On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> > The author of the TechWeb article wrote those words extolling > "improved security measures", not me, dude. :-) > the soap comment was aimed at you for the tom davis 'support' :) I understood you didn't write the other parts. > I stated explicitly that all of the "new features" lauded > by v6 proponents have effectively been retro-fitted to v4, > thereby negating almost every v6 migration argument, with > the exception of a larger host address pool. > Yup, the retrofit has made all arguements (except: "Hey, look, my network is cooler than yours! it's newer!", and 'more space to ruin^H^H^H^Huse') > Equally dumbfounded in v4-land, > > - ferg > > > > -- "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > over the current IPv4 technology. Among the additional > > advantages of IPv6 are improved security measures and > > additional links for wireless devices. > > > > which 'security measures' are included in ipv6? which additional links for > wireless devices? > > This keeps coming up in each discussion about v6, 'what security measures' > is never really defined in any real sense. As near as I can tell it's > level of 'security' is no better (and probably worse at the outset, for > the implementations not the protocol itself) than v4. I could be wrong, > but I'm just not seeing any 'inherent security' in v6, and selling it that > way is just a bad plan. > > -dazed and confused in ipv4-land. > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ >