| |||||||||||||
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfIPv6 source routing: history repeats itselfPosted May 3, 2007 9:01 UTC (Thu) by dw (subscriber, #12017)In reply to: IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself by Gunner Parent article: IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself
I more or less agree with you, but I'd be quicker to believe that the IETF is in fact blameless in providing a standardized protocol that can do all the same things as its predecessor. Sure, source routing is bad on the Internet, but how many IP networks exist outside of the Internet?* This header might be the make-or-break for some large private company that would otherwise have stuck with IPv4.
The fact that this was enabled by default in multiple OSes is funny if nothing else. It's exactly the reason we're still "moving towards" IPv6, so fun stuff like this can be found.
Nobody is to blame. The standards people are doing what standards people do best (producing standards that appear to contain as much noise/dross as content) and the programmers are doing what the programmers do (writing code for fun, worrying about the more boring parts like security later).
David.
* = If you reply to this with something like "well omg lol they should stop using source routing" then I will find you and kick you in the ass very hard.
(Log in to post comments)
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 9:50 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I agree with you completely. This IETF bashing is proving very silly. IPv6 is a pretty solid job, considering what it's up against, and the only reason it's still a work in progress is because nobody wants it really yet.
IPv6 source routing: history repeats itself Posted May 3, 2007 13:55 UTC (Thu) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] well omg lol they should stop using source routing!
*WHAM* Ouch!
No, I agree 100% :)
Private IPv6 networks?? Posted May 6, 2007 13:06 UTC (Sun) by dthurston (subscriber, #4603) [Link] Sure, source routing is bad on the Internet, but how many IP networks exist outside of the Internet?Isn't the point of IPv6 to prevent a need for private IP networks? Sure, some organizations might want private networks for security, but I find it hard to believe that there are any that are so big they can't use IPv4...
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 10, 2007 13:30 UTC (Thu) by rogblake (guest, #18258) [Link] Actually, I intend to stick with IPV4 indefinitely as I see absolutely no need for IPV6. I simply have no intention of learning or using this unnecessary new protocol. (New Linux distributions seem to have it enabled by default, first thing I do on a fresh installation is to get rid of IPV6.)
Of course the day may come when it is no longer feasible to use IPV4, but given the overall slow rate of adoption I'll most likely be retired and off of the internet by then.
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 12, 2007 12:58 UTC (Sat) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] So I guess you belong to the 4.5% of human population that owns 74% of all IPv4 addresses then, namely the USA. Well, lucky you.
IPv6 is an unneeded change in the first place Posted May 13, 2007 9:19 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] so it sounds like more of the unused address space needs to be allocated (and some of the early allocations to companies should be reclaimed)
|
|||||||||||||