From: | Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Date: | 2003-01-31 19:21:21 |
Message-ID: | 20030131192121.GA2687@ping.be |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> Soon, the NAT + CIDR bag-on-the-side will run out of room, and people
> will have no choice but to use IPv6. But the pain of making them
> interoperate is part of the cause of resistance. The compatibility
> addresses are going to _have_ to work if people are really going to
> move, unless someone is contemplating another great TCP/IP cutover
> day.
What do you mean with "compatibility addresses"? I don't know of
any such thing.
The ipv4 mapped ipv6 address is just a "hack" on the local
system. You never see those "on the wire".
Anyway, what is the problem? ipv4 and ipv6 can happely live on
the same network, it does so far a long time now. Host just
support both ipv4 and ipv6 now. If an application is written
properly, you shouldn't even notice the connection is over ipv4
or ipv6.
Kurt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Copeland | 2003-01-31 19:37:08 | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Previous Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-01-31 19:04:46 | Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2003-01-31 19:28:41 | Re: Odd website behavior... |
Previous Message | Curtis Faith | 2003-01-31 19:18:29 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |