Re: Anybody Using IPv6?

On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:

Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:

IVP6 comes from having too many web sites to fit in IVP4.

>
No. THAT issue has been solved with name-based virtual hosting and
SNI. Which is too bad since it decreases the pressure to get rid of
v4.

Here the IPv4 problem is not websites, but hosts/nodes/devices. IPv4
only survives because of NAT.

IPv6 seems to make it quite easy to get non-local addresses. At least
when properly deployed.

If you pay attention to the larger picture you might know that. That
the protocol has not been properly instituted everywhere it should
have been is not the fault of the designers but of people who learned
IVP4 and think nothing better can come along.

>
And it is the fault of the persons who are SO acquainted with the
crutches that v4 needs to limp ahead that they actually think that a
protocol that doesn't need THESE¹ crutches is crippled.
>
Greetings
Marc
>
¹ I am not saying that IPv6 is the best protocol ever but it's the
best we've got at the moment.

What would be a good description/introduction/... in textual form of
IPv6 to introduce people to the way it's intended to be used? Stuff like
mentioning address scopes, RAs, DHCP, multicast...

--
Nuno Silva