on 8/14/00 9:51 AM, John Day at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> While I agree that this is really dumb, I think we need to take it
> very seriously and not just brush it off. Those who are in a
> position to have influence (and you know who you are) should move
> quickly to nip this in the bud. The longer it takes to do so, the
> longer (and more effort) it will take to kill it off. It will
> assume a life of its own and more and more people will have to be
> convinced that it can't be done. And the more time it is going to
> take to kill it off. If there is some local organization in CA that
> is pushing this, it could be dealt with fairly easily. But if
> someone gets journalists or legislators behind it, it is going to be
> much harder.
Needless to say, it is usually the politicians who dictate what gets done,
and the engineers who get stuck figuring out how to do it. If enough
support gathers behind the idea of allocating IPv6 space based on the
content of whoever is at the other end of that address, who will get left
determining what content is okay and what isn't?
Furthermore, if you have one address and multiple virtual sites at that
address (in terms of web hosting), does the ISP then have to dictate that
only "kid-friendly" virtual sites can reside on that IP, and that all others
must go on an "adult-friendly" IP? And assuming that those two IP addresses
(the kid-friendly, and the adult-friendly) aren't on the same subnet (isn't
that the whole point behind this dumb idea), routing tables are going to
become infinitely more complicated.
I have enough work to do as it is - I'm not going to play big brother for
customers who want a damn website.
-jamie
--
James H. Corning Network Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wombat Internet, Inc.
"Pray to God, but keep rowing to the shore."
-- Russian Proverb
