IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Sun, 26 December 2010 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378F828C0CE for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbFVZcPkcgzh for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:47:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA15A28B797 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:47:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [93.138.86.199] (helo=[192.168.1.4]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1PWhbz-0004kN-Rg; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:49:36 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:49:25 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Message-ID: <C93D0675.170F6%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
Thread-Index: Acukr+NOowHmOZvnJEqQgluIQ472gQ==
In-Reply-To: <20101225220317.GB3695@Space.Net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:47:39 -0000

On 26/12/10 9:03 AM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 12:29:17AM +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote:
>> => I think you're confused about  what happened over the last 10 years. 10
>> years ago (year 2000 in my calendar) where was IPv6 supported? Which os?
>> Let's consider facts.
> 
> 13.5 years ago:
> 
> NT 4.0 + experimental stack, Solaris 2.5 (or 2.6?) + experimental stack,
> FreeBSD/NetBSD + Kame stack, Linux + Usagi stack.

=> Yes I know that but I don't think you'd seriously say that IPv6 support
was ready because 10% of the OS's supported it. That's silly. Beta releases
by MS cannot count for any serious deployment. I can't believer we're
discussing this

Hesham
> 
> I'm fairly sure that about 10 years ago, all the *BSDs and Linux had IPv6
> in the standard kernel already.  Of course, lots of bits and pieces were
> missing (but some are still missing).
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status