On 2016-05-25 04:56, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 05/24/2016 09:40 PM, James Knott wrote:
I'm not your enemy/opponent in this, James. I'm just saying there is a good reason why people are hanging on to IPv4 and NAT despite the validity of all you say. calling them fools or idiots or short-sighted doesn't help. It just alienates them.
I think most users don't hang onto IPv4. Me, I will simply use IPv6 when my provider uses it... I would like having IPv6, but I don't /need/ it. I don't understand why my provider doesn't use it, but the routers they give their users are IPv6 ready, it seems. Sooner or later they will do it. An anecdote. Initially my provider handed out static IPv4 addresses by default to everybody. At some point they /upgraded/ to dynamic addresses. Yes, they sold it as an upgrade! With NAT. They only considered web browsing. They even had the idea of charging per email and per distance. They were bewildered when clients told them that they were doing user to user things over Internet, and these clients were angry at them for /upgrading/ to dynamic addressing. It is kind of funny the sales people parlance. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)