| |||||||||||||
Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designsGhosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designsPosted Nov 17, 2010 10:00 UTC (Wed) by iq-0 (subscriber, #36655)In reply to: Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designs by dlang Parent article: Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designs
No it would only eliminate the address shortage part of the problem. There are more significant changes that really are long due to be made which are also addressed by IPv6. The reasoning is: don't upgrade to half a solution when you know you really must do another upgrade soon after, the cost is in the breaking upgrade not in the amount of changes.
That is not to say that IPv6 is the holy grail, it's design by committee and as such is probably too different on one front and not different enough on another. And of course it's trial by jury with a terribly large jury, so there is probably not one protocol (now or ever) that would meet all the demands.
(Log in to post comments)
Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designs Posted Nov 17, 2010 23:23 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
what are the other problems that IPv6 solves?
at the time it was designed, there were a lot of things that it did that were not possible in IPv4, but most (if not all) of the features that people really care about have been implemented in IPv4
Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designs Posted Nov 18, 2010 8:11 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
You are right about many things such as QoS, IPv6, etc.
However, Mobile IP is much better implemented in IPv6 so you don't get inefficient 'triangular routing' - http://www.usipv6.com/ppt/MobileIPv6_tutorial_SanDiegok.pdf
The biggest benefit of course is not having to use NAT for IPv6 traffic.
Ghosts of Unix past, part 3: Unfixable designs Posted Nov 18, 2010 13:19 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Yep, that's why people are clamoring for NATv6 ;-) (Just as the idiotic firewalling going on has made everything run over HTTP.)
|
|||||||||||||