Subject: Re: v6 (was Re: -current sendmail cancer in IPv4-only kernel)
To: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/08/2000 13:29:40
Andrew Brown <email@example.com> writes:
> i think (i don't pretend to know all that much about the iso stuff or
> atm, but i am reading) that one *MAJOR* difference between atm and ip
> (and maybe iso as well) is that that ipv6 works with *all* the
> existing hardware that's already doing ipv4. iso and atm require
> other hardware. that seems like major selling point to me.
ATM is a VC based protocol. "X.25 for Fiber". It inherently sucks. It
also doesn't even pretend to be TCP/IP
CLNP wasn't inherently awful but it wasn't that great and now it is dead.