| 1 |
> >> 1. The craziness of trying to conserve IPv4 space |
| 2 |
> >> 2. NAT. Finally, a good solid techical reason to make NAT just go away |
| 3 |
> >> and stay away. Permanently. Forever. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > It's a great shame that isn't all it fixed (ipv5), then your job |
| 6 |
> > wouldn't have been so hard and there wouldn't be any reason for many of |
| 7 |
> > us to cling to ipv4 of which there are many strong reasons that are far |
| 8 |
> > far worse than NAT. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> IPv5 never really existed. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2003/06/what_ever_happened_to_ipv5.html |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
First I've heard of ST or an actual ipv5 but sounds like they had |
| 17 |
dropped a layer. Having options like tcp or udp is a good thing. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost |
| 20 |
lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by |
| 21 |
ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone |
| 22 |
being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address |
| 23 |
space. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If I got an ISP who only offers me IPV6 I would drop the ISP before the |
| 26 |
IPV4! |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work |
| 32 |
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a |
| 33 |
universal interface' |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
(Doug McIlroy) |
| 36 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
Archives