7f7cb1c3
From: cr88192@hotmail.com
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
news:e9ecb745-b5c7-4fa9-9658-73e00ea5d5c7@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 10:37 am, "BGB / cr88192" wrote:
> "Pascal Hambourg" wrote in message
> but, yes, the great problem with IPv6 is all of the pain one has to go
> through trying to figure out how to get it set up and working...
>
> it is not supported by ISPs, not supported by routers, ...
>
> and, most info one can find is a bunch of tunnel brokers, many demanding
> personal information, and failing to work once set up (them providing
> specialized client apps which mysteriously fail and provide no good reason
> for why they have failed...).
>
> and many still fail to work through NAT (and, it is often the case that
> the
> DMZ is a special resource fought over by whoever might happen to be behind
> the same NAT router...).
>
> (Torredo claims to work with NAT, 6to4 would not, however...).
>
> but, yes, a lot of this is I suspect, a good reason for why IPv6 is not
> catching on so quickly...
>
> I guess it also doesn't help much that I am using an oddball version of
> windows (XP x64), which apparently no one really bothers to support well
> (including MS, where Messenger no longer supports it, ...).
>
> or such...
<--
As time goes on, I become increasingly convinced that the biggest
problem with IPv6 is that it is relatively lacking in virtue.
Lack of virtue, after all, is generally the cause behind many
failures.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
-->
yep...
as much as we may not like the idea of a future world filled with NAT, it
does have a notable advantage:
at least it works, and works fairly well...
granted, NAT is a little bit of a pain, if it so happens, that one wants to
set up a webserver, ...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
