> On Jan 19, 2024, at 09:21, Charles Polisher wrote:
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Some, but not a lot. In the case of the DTMF transition, the
> > network and handsets were all under the central control of a
> > single provider at a time when they could have forced the change
> > if they
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Some, but not a lot. In the case of the DTMF transition, the
> network and handsets were all under the central control of a
> single provider at a time when they could have forced the change
> if they really wanted to. After all, nobody was going to cancel
> their phone
Hi, Owen:
0) Thanks for sorting out my vague memory, citing some consumer
electronics evolution history and an excellent overview of the current
IPv4/IPv6 landscape.
1) I believe that consumer electronics including PC related products
and services are in a separate category from the
> On Jan 15, 2024, at 09:37, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
>
> Hi, Christopher"
>
> 1)" IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. ":
> Correct. But, this is not like Ten Commandments that God gave to his
> children. Even such had not worked out in most cases. In real life, technical
> backward
Yes, some folks made Bell very umm... blue at times.
Indeed I remember a Touch Tone fee on our bills until the 90's. In fact, at
one point I couldn't believe it was still a charge, as rotary phones had
largely been replaced either as a choice or through attrition.
Consumers WANTED Touch Tone.
On 1/15/24 09:37, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
2) Allow me to share with you an almost parallel event in the PSTN,
to illustrate how tough is to achieve the replacement of a working
service, even under an environment with very strict backward
compatibility disicpline:
A. The Decadic
Hi, Christopher"
1) " IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. ":
Correct. But, this is not like Ten Commandments that God gave to
his children. Even such had not worked out in most cases. In real life,
technical backward compatibility is the only known approach to achieve
graceful
> My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if
> IPv6 was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition
> from IPv4.
i'll try again
there was a transition plan; it was dual stack. i did not say it was a
*good* transition plan.
the plan's fatal flaw was that
To my knowledge IPv6 is designed to replace IPv4. Anyone, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong. There are just short of 4.3 billion IPv4
addresses, where the number of IPv6 addresses is 39 digits long.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Abraham Y. Chen wrote:
> Hi,
Hi, Randy:
1) " ... unfortunately i already had grey hair in the '90s and was in
the room for all this, ... ":
My apologies! For an uninitiated, I misread your message as if IPv6
was originally designed with a plan to assure smooth transition from IPv4.
Regards,
Abe (2024-01-14
interesting side note:
when iij was deploying the v6 backbone in '97, commercial routers did
not support dual stack. so it was a parallel backbone built on netbsd
with the kame stack, which was developed in iij lab.
we remember itojun.
randy
Wow... There is some serious learning about the internet to be done here!
When Randy was deploying IPv6 across the IIJ backbone, I was running around
in kindergarten. I didn't even know what the internet was back then.
Amazing what can happen in 26 years...
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
On Sat,
> I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I come out
> to see Mr. Chen :
> - Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6
> - Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
>
> Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage.
but it sure is a change to have a
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:47 PM Randy Bush wrote:
> > Perhaps you are too young to realize that the original IPv6 plan was
> > not designed to be backward compatible to IPv4, and Dual-Stack was
> > developed (through some iterations) to bridge the transition between
> > IPv4 and IPv6? You may
I go into my cave to finish the todo list for the week, and I come out to
see Mr. Chen :
- Telling Randy Bush he should "read some history" on IPv6
- Implying that Vint Cerf ever said anything about EzIP
Fairly impressive sequence of self ownage.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:46 PM Randy Bush
Is that a faux pas?
On 13 January 2024 9:15:11 am ACDT, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Perhaps you are too young to realize that the original IPv6 plan was
>> not designed to be backward compatible to IPv4, and Dual-Stack was
>> developed (through some iterations) to bridge the transition between
>> IPv4
> Perhaps you are too young to realize that the original IPv6 plan was
> not designed to be backward compatible to IPv4, and Dual-Stack was
> developed (through some iterations) to bridge the transition between
> IPv4 and IPv6? You may want to spend a few moments to read some
> history on this.
Hi, Randy:
1) " ... dual-stack mess ... it was intended. it was the original
transition plan. ":
Perhaps you are too young to realize that the original IPv6 plan
was not designed to be backward compatible to IPv4, and Dual-Stack was
developed (through some iterations) to bridge the
18 matches
Mail list logo
