david at d-austin.net
Thu Jan 13 04:17:12 MST 2011
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Paul Wayper <paulway at mabula.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 01/12/2011 11:47 PM, David Austin wrote:
> > Perhaps DoD early adoption is a reflection of their propensity to
> > adopt sh*t standards all over the place...
> > (not impressed that IPv6 is not backwards compatible)
> And how would you make it backward compatible?
What you're probably talking about is 'I want my IPv6-only machine to be
> to access IPv4 addresses with no additional hardware, routing or proxies'.
Sort of. Certainly it should be possible with a little effort on the part
my ISP. Also it should be possible to upgrade backbones to IPv6 and
still carry IPv4 traffic within that. Requiring that significant sections
of a deliberately anarchic thing to all decide to switch over at once seems
> give one the false impression that the reason you can't have backward
> compatibility is because some back-room boffins didn't think hard enough
> it. I personally doubt this. There are plenty of good reasons for not
> backward compatible, starting with it being an awful kludge however you do
> continuing through trying to avoid some of the naive assumptions about how
> networks theoretically worked, and ending at the practical abilities of
> modern-day technology and modern routing implementations.
Yes it's an awful kludge to think about. But there must be O(billions)
of IPv4 devices out there. And I do have doubts about IPv6 boffins.
See SMTP or voluntary TCP backoff windows.
More information about the linux