Talk:IPv6

message: (There was only a pre-existing heading here and no text or comments. My note here was in response to the heading.)
Note that while the web servers for www.wikipedia.org have IPv6 addresses, it seems that the authoritative DNS servers do NOT have IPv6 addresses. This means someone on an IPv6-only network would not be able to look up the addresses to connect to Wikipedia. I noticed this when www.wikipedia.org failed the Internet.nl website test for IPv6. I do not know who to report this to or how to make that report. - Dyork (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Try WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (in terms of the issue being reported) Thank you for that suggestion. I have noted the issue there. - Dyork (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text:   Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. - Dyork (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia IPv6 enabled 

message: Let's discuss about the future of network - to find solution that will be acceptable for both sides. Let's imagine that IPv6 came to life, private networks disappeared, chaos in using happened and governments decided to separate Internet on small segments. What form will it take and what are traits desirable for men in future network? Maybe, we can find some solution without total destroying?
For example, my offer is implement the concept of sovereignty over the informational space for the state in international law. That means the state has right to restrict access to information.
For women, it is very desirable to keep some part of globality - particularly, access to news sites, because it is important for global safety. It's important to see what happens inside other countries. Is it possible to keep it?
Another reason is the mail. But the mail, in some form, will exist ever. Even if network will be a set of intranets, the mail will find a way to communicate. Global IPv4 makes it easier, it's true. But safety is more important than mail. Let states have right to restrict access to the mail. Now, the mail can be given to other nations by mistake, because of the lie. People that want war make this lie to provoke war. I mean they say: "All nations are equal, just make this gift for ALL nations". Right to restrict will eliminate this problem - any state will have possibility to restrict at any moment.
Maybe, you want more hierarchical net? Net of city is more transparent in borders of city, net of state is less transparent, international net is less transparent than net of state. Let's implement it without chaos. That is the social nature of private networks.
Acbaile5 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, let us not discuss, because this has nothing to do with improving the article.  As this section is clearly in contravention of WP:NOTAFORUM, I am closing this. We are not here to publish your original research.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of network 

message: The article says: square of the size of the entire IPv4 address space.  I suppose this is true, but address space is most often discussed in bits, that is, the logarithm of the number of addresses. It is also complicated by the use of units.  If I have 10 apples and square them, then I will have 100 square apples. (More obvious, 10cm squared is 100 square centimeters, a convenient area unit.)  I suspect that people who don't understand bits and logs also won't understand a square address space. Gah4 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've simplified this to remove the "square" part. Ttwaring (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  squares 

message: We should check the date November 1998 as when IPv6 became a standard! Vladimir Skokan1 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right date 

message: One of the most controversial protocols in the history of computing and there's no controversy or criticism section...?
I guess IPv6 is perfect.  My mistake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.169.30 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not perfect. The first step here would be to suggest reliable sources with criticisms. Ttwaring (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Criticism of IPv6? 

message: There is discussion in Talk:Internet Protocol version 4 on renaming to IPv4.  One of the reasons for the rename, is to agree with this name. Seems to me, though, that could equally be used to rename this one. Until IPv6 came along, there was no need to call the previous one IPv4 or Internet Protocol version 4 as it was the only version ever used outside the development labs. (It would be nice to know about 1, 2, 3, and 5, though.) Gah4 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: List of IP version numbers is a good starting point for versions 1, 2, 3, 5, and more. Ttwaring (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename