Volker Kuhlmann wrote, On 16/02/15 12:40: > On Mon 16 Feb 2015 11:38:02 NZDT +1300, Derek Smithies wrote: > >> My understanding is that if you think of IPv6 as "just adding an extra 96 >> bits to the addressing space" then you have it wrong. There is much much >> more that was added. > Anyone able/care to post a summary? > > So far I haven't missed IPv6, and it's more annoying then anything else - > un-typeable addresses of incomprehensible gobbledegook, stuff breaks, lots of > complexity, privacy problems, ... Imagine this statement in the mid 90s with IPX as the incumbent and IP (v4) as the newcomer.
The young kids are saying "eye pee ex ? whats that?" Its dead, is what it is. And it went from King of the LAN Protocols to background noise in less than a decade. > My ISP doesn't offer it anyway (and shows no indications of changing that), > but I'd never consider changing ISPs for something of no benefit to me. So, > why bother? At the moment there is nothing on the IPv6 internet that cannot also be accessed by IPv4, with exceptions being test sites like http://ipv6porn.co.nz So deploying IPv6 as a consumer gains you little if anything. Why bother in a networking role? Being ahead of the need, having a solid grounding in understanding before its required. Designing a new network or environment in 2015? It should really be IPv6 ready else you're shortening the network's working lifespan, or committing to a painful retrofit in the future. -- CF _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
