At Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0800, Tony Hain wrote: > > While people frequently claim that auto-config is optional, there are > implementations (including OS-X) that don't support anything else at this > point. The basic message is that you should not assume that the host > implementations will conform to what the network operator would prefer
s/network operator would prefer/specifications/ > One last comment (because I hear "just more bits" a lot in the *nog > community)... Approach IPv6 as a new and different protocol. If you approach > it as "IPv4 with more bits", you will trip over the differences and be > pissed off. If you approach it as a "different protocol with a name that > starts with IP" and runs alongside IPv4 (like we used to do with decnet, > sna, appletalk...), you will be comforted in all the similarities. You will > also hear lots of noise about 'lack of compatibility', which is just another > instance of refusing to recognize that this is really a different protocol. > At the end of the day, it is a packet based protocol that moves payloads > around. unfortunately, this view leads to two internets, and one not reachable from the other. this is not very realistic from the business and user point of view. randy
