INET6 -- and why I don't use it

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at optushome.com.au
Thu Mar 6 10:41:45 UTC 2008


On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
>The interesting thing, to stay on topic, is that people are willing to 
>explore a feature called "SCTP" which to my knowledge is younger than 
>"IPv6". This makes the whole discussion sort of moot, right ?

In my case, I have a use for SCTP at work (we are using various
protocols that run on top of SCTP) but we don't have any IPv6 networks
in use.  Personally, I find the IPv6 data reported in things like
netstat are annoying.

>had TCP/UDP for many years and they are still serving their purpose well, 
>so why change ?

TCP isn't sufficiently robust for some Telco purposes:  They can't
accept the time it takes TCP to detect or recover from a link failure.

>So give it a chance, only then there will be feedback and only then we can 
>fix the problems. Otherwise it will stay just theoretical.

Agreed.  But at this stage I can't justify the effort to do anything
more than have a very cursory glance it at.  What benefit would I
derive from setting up an IPv6 network and attempting to experiment
with it?  My ISP won't support IPv6 and I'm reasonably certain my
cable-modem doesn't either so IPv6 connectivity would entail some
sort of tunnel.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20080306/c62002c4/attachment.pgp


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list