Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (769 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] DHCPv6-PD request
On 05/25/2016 08:20 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
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...

Not quite "+1".

Its sort of like the situation with FAX of old.
When you're the only guy around who has a FAX machine its of no utility.
Its only when *ALL* your business corresponds *AND MORE* have fax
machines too that it makes sense.

Sort of the reverse of "herd immunity".
Call it "herd enablement", perhaps.

Yes, my router can handle IPv6.
Yes my ISP can handle IPv6.

But unless and until all the agencies I deal with ALSO handle IPv6, the
"why bother?" So long as they deal with IPv4 I end up using IPv4.

"Dual stack"?
Perhaps.


No doubt this is where James comes in to tell of his experience in the
area, and I rather hear about that than him telling us all that NAT is evil.


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.

Charles Fort once commentated that "Steam engines happen when its Steam
Engine time". There seems to be a lot of things like that, they happen
when they are ready, not when people try forcing them to happen.

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.

Yes, of course! It was an 'upgrade". For them!
Easier to manage business, reduced cost, blah, blah.

They only considered web browsing. They even had the idea of charging
per email and per distance.

back when the Big I internet started, say, the 1990 point, the telcos
were used to doing data charged (most likely X.25) by a very complicated
form involving volume, time of day, distance, how "wide" your pipe was,
how much you actually loaded that width (say 16K on a T3). I saw one of
these pricing spreadsheets and actually found some inconsistencies in
it, a mode where customers could exploit a path and get cheap(er)
service. That upset a few people! It upset them more when they found
the number of people actually exploiting it.

But the Internet ISPs *demanded* a flat rate for their pipes.
And they often charged their customers a flat rate as well.
Or if not then a simple formula like "connect time".
Because if you're paying a flat rate for the pipe to another ISP then
doing a SMTP over the wider net, point to point or even
store-and-forward via a MX, has nothing to do with the distance to the
endpoint. The 19th century telephony model has no bearing to when we're
dealing with packet forwarding.

Mind you, some of that mentality still hangs around.


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.


A LOT of sales an marketing has no understanding of technology, not of
its implications, nor of its 'emergent properties', and what's worse,
many of them take pride in their ignorance.




--
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread