On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 02:14:28PM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <20060220190314.GD753@circe.entropie.net>, "Martin S. Weber" writes:
> 
> >
> >Rather the question should be, why is INET6 in GENERIC?
> >
> >(to achieve a deployment it doesn't have and never will ?)
> >
> 
> I'm probably going to regret posting this...
> 
> A certain large vendor in the upper-left corner of the US 
.                               ^^^^^^^^^^ hehe :)
> is strongly 
> committed to IPv6.  Its next release, Vista, will *prefer* v6 
> connections if they're available.  

If they're available. I'd have to tunnel somewhere out of
country to find someone to talk ipv6 to and then tunnel all
the way back on a trustworthy protocol which has grown in and
by use and whose abusability is what makes it still live. I
doubt something "properly designed" will survive as long :)

> Rumor has it that their future plans 
> *really* need v6.  

Sure. If every mac needs to be traced back so you can see
if they paid for their visas, er, vistas, then you probably
need it. "We don't route you. Go pay for your OS. :P"

> We're better off beating on our stack now, 
> especially anything to do with operating in a mixed environment.

Still, you need someone to talk to for a communication protocol.
And I'm not the one calling my isp "Hey. I want TIA-compatible
surveillance id obvious to the rest of the world, PLEASE."

Hell, I can make my lan run ipv6 (wtf ??)

-Martin