On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: >> Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6 >> threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over >> again? :) > > Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently > stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course! > IPv42, here I come! > > On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world > maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement > above is, in fact, true? Not trying to be anti-IPv6 or start a flamewar > (well, okay, I am trying to start a flamewar, that's what Sunday nights > are for :)), it's honestly something that puzzles me. It just doesn't > feel right… > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
I really don't see a significant difference in that regard. Yes, IPv6 is currently a little less fully baked than IPv4. IPv4 is 20 years older than IPv6, so I say that's to be somewhat expected. Owen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
