= Сообщение: 3827 из 7440 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Nicholas Boel 1:154/10 02 Dec 16 07:57:42 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 02 Dec 16 07:57:42 Тема : Cable modem change FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=1:154/10+58417f91 На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+5840b5cd = Кодировка сообщения определена как: UTF-8 ================================== Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+58419079 ============================================================================== Hello Michiel,
On 02 Dec 16 00:29, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel:
MV> There is that, but I was thinking a bit further ahead. Dual stack is MV> not the end goal, it is also a transition mechanism. A sensible MV> engineer does not want to maintain duality forever. On the contrary, MV> once you got the new syetem in place, you want to get rid of the old MV> system ASAP. Keeping two systems in the air side by side increases the MV> effort of maintenace and increases the chanco oe errors. Mars landers MV> and planes have crashed because of using metric and the imperial MV> measures in the same project.
You may be thinking much to far ahead (which is not a bad thing). It has taken this long to get IPv6 deployed. I can only imagine how long it's going to take to get rid of IPv4 completely.
MV> IPv4 only stuff is an obstacle on the road to IPv6 only.
True. But their thought process probably had something to do with the life expectancy of said router(s) would probably not outlast the transition to full IPv6, and while it's in transition and even completes, the router would still work fine, without extra work put into it.
You know the routine.. "sell for the highest price possible, but put the least amount of effort into the product" kind of deal.
MV> That was than, but just like the first cars were designed to function MV> is a horseless society, IPv6 was designed to operate in an environment MV> without IPv4.
True. Albeit I'm sure they've all been brainwashed into the "we've got plenty of time" mindset already.
NB>> Agreed. My router would never be open to the public.
MV> "Open to the public" and accesible from outside is not the same thing. MV> YOU may want to access it from outside, but not giving that access to MV> anyone else.
I wouldn't want my router accessible from outside whatsoever. Anything I need to do I can do from within my LAN. If my router were to go down while I wasn't home, there's most likely no way of fixing it from there anyways. I would probably need to physically replace or manually reboot it, depending on the issue.
Regards, Nick
... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю." --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827 * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
