[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 06/07/2013 bad apple wrote:
Hope I'm not muscling in here.
i think you're in the clear, far as i can tell. just keep it clean, sailor.
If I may, I'd like to draw an analogy with the x86 instruction set: there is so much legacy cruft and completely wrong-headed rubbish still included in there for the undying zombie of backwards compatibility it's insane.
curious for examples, too lazy to start new thread. will have to look into it. but yeah, point taken. backward compatibility is not free. check.
For some reason, the IPv4 upgrade path didn't follow the same thought process - IPv6 could have just included as a subset all of the native IPv4 functionality and address spaces but chose to chuck the baby out with the bathwater instead.
discarding wet babies, also not free. check.
Why two different approaches to absolute critical technology? Who knows. Both approaches were stupid and are costing time, money and efficiency on a global scale right now.
behold the glory of the flathead empire.
I'd like to think I would have done things differently, but you know how design by committee tends to work out - it's not like I would ever have been given (or even deserved) the right to unilaterally control this kind of stuff myself anyway.
pfft, deserve. what a concept! i am curious, though, what power relations hold among the institutions that *do* determine its course of development, however multilaterally. (eg, the ietf is an instrument. so, whose instrument?)
I'm way too lazy to bother digging up "pertinent references"
i should have added "which happen to come to mind". search terms do count, though.
""[...] Some researchers wanted a 128-bit space for the binary address," Cerf (recalled) [...it was an experiment, etc]" Of course, that only explains why he regrets not bomb-proofing IPv4 in the first place, not why the people responsible for IPv6 didn't think this through a bit more thoroughly as you asked for, [...]
interesting nonetheless. i'll keep looking into it. til i get distracted.
Judging by your email address, you're in a major American .edu: you've got IPv6 onsite there surely?
i wouldn't know much about its network outside of the linguistics department's gracious hosts, but the server i use most does not appear to know about IPv6. no loops of zen for me. maybe i should check out some other machines. would i see inet6 somewhere in /etc/network/interfaces if it did?
You've also got internet2 hook ups I would have thought. Lucky fellow.
what, this thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2#Objectives
Internet2 provides the U.S. research and education community with a network that satisfies their bandwidth-intensive requirements. The network itself is a dynamic, robust and cost-effective hybrid optical and packet network. It furnishes a 100 Gbit/s network backbone to more than 210 U.S. educational institutions, 70 corporations and 45 non-profit and government agencies.
first i've heard of it. cheers. -wes On 06/07/2013 bad apple wrote:
On 06/07/13 01:17, davidson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > right. the IPv6 bestowed upon us does not extend IPv4, as it happens. > > and so i wonder, assuming there were practical considerations for this > decision, what were they? what made it so impractical to define a > correspondence between IPv4 and some subset of IPv6, given that such a > correspondence would have greatly facilitated the adoption of IPv6? > > pertinent references appreciated. >> -wesHope I'm not muscling in here.
[rest snipped] -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq