> >> 1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space > >> 2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away > >> and stay away. Permanently. Forever. > > > > It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job > > wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many of > > us to cling to ipv4 of which there are many strong reasons that are far > > far worse than NAT. > > > > > > IPv5 never really existed. > > http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html
First I've heard of ST or an actual ipv5 but sounds like they had dropped a layer. Having options like tcp or udp is a good thing. What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address space. If I got an ISP who only offers me IPV6 I would drop the ISP before the IPV4! -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
