On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:24:00 +0200 (CEST) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > And all you'll end up with is IPv4 with bigger addresses. You really > > should catch up with the useful features of protocols that were > > designed in the late 80s / early 90s, like IPX, Appletalk, DECNet and > > CLNS. > > For me "more addresses" is the *only* justification for IPv6. All the > other "useful" features are either uninteresting or even *unwanted*. >
Just so I know, are you confirming that you've only ever used IPv4, and know nothing about any other protocols and how they worked? Your view seems to me to be a bit like saying, "I'm perfectly happy with my 1970s car, it gets me from A to B, and I see no reason to have electric windows, anti-lock brakes, electronic fuel injection, or a GPS, because my 1970s car doesn't have them". > I'm sort of okay with RA on customer links (though I would much rather > have a more featureful DHCPv6). For my backbone links RA is simply out > of the picture, not even interesting to discuss. > > The "failover" capabilities of IPv6 with RA I would much rather solve > with HSRP/VRRP. > > etc. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
