Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 26 June 2015 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6351A1B34 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrKy4KvFF1j8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10F21A1B2C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 02:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1Z8Pnq-0000HRC; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:20:06 +0200
Message-Id: <m1Z8Pnq-0000HRC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <E1C235B5-1421-4DAF-A2F3-F963982233DF@apple.com> <1599CF94-9B35-4858-AD52-6FADC8F25671@apple.com> <558ABAC3.4010802@gmail.com> <4F519538-0706-4BBA-9508-3E59F7A8BB62@nestlabs.com> <558BC5AF.3060406@gmail.com> <1A95A912-FC46-4D61-9AB1-8D8E4D33AC89@delong.com> <20150625191428.GJ67883@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:14:28 +0200 ." <20150625191428.GJ67883@Space.Net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:20:05 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/C1qQoMxPc_Z3gPb717FWGGpen0M>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:20:20 -0000

In your letter dated Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:14:28 +0200 you wrote:
>No.
>
>For *you* this might make sense and be a useful feature.  For me, I might
>like it, but will never actually use it (because I'm way too lazy to be
>interested in multiple possible Internet uplinks for my car - and why I
>should bother to trade the nice *external* antenna of the car with the
>great reception of a typical smartphone inside a large moving metal box).

I hope that car manufacturers will find their way back into modular electronics,
just like car radios ages ago.

With he current rate of development, car electronics are obsolete for most of
the car's lifetime.

A good example is built-in navigation systems, where car manufactures have a
hard time understanding what to charge for updating maps, so people just use
a standalone device next to the built-in one.

Android devices typically receive their last update 1.5 years after the devices
were last sold. Nice driving around with an unpatched, internet connected
car entertainment system.

With modular electronics, those who want their pi powered hadoop cluster can
just by an aftermarket upgrade.