33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?

Fri Jul 30 04:14:46 UTC 2010

I (unfortunately) cannot get native IPv6 from my ISP at this time, but do
have several tunnels set up using Hurricane Electric's excellent tunnel
brokerage service. All my local systems are dual-stack, my public access
server has a routed /48 that I use to broker my own tunnels for devices
(like my Motorola Droid cell phone). IPv6 is the future, and it is coming.
As Valdis said, why try to extend the life of an effectively dead
technology, and an inferior one at that. With IPSec compliance integrated
into the protocol itself, and the hundreds of other benefits, why try to
morph an old technology? In with the new, out with the old. IPv4 is very
soon to be a completely dead beast, and we'll be all the better for it. This
is the age of the internet, everything is interconnected. There is no
possible way for v4 to keep up with the growth of this era.

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:55 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:45:03 EDT, Atticus said:
> > What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
> > numeric range. As for "only needing port 80", I'm not really sure where
> > you've been for the last decade or so.
>
> I hate to say this, but all of you who are actually thinking about stealing
> bits from IPv4 headers when IPv6 is already here: Look who started the "ONE
> bit
> or TWO bits" thread.  YHBT. HAND.  ;)
>
>

-- 
Byron Grobe