> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Windows XP does IPv6 fine so long as there is a IPv4 recursive >>>> server available. It's just a simple command to install IPv6. >>>> >>>> netsh interface ipv6 install >>>> >>> If the customer knew how to do that he wouldn't still be using Windows XP. >>> >>> >>>> Actually I don't expect Gmail and Facebook to be IPv4 only forever. >>>> >>> Gmail and Facebook are already dual stack enabled. But I do not see >>> Facebook turning off IPv4 for a very long time. Therefore a customer that >>> only uses the Internet for a few basic things will be able to get along >>> with being IPv4-only for a very long time. >>> >> Yes and no… >> >> I think you are right about facebook. >> >> However, I think eventually the residential ISPs are going to start charging >> extra >> for IPv4 service. Some residences may pay for it initially, but if they >> think there’s a >> way to move away from it and the ISPs start fingerpointing to the specific >> laggards, >> you’ll see a groundswell of consumers pushing to find alternatives. >> >> Owen >> > ipv6 is going to force a lot of consumers to replace hardware. Worse, it's > not easy to set up and get right as ipv4 is. > > --Curtis
You’re going to have to elaborate on that one…. I think IPv6 is actually quite a bit easier than IPv4, so please explicate in what ways it is harder to set up and get right? For the average household, it’s plug the IPv6-capable router in and let it go. For more advanced environments, it might take nearly as much effort as IPv4 and the unfamiliarity might add a couple of additional challenges the first time, but once you get past that, IPv6 has a lot of features that actually make it easier than IPv4. Not having to deal with NAT being just one of the big ones. Owen
