Lonnie Olson wrote: > Brandon is right here. In general limiting by IP is a bad idea. > However in your (intended) small experiment I think limiting by IP would > be a quick, easy, legitimate way to get past your initial problem. > > Now, just to ignore Brandon's warning... > NAT vs IPv6! > > That controversy is total crap. The only argument for the NAT side is > laziness. NAT proponents say that we already have a solution, and don't > need to make any changes (laziness). Sometimes they say that there are > no providers, which is caused by these lazy people themselves. IPv6 is > the future. China is already deploying it widely, and even the US > Government has mandated the change. > > --lonnie > Go Lonnie! I agree totally. Japan and other countries are picking up IP v6. In fact, there are a few websites you cannot access without IP v6. Nothing significant yet, for most of us anyway, but there are a few.
Brandon Stout http://mscis.org _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
