On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Strainu <strain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Risker, I think you're over-reacting here. Yes, there are risks > associated with IPv6. No, they haven't been addressed completely > before IPv6 day (apparently because of the very late moment the > decision to participate was taken). But it hasn't destroyed the > projects so far and chances are, by the time IPv6 vandalism will have > any significant effect, they will be solved (estimates are that 50% of > the Internet users will have IPv6 only in 6 years [1]).
You seem to be assuming that vandals will switch to IPv6 at the same rate as non-vandals. An analogous assumption, which has proven to be false, would be that vandals would use anonymizing proxies at the same rate as non-vandals. > If there is little content available on IPv6, people will > not even be aware it exists and they will not demand it from their > ISP, which means there will be no users for IPv6 content making it > useless and the loop will continue. Someone had to break this loop and > the content providers were the easiest place this could happen. No one has to break the loop. The loop will break itself. Either enough people will get sick of NAT to cause demand for IPv6, or they won't. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
