|
· Föderation · So 30.03.2025 00:17:55 I'm not going to go into a point-for-point debate with you; the category of error you make is generally either conflating terminology (example: you assert that "exchanging packets" is possible, while it is not. Packets have to be rewritten; IPv4 and IPv6 datagrams are not compatible.) or confusing timelines (example: IPv6 address formatting was not standardized until nearly five years after this article was written). |
|
Föderation · So 30.03.2025 03:17:13 You say that page was written 22 years ago and that the notation for IPv6 addresses was only standardized 5 years later. But the notation can in fact be found in RFC 1884 which is 30 years old. As for compatibility between IPv4 and IPv6 the page you linked just says there is a mistake in the IPv6 specification. But it never makes any concrete suggestion for how that should have been addressed. In reality such a level of compatibility is fundamentally impossible due to shortcomings of IPv4! The transition plan that page is claiming doesn't work is currently being used by half the internet. That's enough to prove that it does in fact work. Meanwhile the page is also asking for something else which is fundamentally impossible. So he is proposing to replace something which has been proven to work with some vaguely described alternative which is actually impossible. For me that part alone is enough to not take that page seriously. |
|
Föderation · So 30.03.2025 05:19:51 the fact that only half the internet even bothers does more to argue against IPv6 than any of your pedantry can possibly support it |
