[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 07/07/13 18:29, Martijn Grooten wrote:
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:26 AM, wes wrote:but yeah, point taken. backward compatibility is not free. check.That's kind of what I meant with my reply to you earlier in this thread. Perhaps it would have been possible to build IPv6 as some kind of extension to IPv4. But then you'd end up with an ugly hack to a protocol that was designed in 1983. So I think there's a good reason to use the migration from IPv4 to IPv6 as an opportunity to build a better and more flexible protocol. The flexibility built in IPv6 means that, if we ever want to add something else, we need neither an ugly hack nor a new protocol. Martijn.
You've never heard of Microsoft then? Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq