in part: > > 2.5. Allocate > > To allocate means to distribute address space to IRs for the purpose > of subsequent distribution by them. > > 2.6. Assign > > To assign means to delegate address space to an ISP or end-user, for > specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. > Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by > specific organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other > parties.I was actually wrong. I can 'play' with not 2 but 4 groups of the IP6 allocation. Golly, what can I do with 64 x 64 x 64 x 64 address combinations? Hire then out? Have a different IP6 address for every hour of the year? Put the IP4 address in the last 4 groups? (2001::10.2.2.191) That vast surplus of IP6 addresses is just for one server - I have several. -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 22:38 -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Always Learning <centos at g7.u22.net> wrote: > > > > At my second computer job in 1967 on a Honeywell H-120 (a baby machine > > with 3 tapes which took 1 hour to do a Cobol compilation ...> I have always hoped to find someone who was involved with COBOL back > in the days to ask this question of: > > "What influence did Commander Grace Hopper have on COBOL?"Don't know. Grace was occasionally mentioned in the computer press for getting awards in the USA (I think she was in the USA Navy) but we programmers, new to a new world of computing, just wrote programmes, debugged them, did some systems analysis and ventured into assembler coding and system programming. Grace never ever influenced me or anyone else I knew who did Cobol. She was just a name to the majority who programmed in Cobol. I used to think it took someone 2 years of writing in Cobol to become efficient in using it and visualising solutions which could be implemented in it. Well written Cobol was easy to maintain but some clowns never properly used the self documenting features of the language (i.e. meaningful data names - contrast with add csum to itotal). The alternative was longer data names, for example inv-gross-total, inv-delivery-cost and overdue-3-mths-total etc. Many programmed in Cobol but fewer used the language to its designed extent. The worse thing about Cobol was the long windiness of it before one came to the Procedure Division. Later on Picture became Pic and very useful string handling was introduced (the alternative was refining the same field multiple times). It used to be my favourite language, after Easycoder and 6502 assembler, then I discovered PHP. -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.