From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 4 11:30:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488C937B401 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.139]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A799B43FBD for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-38ldtqv.dialup.mindspring.com ([209.86.247.95] helo=mindspring.com) by puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19jk5p-0004cX-00; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:30:02 -0700 Message-ID: <3F2EA5AD.E4C73C6@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:27:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ticso@cicely.de References: <3F2D1713.9060806@liwing.de> <20030803181735.GC6331@cicely12.cicely.de> <20030804140822.GU6331@cicely12.cicely.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a45dabf21b0a323ede00cd4a5339ce4b39387f7b89c61deb1d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: FreeBSD-Current List Subject: Re: INET6 in world X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:30:14 -0000 Bernd Walter wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote: > > What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture > > in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing > > (hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection to > > the outside world. Well, you could ping localhost per IPv6... > > That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks > that way. > The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to > use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support. > As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world > as long as you have a single official IPv4 address. > Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one > point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6 > harder is another. > The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need > to build new ones. The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going to get any traction. I wouldn't be surprised if the government has asked Microsoft to not deploy it, or to deploy it without encryption support, given world events. -- Terry