On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:08:23PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks
that way.
The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to
use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support.
As I said:
Craig Rodrigues wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks
that way.
The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by
default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:01:30AM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a
Windows user has about as much probability of doing
the necessary work to enable it as they do of making
something other than
Terry Lambert wrote:
1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a
Windows user has about as much probability of doing
the necessary work to enable it as they do of making
something other than Internet Explorer their default
browser.
2) You have
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:40:06AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
6)The last time I tried the experimental version, it did
not correctly interoperate with AIX or FreeBSD, but worked
fine Windows-to-Windows, so they've done *something* to it
to embrace and extend it.
I find
At 12:16 PM -0700 2003/08/05, Kevin Oberman wrote:
I may have missed part of this tread as I am on travel. Why is simply
not enabling ipv6 adequate? Note: I DO run IPv6 routinely when at
work, so I normally do have it enabled. I'd like to get an
understanding of what the issue might be. The
Terry Lambert wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand that v6/v4 NATs and proxy servers
would let him deploy today ...assuming that the Windows stack was
there.
What do you mean the Windows stack was there? XP supports IPv6, as
long as you install it, so I assume there's something missing *in*
Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
He apparently doesn't understand that v6/v4 NATs and proxy servers
would let him deploy today ...assuming that the Windows stack was
there.
What do you mean the Windows stack was there? XP supports IPv6, as
long as you install it, so I assume
Bruce Cran wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:01:30AM -0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
1) Machines do not ship with it enabled by default; a
Windows user has about as much probability of doing
the necessary work to enable it as they do of making
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Bernd Walter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture
in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing
(hardware vs.
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:52:50 +0200
From: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 9:37 AM -0700 2003/08/05, David O'Brien wrote:
Machanism, not policy. I would also like to run with NO_INET6. IPv6
support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems. I
At 9:37 AM -0700 2003/08/05, David O'Brien wrote:
Machanism, not policy. I would also like to run with NO_INET6. IPv6
support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems. I still
strongly disagree with our ordering of localhost in /etc/hosts. My
system worked worlds better when I
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
BWOn Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
BW Hi David,
BW
BW I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
BW build with INET6.
BW In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses
BW but many guys who
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
BWOn Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
BW Hi David,
BW
BW I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
BW build with INET6.
BW In real life, I
Bernd Walter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
What's the sense of enabling and using IPv6, if your infrastucture
in the company doesn't support it (because of the overhead with routing
(hardware vs. software routing)) and you don't have an IPv6 connection
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks
that way.
The problem, as I see it, is that it doesn't come enabled by
default on Windows systems. Until it does, it's never going
to get any traction.
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build with INET6.
In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses
but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel.
Now the daemons prints out a (IMHO useless) warning, that they
cannot bind to
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build with INET6.
In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses
but many guys who disabled INET6 on their machines in kernel.
You don't
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build with INET6.
In real life, I do not know anyone who owns some IPv6 addresses
but many guys who disabled
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:20:02AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build with INET6.
In real life, I do not
On 03.08.2003 23:39, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:20:02AM +1000, Andy Farkas wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:07:15PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Hi David,
I've seen that several world daemons (rpcbind, telnetd, ...) are
build
21 matches
Mail list logo
