Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5130 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] ipv6? -- IPv6 is actually a dream (and there's common FUD)
  • From: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 08:54:48 -0400
  • Message-id: <1148820888.2724.79.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 14:25 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> What I meant was - I though every IPv4 address could be expressed as an
> IPv6 address, but not vice-versa.

Yes and no.

Yes, there is a reserved IPv6 subnet for IPv4 (the subnet number is
slipping my mind -- it's another /64 CIDR IIRC). But no, for the most
part, the router is doing address translation when it comes to _both_

> I understand that. You could benefit from being a little less
> condescending.

Because everything you've said has been based on assumptions. I'm not
being "condescending," I'm just waiving my arms, trying to get you
_past_ those assumptions.

> Who's talking about "interconnecting enterprises"???

*I* am! That's what IPv6 is being used for _heavily_ in the US.
That's the #1 problem with the FUD on IPv6.

Yes, IPv6 is being used to address the limitation of IPv4 address of the
4 non-IANA regions. But IPv6 was _also_ designed to address many
_internal_/_private_ issues. And it does that _brilliantly_!

That's why IPv6 is being enabled on systems by default. Which is why
you can't make this an "Internet-only" thread. Because a _lot_ of
"Linux" systems aren't directly on the Internet. ;->

> So? You talk about "interconnecting enterprises" even though I'm not.

But that's where 90% of IPv6 adoption is occurring.
And most of that is in the US.

Last time I checked, this thread wasn't merely limited to the Internet.
It was on IPv6 in general -- so I'm going to talk about where it's being
adopted the most.

But even those that use IPv6 on the Internet have _little_ issue with
its adoption. All you need is a router and a name server. In fact,
that's what I've said repeatedly throughout this thread.

IPv6 adoption is not difficult at all. And most of the other issues
have to do with UDP/TCP services in general -- regardless of IPv4 or

> Why shouldn't they? To me, using it internally is not particularly
> attractive for the time being.

Again, last time I checked, this thread wasn't merely limited to the
Internet. Especially since IPv6 was designed to address
internal/private issues more than just the address space. In fact, so
much from IPv6 has been "backported" to IPv4 for 100% internal/private

> Please, Bryan - I'm not spreading anything. And do also please adjust
> your tone - it _really_ does you no good.

Because 99% of the posts I see on IPv6 are FUD. It gets just as
frustrating as any other FUD.

> Why are you now talking about the US? I never spoke about the US - it
> is in fact utterly irrelevant to me.

But that's where the _majority_ of IPv6 adoption is. Which is why more
and more Linux distributions are shipping with the IPv6 LINK LOCAL
address enabled.

And IPv6 LINK LOCAL is _not_ for the Internet. ;->

Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance
Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign
nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset
because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

< Previous Next >