| 1 |
On 03/08/2013 02:50 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote: |
| 2 |
>> 1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space |
| 3 |
>> 2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away |
| 4 |
>> and stay away. Permanently. Forever. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job |
| 7 |
> wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many of |
| 8 |
> us to cling to ipv4 of which there are many strong reasons that are far |
| 9 |
> far worse than NAT. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
IPv5 never really existed. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html |
Archives