2 ms·
The discussion also tends to be steered away from the taboo, towards nitpicking. The basic argument here is that ipv6 is less desirable than a series of hacks o
by Joeri 16y ago
The discussion also tends to be steered away from the taboo, towards nitpicking. The basic argument here is that ipv6 is less desirable than a series of hacks on top of ipv4, but very few people were arguing that. Instead they refused to even admit that possibility and focused on refuting individual elements of the argument. Every single argument of the article could be refuted, and still the basic tenet could be correct. I've read through the discussion and i still don't know whether ipv6 is a good or bad idea.
Anyway, practicality always wins. If the ipv6 proponents can't make the transition succeed soon enough, hacks+ipv4 will win by virtue of being the only practical solution _right now_.
- Confusion 16y agoThe basic argument that most people responded to was the claim that the ipv6 transition was practically impossible. The central point of the counterarguments is that since djb's article, a lot has changed and there now actually are sensible transition plans. Even djb has acknowledged that fact. The remainder of the arguments were mostly about taste. He accepts NAT; many others argue that NAT is horrible and he ignores those arguments based on straw men (an edit in the original article) like: (Update 2011/04/02: A lot of people have criticized this article by talking about how nasty it is to require NAT everywhere. If we had too much NAT, the whole world would fall apart, [..] Moreover, his arguments included technical errors that limit their applicability. All in all he was simply far from convincing. Getting into a discussion where you defend the virtues of NAT is not saying something "you can't say". It saying something unpopular that needs good arguments, because there are good reasons it's unpopular.