On Friday 19 April 2013 05:48:27 DJ Lucas wrote:
> If you do intend to implement v6, the big thing is that you must be
> conscious of the fact that you are exposing your entire internal network
> to the live internet (if that term still means anything)
There is meant to be a thing called 'uni
On Friday 19 April 2013 05:48:27 DJ Lucas wrote:
> My advice, having done it myself: Don't do it yet! At least, not until
> you have a real world need to do so. Unless you are doing it for
> training, or have a real need that cannot be addressed with existing v4,
> is just a headache for very litt
On 04/16/2013 03:50 PM, lux-integ wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 19:57:24 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Whether to use ipv4 or ipv6 really depends on the ISP. Generally an
>> office only needs one address and then uses NAT (network address
>> translation) internally. NAT multiplexes a single address i
On Tuesday 16 April 2013 19:57:24 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Whether to use ipv4 or ipv6 really depends on the ISP. Generally an
> office only needs one address and then uses NAT (network address
> translation) internally. NAT multiplexes a single address into many.
> Any office can use private IP a
lux-integ wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I caught the linux bug in 1999. and I have been a fan of LFS/CLFS/BLFS for at
> least a decade. From my early days of linux I have been hearing about ipv6.
> But it appears not many people are using it (STILL). AND there are business
> interests who have inv
Greetings
I caught the linux bug in 1999. and I have been a fan of LFS/CLFS/BLFS for at
least a decade. From my early days of linux I have been hearing about ipv6.
But it appears not many people are using it (STILL). AND there are business
interests who have invested in the moribund-ip
