Simon Arlott wrote: > > http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native
When the likes of BT (>50% of the market), AOL (newbies, mostly dialup), Virgin (own all the cable connections), and Pipex (who now own most of the other ISPs) start providing it then it'll leave the niche. At present they don't allow it. All the ISPs in that list (and that's the whole of europe - have they any idea how many ISPs there are in the UK alone?) amount to only the tiniest fraction of users. TBH although they make a pretense of having never heard of it (which is probably true for first and second line support) it's probably more that they can't charge for it. For the big boys fixed IP is normally a 'business' connection and will double your connection charge, multiple IP is not only business it's chargable monthly. I strongly suspect that such ISPs if they ever do deploy ipv6 will hand out a /128 and want $$$ for anything else - leading to ipv6 NAT becoming popular (only cisco support it at the moment) and rendering the whole thing pointless. It's not that I have anything against ipv6 - I deploy it where possible (which isn't always.. sometimes you simply can't get an ipv6 tunnel through the routers, sometimes admins of the network you're connected to forbid it outright) just to get me direct admin access to machines... but to describe it as anything but a niche technology is just hopeless optimism at the moment. I always thought games would be the first to use it - they suffer most from NAT issues - but not one game or console ever supported it, instead they all went upnp. Similarly it's never taken off with dns or smtp (with dns of course you also can't register an ipv6 address with the root nameservers anyway so you'll never get ipv6 dns queries in the normal course of events). If the pool could use ipv6 it may be the first protocol to use it widely. Tony _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
