On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:41 -0500, Rajko M wrote:
Hi Bryan, Whole discussion about advantages of IPv6 and how many corporations use it doesn't help if I have to wait longer for name resolution,
First off, re-read _back_ through the thread. To re-cap, I said, as long as you address IPv6 name resolution -- just like IPv4 name resolution -- IPv6 is a _dream_. IPv6 is _not_ an "issue" -- that's FUD talking! If you actually setup IPv6 correctly -- which is _easy_ (and 99% of those who say otherwise are full of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, FUD -- even if unintentional) -- it's a _dream_! So stop spreading the FUD. You can advocate just disabling it. But I've seen FUD after FUD after FUD on IPv6. It's just untrue!
and that is concern of most private users.
But what is Linux designed for? I've had this same discussion on the Linux Professional Institute (LPI) lists. Do we artificially limit the objectives/exams for home users? Or do we design the objectives/exams for enterprise users? Same deal with Linux distributions. Do we artificially limit the distribution for home users? Or do we design the distribution for enterprises? Hey, I'm all for a "checkbox" in the installer that disables IPv6. But IPv6 name resolution is _no_different_ than IPv4 name resolution. And IPv6 UDP/TCP services are _no_different_ than IPv4 UDP/TCP services. IPv6 _must_ ship with _all_ new distros. Because enterprises are using it! Say it's "broken" or "shouldn't be enabled" or whatever, based on 100% FUD (and I've seen many, many statements here that are just dead _wrong_) -- no, that's the problem. It's been a major problem with LPI to date as well. And LPI-Japan, where the overwhelmingly greatest number of certified individuals and more revenue (than all other countries combined) thinks so as well. Hell, God knows that limiting for the home user is at the core problem of Windows. You want to tank Linux? Do that! ;->
When my ISP implement IPv6 than I can enjoy advantages,
Huh? IPv6 works like IPv4 internally -- only with many _advantages_ (like auto-configuration, etc...). IPv6 adoption was _designed_ for _superior_ "internal" use versus IPv6. Again, FUD suggests that IPv6 was _only_ designed for the Internet.
until that time I have to disable it to get out as fast as possible.
Then that's your choice. I _never_ disagreed with that.
I disagree with folk that try to generalize their problems with mixed networks and blame all on the protocol instead of particular implementation, but than you should answer to Michael James not to Per Jansen that pointed out difference between protocol and implementation.
Huh? Remember, I _never_ said that you shouldn't disable it. I only said that IPv6 is a _dream_ if you learn the basic concepts. But apparently, the FUD machine of IPv6 wants to translate that into something else. It's FUD -- remember what FUD means ... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt That is what I've seen repeatedly in the comments here on IPv6. Hell, *I* am the one that pegged it as a "name resolution" issue. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- 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