Re: Re: Fixed IP / IP ranges

["Shaf" <shaf@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks yeh I didnt want to get dragged into this in the first place.

Some people like marmite some don't no point really discussing it here.

My best regards to both of you.
Shaf


> Shaf,
>
> I sort of agree with both of you.
>
> I agree with you that IPv6 is way better thatn IPv4 in lots of ways,
> and there's too much emphasis on increased address space as if that
> were the only benefit.
>
> I agree with Gerard in that IPv4 has proved useful over a long
> period, and has scaled far more than the anyone would have believed
> back in the early days of the internet.
>
> Anyway, this is interesting, but less and less HA-related with each
> message, so I'll shut up now :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Shaf" <shaf@s...> wrote:
> > > I don't think IPv4 is that crap. In theory you can have over
4
> billion
> > > addresses which will see us fine for a few years yet.
> > >
> > > Considering this was conceived many years ago I don't think
that
> is too
> > bad.
> >
> > Shesh how many times do I have to say : The IP range of IPv6 vs
v4
> is not
> > the deciding factor. If that was the only benefit of ipv6 I'd
have
> to agree
> > that v4 will do for now. Consider the benefits of dynamic
routing,
> security
> > (well kinda) and ease of set up to name a few the only hard bit
is
> to
> > understand what .....
> >
> > eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:20:xx:10:1a:xx
> >           inet addr:xxx.xxx.xx.x  Bcast:xx.xxx.xx.x
> Mask:255.255.255.248
> >           inet6 addr: 2001:600:101b:500:220:edff:fe17:1891/64
> Scope:Global
> >
> > Means.
> >
> > Shaf
>
>
>
> ** UKHA2004 BE THERE! ** - start planning now.
>
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>