Subj : Re: IPV6 (Was "Notice that...")
To   : Arelor
From : tenser
Date : Fri Feb 18 2022 07:11:14

On 16 Feb 2022 at 06:30p, Arelor pondered and said...
 
 Ar>   Re: Re: Notice that...
 Ar>   By: tenser to Arelor on Thu Feb 17 2022 11:38 am
 Ar> 
 Ar>  >  Ar> Ipv6 is a poor substitute for ipv4,
 Ar>  > 
 Ar>  > Why do you say that?

Thanks; that's a great synopsis.  As you point out, the
situation isn't much better with IPv4 and many are implementation
issues with ISPs (which are certainly annoying).

My sense reading the protocol spec the first time was that
it incorporated something from just about every networking PhD
awarded in 1991 or so; it was a bit of a mess in that sense.

As far as the protocol goes, though, I think it's mostly fine.
The firewall thing is going to be with us forever, though.  If
we think about it as a policy-driven stateful packet filter,
then...meh.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
 * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

.