28 Mar
2016
28 Mar
'16
10:32 a.m.
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
28 Mar
28 Mar
10:45 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
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
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?)
2:33 p.m.
On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com>
wrote:
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
What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn?t enough IPv4 address space to go
around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry.
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.
3:08 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson <aloha at blastpuppy.com>
wrote:
What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.'
It seems like NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through
feature creep and enabled slow uptake.
The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have
bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are
happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud;
the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I
want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck.
I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a
problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a
stop-gap.
-- Charles
On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com>
wrote:
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
What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn?t enough IPv4 address
space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry.
3:50 p.m.
New subject: OT: was: Re: AT&T Uverse IPv6 vs. Mac OS X 10.(old)
On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Robert Johnson
<aloha at blastpuppy.com>
wrote:
What they did was 'NAT plus IPV6 will solve everything.'
It seems like NAT gave them enough breathing room to fumble IPV6 through
feature creep and enabled slow uptake.
The is no pressure to leave NAT; the vast majority of the NATed users have
bought into the client/server model of centrally managed services and are
happy surfing the web and putting their credit card numbers in the cloud;
the ISPs are raking in the money. NAT is great for that, but if you and I
want to do peer-to-peer, we are out of luck.
I don't have a problem with NAT per se w.r.t. address exhaustion; I have a
problem with it apparently being deployed as a solution, and not as a
stop-gap.
-- Charles
All,
Didn?t quite realize (maybe should have) the discussion I?d kick off. I was thinking
?classic? in regard to my OS 10.4 machines which are well over a decade old. The
discussion is fascinating, but ...
Relabelled the thread ?OT? because i think it?s maybe not germane to ?classic?
computing.
Please reply to this title (or better, off-list) if you agree.
- Mark
210-522-6025 office 210-379-4635 cell
On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Charles Anthony <charles.unix.pro at gmail.com>
wrote:
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
What would you have done in place of NAT? there isn?t enough IPv4 address
space to go around, and has not been my entire time in the tech industry.
2:35 p.m.
On Mar 28, 2016, at 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
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.
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
2980
days inactive
2980
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
aloha＠blastpuppy.com -
charles.unix.pro＠gmail.com -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
mtapley＠swri.edu