| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:23PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost |
| 4 |
> lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by |
| 5 |
> ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone |
| 6 |
> being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address |
| 7 |
> space. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This should be FAQ entry zero for the IPV6 FAQ... *NO* you can *NOT* |
| 10 |
add more bits to IPV4, and still have it backwards compatable. It won't |
| 11 |
work... period... end of story. Every piece of hardware and software |
| 12 |
that deals with IPV4 has the concept of 32 bits *HARD-CODED* into it. |
| 13 |
Switching over to IPV4-extended would be just as painfull as switching |
| 14 |
over to IPV6. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
We will be running out of IPV4 address space shortly so we do need to |
| 17 |
upgrade. Having said that, I don't understand all the hate for NAT. At |
| 18 |
the risk of being called an elitist, I'll say that 95% of average |
| 19 |
internet users have no business running servers; heck many of them can't |
| 20 |
even keep *CLIENTS* properly secured. If IPV6-NAT in my home causes me |
| 21 |
any problem, that's my problem. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 25 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives