I can't tell if this question is serious. It's either making fun of the embarrassingly inadequate job we have done on this transition out it's naive and ignorant in a genius way.
Read the asn32 migration docs for one that migrations like this can be properly done. This was harder but not impossible. We just chose badly for decades and now we have NAT *and* a dumb migration. Oh well. T On Oct 1, 2015 19:26, "Matthew Newton" <m...@leicester.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 10:42:57PM +0000, Todd Underwood wrote: > > it's just a new addressing protocol that happens to not work with the > rest > > of the internet. it's unfortunate that we made that mistake, but i guess > > we're stuck with that now (i wish i could say something about lessons > > learned but i don't think any one of us has learned a lesson yet). > > Would be really interesting to know how you would propose > squeezing 128 bits of address data into a 32 bit field so that we > could all continue to use IPv4 with more addresses than it's has > available to save having to move to this new incompatible format. > > :-) > > Matthew > > > -- > Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <m...@le.ac.uk> > > Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, > I.T. Services, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom > > For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ith...@le.ac.uk> >
