>> 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. Indeed. Actually the renumbering problem for IPv6 in home networks is a lot worse than for IPv4 home networks (that never renumber). That's what you get for exposing the home network to global addressing. Cheers, Ole
