On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote: >The interesting thing, to stay on topic, is that people are willing to >explore a feature called "SCTP" which to my knowledge is younger than >"IPv6". This makes the whole discussion sort of moot, right ?
In my case, I have a use for SCTP at work (we are using various protocols that run on top of SCTP) but we don't have any IPv6 networks in use. Personally, I find the IPv6 data reported in things like netstat are annoying. >had TCP/UDP for many years and they are still serving their purpose well, >so why change ? TCP isn't sufficiently robust for some Telco purposes: They can't accept the time it takes TCP to detect or recover from a link failure. >So give it a chance, only then there will be feedback and only then we can >fix the problems. Otherwise it will stay just theoretical. Agreed. But at this stage I can't justify the effort to do anything more than have a very cursory glance it at. What benefit would I derive from setting up an IPv6 network and attempting to experiment with it? My ISP won't support IPv6 and I'm reasonably certain my cable-modem doesn't either so IPv6 connectivity would entail some sort of tunnel. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgpy4B0Xu1cau.pgp
Description: PGP signature
