In article <d1b18b6b-4e52-6975-0ac9-480ef67142d0@xxxxxxxxx>, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hello Ben >You actually have a very point. > >However I don't think it applies the very same way as IPv6. NFSv4 for >example is not an relevant protocol for Internet, is not something that >is exposed publicly, ... Sure it is. Lots of us do remote NFS mounts over the net to retrieve a few files. To be blunt, refusing to use a service solely because it doesn't handle IPv6 would be self-defeating virtue signalling. It won't change anyone's mind, it'll just get in the way of our work. We should certainly keep pointing out all of the reasons that IPv6 support is a good idea, e.g., no need ever to renumber again, no need for NAT, no problems with running out of 10/8 space, but let's keep our eye on the ball. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
