CircleID

Comments

IPv6: Extinction, Evolution or Revolution?

• Comment posted Aug 16, 2006 3:11 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  Is it the answer because it’s the “last one left at the dance?” Well, the mindset appears to be that there should be only one at the dance (i.e. the dead end to dead end conformity).  Given that IPv6 is…

• Comment posted Aug 16, 2006 2:09 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  But, I found no interest and no funding. Welcome to the monoculture of dead-end to dead-end.  If you're not conforming, you're not performing, so there's no interest in developing alternatives or variations.

• Comment posted Jan 31, 2006 7:40 pm PST — by Kim Liu
  Quote: "If you read my first two paragraphs, you’ll see I am addressing why end-to-end is important to TCP/IP.  The Internet today is TCP/IP, or largely TCP/IP.  An unwritten assumption of mine is that the question about end-to-end is about…

• Comment posted Jan 31, 2006 6:12 pm PST — by Kim Liu
  Quote: I know that when I trot out the argument that “X” was an original assumption, so it is important, this seems like I am saying that “well, son, that’s the way things are.” But what I mean to impress…

• Comment posted Jan 31, 2006 3:31 am PST — by Kim Liu
  You know, everytime I read another IPv6 or anti-NAT related article, I really have to wonder if people are making some assumptions I am not getting. Why does end-to-end matter at the transport (protocol) level, honestly?  I mean, I don't…

Net Neutrality Is As Silly As So-Called Internet Governance

• Comment posted Jul 05, 2006 6:00 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  Finally, some actual thought about the matter! The author is essentially correct.  People have been living in HappyFunNetLand—things have been working well enough, or giving the illusion of that, that people actually believed that net neutrality existed, or didn't pay…

Scarcity of IPv4 Addresses

• Comment posted Aug 02, 2007 3:11 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  John Curran said: Correct, and solving that problem in the absence of new functionality for IPv6 effectively means no need for IPv6.  (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1669, from August 1994....) Exactly.  Hence, this frequently leading to an anti-NAT mentality.

• Comment posted Jul 25, 2007 10:22 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  Yep.  It will be fun to see the rather in-grained hierarchial format of the IPv6 address meet the real world of non-hierarchial networks.  (Dual-homing, for instance.) You are correct that we need "6to4 ''nat'' boxes", and frankly, we have for…

Transition to IPv6 Address

• Comment posted Aug 02, 2007 3:25 pm PDT — by Kim Liu
  NAT will always be required.  Presumably, at some point in the future, a successor to IPv6 will be developed.  (If we are going to assume that IPv6 will be the one and only protocol for the rest of eternity, better…

As IPv6 Deploys, Will We Look Back on NAT as the Ugly Step Sister or Unsung Hero?

• Comment posted Feb 20, 2008 7:08 pm PST — by Kim Liu
  As IPv6 takes hold, NAT will run its course and recede into memory. But don’t breathe a sigh of relief just yet. The transition to IPv6 and the temporary (indefinite?) coexistence with IPv4 will require the use of translation-based transition…