Text 34909, 65 rader
Skriven 2009-08-13 20:16:27 av Grant Taylor (108360.fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 34904 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FidoNews 26:32 [02/05]: Rebuttals To Previous Articles
==============================================================
  Re: FidoNews 26:32 [02/05]: Rebuttals To Previous Articles
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to Grant Taylor on Fri Aug 14 2009 12:35 am

> Here is where your message abruptly ends. It appears to be truncated?

*blink* *blink*

???

Ok...  I wonder if my message was too long.  :(

Well here is part 2:


> But if you do it that way, your laptop or PDA is uniquely
> identifiable no matter where you are.
>
> But of you do not want that, there ar other ways. One way that some
> Window versions do by default is to use a rndom number for the lower
> 64 bita and change that from time to time. That way you canbe as
> anonymous as behind a NAt.

*nod*

This would be acceptable.

> Other than that; "want" is irrelevant. Letting the cup of IPv6 pass
> by is not an option. It is coming, no way to avoid it.

I agree.  IPv6 is coming (some would argue that it is already here).  However I
do not see IPv4 going away any time soon.  There are simply too many IPv4
devices that will not be going away any time soon.  Do you have any old print
servers that are IPv4 only?  What about the HVAC system in your building?
These things are not going to be replaced just because they do not support
IPv6.  Further, many of these devices do not need to be accessible across the
internet.  With this in mind I think we will find that there are going to be
IPv4 networks for a *LONG* time.  How long IPv4 is predominant on the internet,
I don't know.

> That is not possible The gateway needs both a public IPv4 and an IPv6
> address. So it can not run on a line where only IPv6 addresses are
> available.

The gateway needs both an IPv6 and IPv4 address.  However, both do not have to
be public.  There is nothing preventing me from running a gateway public IPv6
address (::2 from the first part of my post) that is translating to the private
IPv4 address (.3 from the first part of my post) and back again.  I.e. if a
SysOp was running such a gateway on their IPv6 only internet connection to
allow others to continue to access their IPv4 only system.

Granted running a public IPv6 to IPv4 gateway for others would require the
others to have a public IPv4 address or some sort of VPN.

> If the IPv4 addy is not a public number, then we are back to my
> PVN...

I agree that if we want to do native IPv4 all the way across, then yes a VPN or
something similar will be needed.  However I maintain that we do not have to
have public IPv4 addresses to offer connectivity to IPv4 only systems.



Grant. . . .
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Vertrauen - vert.synchro.net (1:103/705)