AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)

Charles Anthony at
Mon Mar 28 09:45:19 CDT 2016

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at>

>     > From: Jerry Weiss
>     > Disabling IPV6 was the cure.
> I was _extremely_ amused to hear that.
> (Backstory: I'm a long-time detractor of IPv6 - I've always thought it's a
> rolling ball of digestive byproduct, to be blunt. In fact, if I had still
> been on the IESG when it came around, I'd have canned it. Unfortunately,
> I'd
> resigned a while before [for unrelated reasons], something that in
> hindsight
> I've greatly regretted, since it removed my ability to can IPv6. So to hear
> that IPv6 is _still_, all these years later, not that crucial to useful
> functionality, is very satisfactory to me - it says my assessment was right
> on the nose. Long may IPv6 fail to be successful! The single biggest/most
> expensive IT failure of all time?)

I think that having HTTP use DNS was the big one; it changed the role of
DNS from finding computers by name to the being the innocent victim of the
land rush of domain name marketing.

Followed closely by NAT being used make vast portions of the internet dark.

-- Charles

More information about the cctech mailing list