On Friday 09 January 2004 17:07, you wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:19:17PM +0200, Lorin wrote: > > Acu' privind articolul ala http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html si in > > IMHO: 2. "It gets worse. The IPv6 designers don't have a transition plan. > > They've taken some helpful steps, but they typically declare success > > (``IPv6 support'') when the real problem---making public IPv6 addresses > > work just as well as public IPv4 addresses---still hasn't been solved." > > > > Trecerea se face treptat pana cand providerii majori o sa aiba o > > infrastructura puternica ipv6 si o sa ofere o alternativa de conectare > > pentru clienti. Parerea mea e ca in viitor o sa ajunga la o situatie > > exact inversa: retele+aplicatii pentru ipv6 dar incompatibile ipv4, asa > > ca nu cred ca exista o solutie perfecta pentru niste schimbari majore, > > doar ceva compromisuri (a se citi manareli). Cam ceea ce vreau sa fac io. > > Atunci apuca-te de scris jucarie pentru NAT-ul de care vorbeai. :-) Pai exista cateva aplicatii deja:P, nu prea minunate ce-i drept, da' ce am testat io mere acceptabil. Vezi rfc3142. > > > 3. "Wake up, folks: The ``combined v4/v6 network'' is a bad joke. Without > > a coherent transition plan, IPv6 has no credibility. I'm certainly not > > going to waste time implementing half-baked plans; I want to see a plan > > that, if implemented and universally deployed, will produce the magic > > moment." > > > > Bad joke ? Ma indoiesc ca pe 13/13/2013 la ora 13:13, cand o sa deschid > > calcatorul nu o sa mearga dintr-o data pingu' clasic, doar ping6... > > E cam dezorganizata treaba, sa stii. :-) Ja, da' tipu' asta promoveaza idea unui internet ipv6 separat, construit in paralel cu ipv4 si intr-un "magic moment" sa se faca un switch global. Ce ISP cat e el de mare/bengos ar investi intr-un proiect ca asta fara siguranta unui profit in viitor ? > > > 4. "For example, some people make quite a fuss about replacing IPv4 with > > IPv6 as a mechanism for computers that aren't on the Internet to talk to > > the local proxies. Wake up, folks: That isn't the problem we need to > > solve. We can, and do, use private 10.* IPv4 addresses to talk to > > proxies. The address crunch involves public IPv4 addresses; to fix it, we > > need public IPv6 addresses that can talk to all the same sites." > > > > Se poate trece oare mai usor de la o retea cu ip-uri private v4 la o > > retea cu ip-uri publice v6, decat una cu ipv6 ? > > Nu, dar nu vad ce legatura are. Pai sa zicem ca tu ai un lan functional ipv6, si provideru' tau o ia prin ipv4. La un moment dat ofera si acces direct in sexbone si tu nu ai de schimbat decat 2-3 linii in configuratie.
> > > 5. "As another example, some people focus on building optional > > connections from the IPv4 Internet to a big new IPv6 network. (If you see > > discussion of how ``IPv6-only'' computers might talk to ``IPv4-only'' > > computers, you're looking at one of those plans.) Wake up, folks: Nobody > > will join your IPv6 network if it can't talk to Google, CNN, etc. We need > > practically every computer on the Internet to talk to the IPv6 network." > > > > Chestia asta poate fi rezolvata de configuratia care am propus-o. > > Si pentru care nu exista solutie. :-) Goggle dupa nat-pt+ipv6+linux. S-ar putea sa ai o surpriza;) -- I tought i taw a putty cat...I did! I did taw a putty cat! --- Detalii despre listele noastre de mail: http://www.lug.ro/
