Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:27:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: ticso@cicely.de Cc: FreeBSD-Current List <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: INET6 in world Message-ID: <3F2EA5AD.E4C73C6@mindspring.com> References: <3F2D1713.9060806@liwing.de> <20030803181735.GC6331@cicely12.cicely.de> <20030804140822.GU6331@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F2EA5AD.E4C73C6>