turning off IPv6

[Alexander Skwar]

John DeCarlo schrieb:
> On 7/5/06, *Tony Arnold* <tony.arnold at manchester.ac.uk 
> <mailto:tony.arnold at manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:53 -0400, John DeCarlo wrote:
> 
>      > Ideally, IPv4 should be disabled out of the box.  It shouldn't be
>      > needed anywhere, and it causes lots of problems today.
> 
>     I presume you mean IPv6! If so, what problems? I have three Dapper
>     boxes
>     and I've not experienced any problems with IPv6.
> 
> 
> Why would anyone presume this?

Because what you wrote makes *MUCH* more sense if you replace "IPv4"
with "IPv6" in what you said.

> Alexander understood my point.  There is no good reason today why people 
> are still using IPv4. 

I guess, I misunderstood you. The reason for people to use IPv4
is, that the providers don't support anything else and that it
is still sufficient.

> Advocating the use of IPv4 is like advocating use of a CLI only. 

Why's that?

> It should be made clear that IPv4 is deprecated.

Deprecated but sufficient for the vast majority of users today. That
might change in the future.

> And I don't know why people seem to think more people use IPv4 than IPv6 
> - I haven't seen any actual data to support that.

Well, I haven't seen any data either and would be interested to
see data. It's just so, that none of the big ISPs in Germany
support IPv6. Here, it's (in the vast majority) either IPv4 over ISDN
or IPv4 over DSL. There might be providers which offer IPv6 for
endusers, but it's just not common.

> In fact, the argument is the same if you said "why support routable IPv4 
> addresses?  no one uses them any more, they all use NAT routers and 
> private addresses"

?
What you write makes no sense, or maybe I'm just to dull to understand it.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Vaterland nennt der Staat immer dann, wenn er sich anschickt, auf
Menschenmord auszugehen.
                 -- Friedrich Dürrenmatt (Romulus der Große)