OT RE: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old) - test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

28 Mar 2016

TSIA

-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Robert Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 1:36 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)

...

 On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

  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?)

 	Noel 
So, I?m curious what your objections to v6 are (I know there are some very good technical
objections, because v6 is unlike v4 enough to be a breaking change from a programatic
point of view) - or rather, how would you solve the shortage of IP addresses?

Robert Johnson
--
Gtalk/Jabber:aloha at blastpuppy.com
AIM:AlohaWulf
Yahoo:AlohaWulf
Skype:AlohaWolf
Telephone:+1-562-286-4255
C*NET: 18219881
Email:aloha at blastpuppy.com
Email:alohawolf at gmail.com
--
"Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger
of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of "crackpot" than the
stigma of conformity."

- Thomas J. Watson Sr.