Subj : FidoNews submission
To : Gerrit Kuehn
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Tue Jun 03 2025 01:14 pm
Hello Gerrit,
On Monday June 02 2025 18:31, you wrote to me:
GK>>> Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?
MvdV>> I was just parafrasing you.
GK> And you are right: Leap-frogging ISDN was an option.
The difference with IPv6 - at least here -is that by the time ISDN was available country wide, the next technology was already visible on the horizon. Not so for IPv6. There is no successor on the horizon. Riding it out with IPv4 untik the successor for IPv6 becomes available is not a realistic option.
GK> If I had adopted IPv6 back in 2000 when it first became available,
The you would have been an extreme early adopter. For me it cam into view around 2010.
GK> I'd certainly have learned at lot about it. But a good part of that
GK> knowledge would be obsolete by now.
Not if you had kept using it., Then your knowledge would have been updated constantly.
GK> In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to
GK> move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is
GK> different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing
GK> this discussion.
Neither do I in fact. I shall not hide that I am an IPv6 evangelist. I am willing to help anyone with making the transition. But if someone says I wil stick woth IPv5 for now, than I move on...
MvdV>> But in the case of IPv6 isn't it obvious by now? You have
MvdV>> expereinced by yourself that "IPv4 does not work fine" any more.
MvdV>> Your new fiberglass provider does not offer you a glabally routable
MvdV>> IPv4 address.
GK> I'd rather say "IPv6 is not working fine" in this case. It cannot
GK> fully replace IPv4 at this point.
Who says you must fully replace IPv4 by IPv6 at this point? I certainly don't. The way to go for the moment is to rub IPv6 along with IPv4 in a Dual Stack environment. For the end user. That is.
GK>>> Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
GK>>> devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even
GK>>> more so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6
GK>>> requires much more thought on network security.
MvdV>> That point had been debunked over a decade ago! While in he
MvdV>> very early days of IPv6 that may have been an issue, now every
MvdV>> IPv6 capable IPv6 router has a firewll that blocks all
MvdV>> unsollicted income by default.
GK> Yes, but that is the pathological setup where you do not want to offer
GK> any services to the world (like binkd). Everything beyond that will
GK> require reworking at least your perimeter firewall.
Of course. To make binkd work you have to create an IPv6 pinhole in the firewall to the destination address for port 24554. How is that more of a security issue than creating an IPv4 24554 port forward?
MvdV>> "Smaller private network" and "more legacy devices" is a
MvdV>> contradiction.
GK> Why?
The more devices (of whatever kind) the bigger the network...
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin:
http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
