In message <20030304161229.G15927@Space.Net>, Gert Doering writes:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It means re-thinking some established ways to do things - things that have caused large problems in the past, and might not have been an overly good idea to start with.
Well, but those "established ways of doing things" may also happen to be exactly why we could deploy IPv4 in the first place, and their absense have provably hampered IPv6 deployment.
Yes, of course we can stay on IPv4 with NAT and double-NAT and dynamic IPs for customers and whatever kludges are necessary...
Changing over to IPv6 *is* painful.
I'm mainly talking about the lack of a feasible way for end-customers to get working multi-homing. This ties directly into the "PI" space question. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.