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_ directions.
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 IPv6.
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 use.
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 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