You make a point, but those ipv6 addresses would not be a available to my cpe. I would agree that if your cpe is less than 5 years old, it should support ipv6.
On October 2, 2015 12:30:56 AM ADT, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > >In message <2bb18527-2f9c-4fee-95dd-3f89919a8...@xyonet.com>, Curtis >Maurand wr >ites: >> If Time Warner (my ISP) put up IPv6 tomorrow, my firewall would no >longer wo >> rk. I could put up a pfsnse or vyatta box pretty quickly, but my >off the sh >> elf Cisco/Linksys home router has no ipv6 support hence the need to >replace >> the hardware. There's no firmware update for it supporting ipv6 >either. The >> re would be millions of people in the same boat. > >Total garbage that *everyone* here should recognise as total garbage. >If Time Warner turned on IPv6 your firewall would just continue to >work as it always has. TURNING ON IPv6 DOES NOT TURN OFF IPV4. > >As for millions of people needing to upgrade their CPE equipement >you really should be asking yourself if you should be rewarding >those vendors for selling you IPv4 only equipement in the first >place. If Microsoft, along with lots of other vendors could deliver >IPv6 capable equipment in 2001, your and every other CPE vendor >could have done so. Instead they sold you out of date garbage that >you happily accepted. > >Mark > >> Cheers, >> Curtis >> >> On October 1, 2015 5:44:46 PM ADT, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> >wrote: >> > >> >> On Oct 1, 2015, at 12:06 , Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/1/2015 2:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>>> On Oct 1, 2015, at 00:39 , Baldur Norddahl >> ><baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On 1 October 2015 at 03:26, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> 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 >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >-- >Mark Andrews, ISC >1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.