On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 06:31, Magnus wrote: > Bluetooth can already do a lot of this without an IP address needed. > Then again it hasn't exactly exploded onto the industry like everyone > predicted. And still, IPv4 can handle this just fine if the protocols > being used are secure. > The Bluetooth argument is fine, except that it requires another device for Bluetooth to hook up to. The communications of the appliance are now dependent on a secondary computing device being in the house and setup properly to allow it to work. This isn't as limiting as NAT, but it adds complexity.
If we need to move to IPv6 anyway because we are running out of available IP addresses, then why *not* simply put an ethernet interface on the appliance (which is much cheaper than a Bluetooth interface) and let it communicate directly? Jon Carnes -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
