Mark Andrews wrote: > > Martin Rex writes: > > > > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > > > > While going through the Windows API calls and thinking how old fashioned > > > and lame all those 'Win32' classes look now, a sudden thought: > > > > > > Ordinary users don't understand the importance of going from IPv4 to IPv6. > > > > > > But Ordinary users do understand that 32 bits is bad and old and obsolete > > > and rubbish and 64 bits is better. > > > > Experienced users know painfully well just how smooth and painless > > 32-bit (windows) and 32-bit IPv4 is, whereas newer 64-bit (windows) > > and newer 128-bit IPv6 is just many painful problems and ZERO benefit. > > > > A lot of the equipment that me and my family is using is not IPv6 capable, > > and *ALL* Software that I've used so far (Linux, WinXP, Win7) runs > > ***MUCH*** better when configured with IPv4-only anyway, so why bother. > > > > If someone needs to be pushed, then it is *VENDORS*, not users, > > that they ship their equipment in a fashion that it will work with IPv6, > > should this ever become available. Then maybe in 10 years from now, > > this might become interesting to end users. > > Given there are ISP delivering IPv6 + DS-Lite today over fibre > because they have run out of addresses it is time that *everybody* > starts complaining to every supplier that doesn't ship equipement > / services with IPv6 enabled by default. Why would any private individual want to get an IPv6 address? With DHCP IPv4 + NAT (on your Home router) and even more so with CGN, you may have at least a vague chance that your ID doesn't stick out of every IP datagram like a sore thumb. With IPv6, you're stripped naked for traffic analysis by every governmental agency worldwide, no matter how strong you encrypt your traffic. The end-2-end principle is equivalent to a fairly complete loss of privacy. Really, I'm glad that I can use IPv4 and get a new IPv4 address assigned several times a day. -Martin