Subj : Re: IPv6 deham01 down (sixxs)
To   : Michiel van der Vlist
From : Tony Langdon
Date : Sun Sep 25 2016 20:40:00

-=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

 MvV> Ik like the positive attitude of seeing it an an opportunity to start
 MvV> with IPv6, but the reality is that they are too late. Not only should
 MvV> IPv6 have been the dominant protocol by now, it should have een the
 MvV> dominant protocol before the world ran out of IPv4 addresses.

True, it should have been done.

 MvV> Frankly I am a bit surprised that it took so long for ISP's being
 MvV> forced to go CGNAT. It was already five years ago that APNIC officially
 MvV> depleted its IPv4 addresses. I'd have expected ISPs to go CGNAT
 MvV> earlier. Apparently they still had some in store.

Yes, I think they hoarded while they could.

 MvV> Anyway, the introduction of IPv6 should have started much earlier. It
 MvV> should have been introduced when there wree still plenty of IPv4
 MvV> addresses, so that the bugs could have been ironed out properly before
 MvV> the panic emerged. Had it been done properly, we may never have needed
 MvV> CGNAT. The world should have been weened off IPv4 and IPv6 only might
 MvV> have been acceptable by now.

I agree totally.  It was known for many years that IPv4 would run out sometime
post 2010

 MvV> We have the technology, IPv6 capable software is available for Fidonet.
 MvV> Tunnels are available for those who's ISP does not provide native IPv6.

 MvV> We can do it...

That's why I am doing it. :)

 MvV> That's what I meant when I said IPv6 should have been introduced much
 MvV> earlier. So that by now all those child diseases would have gone.

I don't know how they managed it. :)  I've never had any issue setting up web
servers for IPv6.


.... OK Scotty, NOW!  Detonate and energize!  I mean.......
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
 * Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

.