OT RE: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
jwest at classiccmp.org
Mon Mar 28 13:41:30 CDT 2016
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Robert Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:36 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
> On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>> From: Jerry Weiss
>> Disabling IPV6 was the cure.
> I was _extremely_ amused to hear that.
> (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought
> it's a rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I
> had still been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it.
> Unfortunately, I'd resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons],
> something that in hindsight I've greatly regretted, since it removed
> my ability to can IPv6. So to hear that IPv6 is _still_, all these
> years later, not that crucial to useful functionality, is very
> satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right on the nose. Long
> may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most expensive IT
> failure of all time?)
So, I’m curious what your objections to v6 are (I know there are some very good technical objections, because v6 is unlike v4 enough to be a breaking change from a programatic point of view) - or rather, how would you solve the shortage of IP addresses?
Gtalk/Jabber:aloha at blastpuppy.com
Email:aloha at blastpuppy.com
Email:alohawolf at gmail.com
"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot" than the stigma of conformity."
- Thomas J. Watson Sr.
More information about the cctalk