Subject: (Somewhat OT) Re: INET6 in GENERIC
To: Thomas E. Spanjaard <email@example.com>
From: J. Scott Kasten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/20/2006 15:26:19
I'm just curious, how stable has IPv6 been for your XP boxes?
Myself, I love v6 and have been running it internally on everything for
some time. The one box that is spotty with it is an SGI Irix machine.
At release 6.5.23, it still has some rough edges.
On the other hand, I've worked for a few networking companies over the
years, and it just is not on corporate radars yet. No one want's to spend
scarce development dollars to make networked products v6
compatible/capable. I've fought the good fight many times, but it's an
uphill battle with a chicken and egg problem. Executives won't fund v5
until it's more pervasice in the market, but that won't happen unless.....
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
> David Young wrote:
>> Just to amplify what Steven is saying, it's no secret that Windows XP
>> already supports IPv6 and one or more migration protocols (Teredo? 6to4?).
>> Mac OS X, too, supports IPv6 and 6to4.
> Afaik, Windows XP has the first 'real' implementation of Teredo, and it's no
> secret that Microsoft likes it.
>> My OS X laptop, my NetBSD desktop, and my various development servers
>> have global IPv6 reachability, in spite of my IPv4-only ISP, thanks in
>> no small part to Microsoft's 6to4 gateway.
> Same here. Even my Windows games machine has IPv6!
>> Speaking as one who had to wrangle a NAT firewall recently to get an
>> application to work, I look forward to the day when an IPv6 connection
>> is the norm, and NAT is a distant memory.
> It's a breath of fresh air, sure is. In spite of what certain trolls keep on
> Thomas E. Spanjaard