Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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