The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling
"improved security measures", not me, dude.
I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded
by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4,
thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with
the exception of a larger host address pool.
Equally dumbfounded in v4-land,
- ferg
over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional
advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and
additional links for wireless devices.
which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for
wireless devices?
This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures'
is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's
level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for
the implementations not the protocol itself) than v4. I could be wrong,
but I'm just not seeing any 'inherent security' in v6, and selling it that
way is just a bad plan.
The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling
"improved security measures", not me, dude.
the soap comment was aimed at you for the tom davis 'support' I
understood you didn't write the other parts.
I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded
by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4,
thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with
the exception of a larger host address pool.
Yup, the retrofit has made all arguements (except: "Hey, look, my network
is cooler than yours! it's newer!", and 'more space to ruin^H^H^H^Huse')
We could have been much better served adding 3-bits at the beginning.
Effectively giving a full IP v4 space to every continent (even Antartica)
and having an extra one for the extra-terrestrial working group.
And it would have given us real geographic-based filtering capabilities at
the same time without any major changes to everything we have worked so hard
to get to the level of insanity where we are today.
*shrug* Simple things often get overlooked.
Notice though that the deadline in the US terms is squarely inside the "next
guy's term". Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmm..."
We could have been much better served adding 3-bits at the beginning.
Effectively giving a full IP v4 space to every continent (even Antartica)
and having an extra one for the extra-terrestrial working group.
And it would have given us real geographic-based filtering capabilities at
the same time without any major changes to everything we have worked so hard
to get to the level of insanity where we are today.
*shrug* Simple things often get overlooked.
bzzzt... You just described a rule #1 violation; IP addresses are routable
entities and thus by definition unsuitable for any kind of geo-location.
Rule #2 would be that IP addresses do (and must) not encode routing information,
they just serve to transport data. All routing information is carried on the
routing layer and applied to the forwarding layer from there.
When do people learn that these layers do not intermix just like water and
oil do not? I guess the only lession history teaches us is that it doesn't.
