I'm a bit torn on this issue. I haven't even heard any other "main-stream" sources say anything on this topic. But Incorrect info is bad too.
I hope the viewers who watched this are getting the gist that "Something wicked this way comes". :) LOL - Brian J. >-----Original Message----- >From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:49 AM >To: Nick Hilliard >Cc: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Found: Who is responsible for no more IP addresses > > >On Jan 27, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> On 27/01/2011 11:21, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> "I thought it was an experiment and I thought that 4.3 billion IPv4 >>> addresses would be enough to do an experiment," Cerf was quoted as >saying, >>> adding it is his "fault" that "we were running out of the addresses."" >> >> Fortunately, web developers have fixed the problem according to Fox news: >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/26/internet-run-ip-addresses- >happens-anyones-guess/ >> >> "Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating >IPv6 -- a system that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit >ones." >> >Consider the source... Fox -- All the news that's fit to misquote. (or >something >like that). > >Those guys never get anything technical or political right.* > >> It will be difficult initially, though: >> >> "But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to >read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user >experience will be clunky and slow. At worst, instead of a webpage, all users >will be able to view is a blank page." >> >> I'm glad Fox has cleared all this up for us. >> >ROFLMAO > >Owen > >*In order for Fox to sue me for libel, they first have to prove my statement is >false. >
