Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:DNS is not a security mechanism... (Score 1) 313

The problem with IPv6 adoption is its design, not politics. It was designed as a replacement instead of IPv4 backward-compatible extension. An administrator and end-users have to go through hoops to make this garbage work, and that's why nobody wants to. Why should/would they? IPv6 should have been designed such that neither administrators, nor end-users would have to do much to upgrade.

Comment Re:IPv6 Mess (Score 0) 551

Not so fast:

I don't agree at all with this article. The author claims that IPv6 should have been designed as an extension to IPv4 so that IPv4 and IPv6 hosts can communicate with each other directly. This is fundamentally impossible. The IPv4 host can only send packets to IP addresses with 32 bit. Any longer number is not understood by the IPv4 host. In order to make this work, the IP stack of every IPv4 host would need to be updated. Guess what has to be done to have IPv4 and IPv6 dual stack? The IP stack of every IPv4 host needs to be updated!

That's right. IPv4 should have been able to talk to IPv6 and vice/versa. Nobody wants to upgrade as long as IPv6 remains useless (because it can't talk to IPv4, and IPv4 can't talk to IPv6). The IPv6 design requires every server administrator to upgrade to IPv6 (but where is the incentive for this massive undertaking?) while it remains "useless" (since few clients have IPv6). Few clients have any incentives to upgrade to IPv6 because very few servers have IPv6. It's a really shitty situation, thanks to a shitty design.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.