Reply to post: Re: baffling failure, IPv6 ...

IPv6 is built to be better, but that's not the route to success

Alan Brown Silver badge

Re: baffling failure, IPv6 ...

" it took them, what, 30 years " IPv4 was encapsulated from the outset

The problem is and was that the only overall solution is dual-stacking. It's not as if we hadn't done THAT multiple times before and it wasn't difficult

I had worse times dealing with $LARGE_ORGANISATIONS which had decided that they were never going to connect to the Internet, so pulled IP ranges out of their arses, then had to renumber their entire networks a couple of decades later

One lot who didn't - but tried to NAT themselves instead - phoned me up in a panic one day thinking they'd been hacked by UCLA - who happened to use the same 128.* IP range the organisation had taken for internal use. They resisted renumbering for more than a decade and came up with a lot of creative excuses for why they couldn't provide live Internet access to staff.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon