After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> The switch from IPv4 to IPv6 is a *good* thing, and something we should
> have done a long time ago, but didn't due to backwards compatibility and
> momentum reasons. I think it's great that Microsoft is using some of their
> weight to help encourage this transition. Ideally, the switch will lead to
> simpler network topologies, and eliminate the need for NAT (network address
> translation).
I agree with Oliver on this one. When Microsoft supports the right
technology, it can be a good thing.
NAT will be around forever, though. Why? How else can you provide
support for your own sneaky-net without pissing off the IT
powers-that-be?
--
Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
plunge straight through both cheeks.
|
|
