Hello Michiel!

01 Jun 25 17:46, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer costs),
channel bundling,

MvdV> The lower transfer cost was not all that spectacular. 64k vs 56k or
MvdV> 28k6. 1.5 dB at best and 3 dB worst case. Against considerable
MvdV> cost for the equipment and an almost doubled montly feee.

That depended heavily on the country you lived in (and the phone companies offering the service).

MvdV> So I skipped ISDN. why spend time and
MvdV> money on ISDN when POTS just worked fine?

Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine? You ignored the drawbacks of POTS, other ignore those of IPv4.

MvdV> IPv6 offers advantages for sysops. For starters there is the
MvdV> obvious "IPv4 will not just keep working well" forever as you
MvdV> yourself have just found out with your DS-light glasfiber
MvdV> connection.

Being an "early adopter" for anything is something you should decide on carefully. I have done so in the past, sometimes it turned out to be a good idea, but often enough you just say "I should have waited with that" in hindsight.

MvdV> IPv6 solves that problem. And more than that. You do not just get
MvdV> ONE IPv6 address, you get enough to let every device in your
MvdV> network have its own unique globally routable IPv6 address. You can
MvdV> have an unlimited amount of serves running without having to mess
MvdV> with non standard port numbers. And more...

Yeah, horrible from a security point of view. I do not want all devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even more so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6 requires much more thought on network security.

why bother with IPv6?

MvdV> Because IPv4 will not "just keep working"

It will do so for a very long time, at least in private networks.

MvdV> You have been dealing with IPv4 for decades. You were not prepaired
MvdV> for the situation that it would not "just keep working"

Actually, I think I was well prepared, but never mind...

MvdV> Of course
MvdV> IPv6 looks more complex to you. Had you started a decade ago with
MvdV> familarizing it slowly one bit at the time you would percive it
MvdV> what it is: less complex.

How is a network interface having one 32bit address supposed to be less complex than a network interface having (at least) three different 128bit addresses on top of that?
IPv6 is practically unusable without working DNS, but exactly that in combination with auto-configuration has been neglected for a long time.

I do not see any device or OS being sold as "IPv6 only" in the
medium-term future. There are way to many installations that require
IPv4 compatibility. There is no market for an "IPv6 only" device or
software.

MvdV> And yet Microsoft, Google and some other Big tech ones are running
MvdV> their server parks IPv6 only internally. They only do IPv4 to IPv6
MvdV> translation ad the edge of their networks.

Sure, as these are large companies. However, the smaller your private network is and the more legacy devices you have there, the less real benefit there is in migration.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 6:35PM up 177 days, 42 mins, 10 users, load averages: 0.61, 0.61, 0.61

--- msged/fbsd 6.3 2021-12-02
* Origin: A true lie to believe (2:240/12)

Hi all!

Hello Michiel!

01 Jun 25 17:46, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer

costs),

channel bundling,

(snip>

I've been following this conversation back and forward for a while, and I wanted to break in as someone mentioned a group/echo about Sysops using IPV6, and I was wondering if someone could tell me which group this is? I'm assuming it's Fidonet?

Thanks,
Dean.

--- D'Bridge 4
* Origin: DOSExchange Mailer (1:218/620)

Hello Dean,

On Monday June 02 2025 00:45, you wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

I've been following this conversation back and forward for a while,
and I wanted to break in as someone mentioned a group/echo about
Sysops using IPV6, and I was wondering if someone could tell me which group this is? I'm assuming it's Fidonet?

It is the IPV6 echo created by me in 2011. Available almost anywhere in Fidonet. Your host would be good starting point.

You are welcome to join.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hi Michiel,

It is the IPV6 echo created by me in 2011. Available almost anywhere in Fidonet. Your host would be good starting point.

You are welcome to join.

Ah OK, I did subscribe to the IPV6 echo a couple of days ago but no traffic so far.

Thanks,
Dean.

--- D'Bridge 4
* Origin: DOSExchange Mailer (1:218/620)

Hello Dean,

On Monday June 02 2025 03:07, you wrote to me:

It is the IPV6 echo created by me in 2011. Available almost
anywhere in Fidonet. Your host would be good starting point.

You are welcome to join.

Ah OK, I did subscribe to the IPV6 echo a couple of days ago but no traffic so far.

There is not much traffic these day. Very few necomers and all the old problems seem to be solved.

If your uplink supports it I recommend a rescan.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello Gerrit,

On Sunday June 01 2025 18:35, you wrote to me:

ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer
costs), channel bundling,

MvdV>> The lower transfer cost was not all that spectacular. 64k vs 56k or
MvdV>> 28k6. 1.5 dB at best and 3 dB worst case. Against considerable cost
MvdV>> for the equipment and an almost doubled montly feee.

That depended heavily on the country you lived in (and the phone
companies offering the service).

True. That applies to IPv6 as well. Here in The Netherlands there is competition between ISPs. One can easely find an IASP that supports IPv6. In the US, there often is just ONE ISP in an area and if that one does not support IPv6m tough luck.

MvdV>> So I skipped ISDN. why spend time and money on ISDN when POTS just
MvdV>> worked fine?

Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?

I was just parafrasing you. But in the case of IPv6 isn't it obvious by now? You have expereinced by yourself that "IPv4 does not work fine" any more. Your new fiberglass provider does not offer you a glabally routable IPv4 address.

You ignored the drawbacks of POTS,

At the time, POTS had no drawbacks for me. It worked fine for me until VOIP became available.

MvdV>> IPv6 offers advantages for sysops. For starters there is the
MvdV>> obvious "IPv4 will not just keep working well" forever as you
MvdV>> yourself have just found out with your DS-light glasfiber
MvdV>> connection.

Being an "early adopter" for anything is something you should decide
on carefully. I have done so in the past, sometimes it turned out to
be a good idea, but often enough you just say "I should have waited
with that" in hindsight.

Yes, early adoption does not always work out well. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

In Fidonet the early IPv6 adapoters can be found in the top five of the list I publish weekly in Fidonet. i doubt they will regret their choice.

MvdV>> IPv6 solves that problem. And more than that. You do not just
MvdV>> get ONE IPv6 address, you get enough to let every device in
MvdV>> your network have its own unique globally routable IPv6
MvdV>> address. You can have an unlimited amount of serves running
MvdV>> without having to mess with non standard port numbers. And
MvdV>> more...

Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even more
so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6 requires much more thought on network security.

Sigh....

That point had been debunked over a decade ago! While in he very early days of IPv6 that may have been an issue, now every IPv6 capable IPv6 router has a firewll that blocks all unsollicted income by default. That you devices have a globally routable address does not mean that they are exposed to the ugly internet. In fact it is more secure that IPv4 hiding behaind NAT. NAT is mode complex and has loopholes...

why bother with IPv6?

MvdV>> Because IPv4 will not "just keep working"

It will do so for a very long time, at least in private networks.

You now have DS-Lite where IPv4 does NOT "just keep working".

MvdV>> You have been dealing with IPv4 for decades. You were not
MvdV>> prepaired for the situation that it would not "just keep
MvdV>> working"

Actually, I think I was well prepared, but never mind...

MvdV>> Of course IPv6 looks more complex to you. Had you started a decade
MvdV>> ago with familarizing it slowly one bit at the time you would
MvdV>> percive it what it is: less complex.

How is a network interface having one 32bit address supposed to be
less complex than a network interface having (at least) three
different 128bit addresses on top of that?

If you had adopted IPv6 earlier and worked with it for some time you would you would know the answer. ;-)

IPv6 is practically unusable without working DNS,

The whole internet is practically unususable without DNS. IPv6 works fine with IPv6. What is the problem?

I do not see any device or OS being sold as "IPv6 only" in the
medium-term future. There are way to many installations that
require IPv4 compatibility. There is no market for an "IPv6
only" device or software.

MvdV>> And yet Microsoft, Google and some other Big tech ones are
MvdV>> running their server parks IPv6 only internally. They only do
MvdV>> IPv4 to IPv6 translation ad the edge of their networks.

Apple demands that apps in the IPhone appstore have demonstrated that they can work in an IPv6 only environment.

Sure, as these are large companies.

They would not invest in IPv6 only if they did not think that is the future.

Yes, IPv4 will be with us for quite some time. I may not live to see it switched off. But IPv6 is the future. It is not a gag that will blow over. To keep ignoring it is a dead end.

However, the smaller your private network is and the more legacy
devices you have there, the less real benefit there is in migration.

"Smaller private network" and "more legacy devices" is a contradiction. Anyway, these legacy devices can keep running along in a dual stack network until they are no longer supported by the manufacturer or the infrastucture. It does not have to stop anyone from adopting Ipv6. he who does not prepare for that will run into a dead end street some day.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-

ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer costs), channel bundling,

The lower transfer cost was not all that spectacular. 64k vs 56k or
28k6. 1.5 dB at best and 3 dB worst case. Against considerable cost for the equipment and an almost doubled montly feee.

It was nice that I could get an almost 56k connect with my side being
digital from the CO to me.

using your voice phone while data transmission is running,

Having two "lines" was indeed a notable "plus". I would have loved to have two "lines" in the mid nineties.

I had an ISDN line at home in the 90s. I used a Motorola BitSurfr modem
to connect to a Shiva LANRover at work, which got me onto the internet.
I could bind both channels to get a 112k connect to the internet or use
one 56k line for the BBS inbound line and one 56k line for internet connectivity. That was about the same time that I started polling for
Fido mail via FTP, and it changed the BBS from polling once a night to a
couple of times a day. Good times.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hello Michiel!

02 Jun 25 13:49, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?

MvdV> I was just parafrasing you.

And you are right: Leap-frogging ISDN was an option. If I had adopted IPv6 back in 2000 when it first became available, I'd certainly have learned at lot about it. But a good part of that knowledge would be obsolete by now.
In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing this discussion.

MvdV> But in the case of IPv6 isn't it
MvdV> obvious by now? You have expereinced by yourself that "IPv4 does
MvdV> not work fine" any more. Your new fiberglass provider does not
MvdV> offer you a glabally routable IPv4 address.

I'd rather say "IPv6 is not working fine" in this case. It cannot fully replace IPv4 at this point.

You ignored the drawbacks of POTS,

MvdV> At the time, POTS had no drawbacks for me.

IPv4 has no drawbacks for me as long as it is available. IPv6, on the other hand, has a couple of them.

MvdV> Yes, early adoption does not always work out well. Sometimes it
MvdV> does and sometimes it doesn't.

As I wrote above: it depends on your personal situation.

Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even more
so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6 requires
much more thought on network security.

MvdV> That point had been debunked over a decade ago! While in he very
MvdV> early days of IPv6 that may have been an issue, now every IPv6
MvdV> capable IPv6 router has a firewll that blocks all unsollicted
MvdV> income by default.

Yes, but that is the pathological setup where you do not want to offer any services to the world (like binkd). Everything beyond that will require reworking at least your perimeter firewall.

MvdV> That you devices have a globally routable
MvdV> address does not mean that they are exposed to the ugly internet.

Given the router is properly configured. However, I still have to bother with permanent or long-lasting addresses that leak metadata and easily allow tracking of your devices. Here come dynamic prefixes and dynamic devices addresses... yes, all doable, but needs proper insight that allows you to do this and check that it actually works.

MvdV> In fact it is more secure that IPv4 hiding behaind NAT. NAT is mode
MvdV> complex and has loopholes...

Which are well known.
OTOH, IPv6 has introduced things like NAT66 and NPTv6 because (years after the first specification of IPv6 - so much for "early adopting") things like permanent addresses that were advertised as a "feature" in the first place turned out to have drawbacks for many people.

It will do so for a very long time, at least in private networks.

MvdV> You now have DS-Lite where IPv4 does NOT "just keep working".

My private network does not care about DSlite at all.

How is a network interface having one 32bit address supposed to be
less complex than a network interface having (at least) three
different 128bit addresses on top of that?

MvdV> If you had adopted IPv6 earlier and worked with it for some time
MvdV> you would you would know the answer. ;-)

Yeah, if I had been an early adopter I would have lived through experiencing one IPv6 trouble after another and all the things that were invented to patch these. I am not too sad to have been saved from that. ;)

IPv6 is practically unusable without working DNS,

MvdV> The whole internet is practically unususable without DNS.

Private networks work just fine without DNS in many places. My point was: if your autoconfig DNS fails for some reason. In the beginning, IPv6 completely neglected autoconfig of DNS. This has been patched with managed flags, multicasting and extensions in router advertisements (RDNSS/DNSSL).

MvdV> IPv6 works fine with IPv6. What is the problem?

No problem, I just do not get your point here.

MvdV> Apple demands that apps in the IPhone appstore have demonstrated
MvdV> that they can work in an IPv6 only environment.

I could not care less.

MvdV> They would not invest in IPv6 only if they did not think that is
MvdV> the future.

It is. But as with all new technology: adoption will take time. Over that time, even the new technology will evolve. Everyone will have to find out when the best point in time to jump the train is reached.
Hardly any FTN sysop will have benefitted from IPv6 back in 2000. This is different today, but still far away from "cannot do without".

MvdV> Yes, IPv4 will be with us for quite some time. I may not live to
MvdV> see it switched off. But IPv6 is the future. It is not a gag that
MvdV> will blow over. To keep ignoring it is a dead end.

The "dead end" will stay with us for a very long time, indeed. Maybe another 25 years will suffice, but it probably will not have died out completely until then.

MvdV> "Smaller private network" and "more legacy devices" is a
MvdV> contradiction.

Why?

MvdV> Anyway, these legacy devices can keep running along
MvdV> in a dual stack network until they are no longer supported by the
MvdV> manufacturer or the infrastucture. It does not have to stop anyone
MvdV> from adopting Ipv6.

It does not force anyone to adopt now, either.

MvdV> he who does not prepare for that will run into
MvdV> a dead end street some day.

There are streets so small that you cannot pass them with a truck, indeed. However, a smaller car, a motorcycle, a bike, or just walking by foot may do just fine in these places.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 6:31PM up 178 days, 38 mins, 10 users, load averages: 0.76, 0.66, 0.69

--- msged/fbsd 6.3 2021-12-02
* Origin: So come and try to tell me (2:240/12)

Hello Kurt,

On Monday June 02 2025 07:30, you wrote to me:

Having two "lines" was indeed a notable "plus". I would have
loved to have two "lines" in the mid nineties.

I had an ISDN line at home in the 90s.

I didn't come available in my region until about 1998. While The Netherlands were the second in the world (after Switserland) with full automatic telephony in 1962, we were late with the rest. Tone dialing wasn't possible here until the early ninetees.

I used a Motorola BitSurfr modem to connect to a Shiva LANRover at
work, which got me onto the internet. I could bind both channels to
get a 112k connect to the internet or use one 56k line for the BBS
inbound line and one 56k line for internet connectivity. That was
about the same time that I started polling for Fido mail via FTP, and
it changed the BBS from polling once a night to a couple of times a
day. Good times.

Interesting times...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello Gerrit,

On Monday June 02 2025 18:31, you wrote to me:

Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?

MvdV>> I was just parafrasing you.

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.

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.

I'd certainly have learned at lot about it. But a good part of that knowledge would be obsolete by now.

Not if you had kept using it., Then your knowledge would have been updated constantly.

In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to
move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing
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.

I'd rather say "IPv6 is not working fine" in this case. It cannot
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.

Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even
more so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6
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.

Yes, but that is the pathological setup where you do not want to offer
any services to the world (like binkd). Everything beyond that will 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.

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)

Hello Michiel!

03 Jun 25 13:14, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to
move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is
different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing
this discussion.

MvdV> Neither do I in fact. I shall not hide that I am an IPv6
MvdV> evangelist.

We have not been able to ignore that... ;-)

MvdV>>> "Smaller private network" and "more legacy devices" is a
MvdV>>> contradiction.

Why?

MvdV> The more devices (of whatever kind) the bigger the network...

My home network contains maybe 50 devices these days. A good fraction of those I would call "legacy" in the sense that they are not supported by their manufacturer anymore. Quite a few of them are older than 10 years. However, I would never call my home network anything but "small", even if it contained twice the number of devices.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 6:06PM up 179 days, 13 mins, 10 users, load averages: 0.38, 0.60, 0.71

--- msged/fbsd 6.3 2021-12-02
* Origin: Things I already know (2:240/12)

Hello Gerrit,

On Tuesday June 03 2025 18:06, you wrote to me:

MvdV>>>> "Smaller private network" and "more legacy devices" is a
MvdV>>>> contradiction.

Why?

MvdV>> The more devices (of whatever kind) the bigger the network...

My home network contains maybe 50 devices these days. A good fraction
of those I would call "legacy" in the sense that they are not
supported by their manufacturer anymore. Quite a few of them are older than 10 years. However, I would never call my home network anything
but "small", even if it contained twice the number of devices.

Then we seem to have different - incompatible - notions of the concepts of "large" and "small".

However. I still don't see how having a large number of so called "legacy" devices stops anyone from adding IPv6 capability to their system.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-

My home network contains maybe 50 devices these days. A good fraction
of those I would call "legacy" in the sense that they are not
supported by their manufacturer anymore. Quite a few of them are older than 10 years. However, I would never call my home network anything
but "small", even if it contained twice the number of devices.

Then we seem to have different - incompatible - notions of the concepts of "large" and "small".

However. I still don't see how having a large number of so called "legacy" devices stops anyone from adding IPv6 capability to their system.

I still don't see why he, or me, or anyone, would want to do that when
it offers absolutely ZERO "capability" to what we already have. My IPv4 network works perfectly, and there is no sense making it more
complicated for NO REASON. There is NOTHING GAINED by flailing around
with configuring stuff endlessly, and even then.... as I've told you
already, I do not have native IPv6 available. So that would mean MORE flailing around to get a kludged "tunnel", which again.... adds ZERO capability to what I already have.

I wish you could understand that.

I really don't know why you can't.



... Daddy, what does "now formatting drive C:" mean?
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.27-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hello Dan,

On Wednesday June 04 2025 08:12, you wrote to me:

I still don't see why he, or me, or anyone, would want to do that when
it offers absolutely ZERO "capability" to what we already have. My

[..]

I wish you could understand that.

Why? How does it help you if I would express a better understanding of your situation?

I really don't know why you can't.

I see no advantage for me to spend time and energy in trying to end your ignorance. So you shall just have to live with it.

Gerrit is in a different situation than you. He DOES have native IPv6 from his provider. Plus that he does NOT have a globally routable public IPv4 address from that same provider. HIS IPv4 is NOT working perfectly. The logical response to that situation is to use IPv6 for his Fidonet connections.

Some day you may find yourself in a similar situation. You may or may not regret to not have pepaired for that.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-

I still don't see why he, or me, or anyone, would want to do that when
it offers absolutely ZERO "capability" to what we already have. My

[..]

I wish you could understand that.

Why? How does it help you if I would express a better understanding of your situation?

Because maybe then you would stop harping at people to "convert" to
IPv6. But in reality you probably wouldn't stop, even then.

I really don't know why you can't.

I see no advantage for me to spend time and energy in trying to end
your ignorance. So you shall just have to live with it.

There is no "my ignorance" here. You seem unable to understand that
using IPv6 doesn't benefit me in ANY way, and the hassles of trying to
use it therefore don't make any sense.

It's funny how you're more than willing to "spend time and energy" to evangelize something that is useless to many (most?) people.

Gerrit is in a different situation than you. He DOES have native IPv6 from his provider. Plus that he does NOT have a globally routable
public IPv4 address from that same provider. HIS IPv4 is NOT working perfectly. The logical response to that situation is to use IPv6 for
his Fidonet connections.

I don't recall him saying his IPv4 isn't working well, but OK.... that
would be a different situation, if it's actually true.

Some day you may find yourself in a similar situation. You may or may
not regret to not have pepaired for that.

I doubt that will happen, and if it does.... then I will learn how to do
it, as it would have a purpose then. Right now it does not.



... Your proctologist called - he found your head.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.27-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hello Michiel!

04 Jun 25 11:06, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

MvdV> Then we seem to have different - incompatible - notions of the
MvdV> concepts of "large" and "small".

Maybe. For me, "large" is the stuff I deal with at work.

MvdV> However. I still don't see how having a large number of so called
MvdV> "legacy" devices stops anyone from adding IPv6 capability to their
MvdV> system.

They cannot be expected to "just work". Every tried to auto-discover your 15-year-old printer on the network? Or using it afterwards when you cannot reliably tell if your great "autoconfig" setup gives you A or AAAA records on DNS first?


Regards,
Gerrit

... 8:09PM up 180 days, 2:16, 10 users, load averages: 0.66, 0.65, 0.69

--- msged/fbsd 6.3 2021-12-02
* Origin: And still they come and go (2:240/12)

Hello Dan,

On Wednesday June 04 2025 11:58, you wrote to me:

I really don't know why you can't.

I see no advantage for me to spend time and energy in trying to
end your ignorance. So you shall just have to live with it.

There is no "my ignorance" here.

You wrote "I really don't know". In my vocabulary "not knowing" implies ignorance.

You seem unable to understand that using IPv6 doesn't benefit me in
ANY way, and the hassles of trying to use it therefore don't make any sense.

If you have a problem with what you choose to call my "hassles", there is a simple solution: use the next key when you see my name in the from field of a message..

It's funny how you're more than willing to "spend time and energy" to evangelize something that is useless to many (most?) people.

It is called "freedom of choice". How I spend my time and energy is entirely my choice. If you have a poblem with that: use the next key.

Gerrit is in a different situation than you. He DOES have native
IPv6 from his provider. Plus that he does NOT have a globally
routable public IPv4 address from that same provider. HIS IPv4
is NOT working perfectly. The logical response to that situation
is to use IPv6 for his Fidonet connections.

I don't recall him saying his IPv4 isn't working well, but OK.... that
would be a different situation, if it's actually true.

He reported that DS-Lite broke the connection with his Fidonet uplink and it also broke the access to his system at home from his place or work. (Ipv4 only there).

As far as I am concerned: EOT.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel,

You wrote "I really don't know". In my vocabulary "not knowing" implies ignorance.

There is a gradation between "not knowing" and "ignorance" ... the latter carries a definitely negative undertone ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hello Gerrit,

On Wednesday June 04 2025 20:09, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> However. I still don't see how having a large number of so
MvdV>> called "legacy" devices stops anyone from adding IPv6
MvdV>> capability to their system.

They cannot be expected to "just work". Every tried to auto-discover
your 15-year-old printer on the network? Or using it afterwards when
you cannot reliably tell if your great "autoconfig" setup gives you A
or AAAA records on DNS first?

Yes they can. Those legacy (IPv4 only) devices will just continue to work in a Dual Stack environment as they did in an IPv4 only environment.

I think we have reached the point where further discussion will have little or no added value. So let us end it here.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello Ward!

Wednesday June 04 2025 22:00, you wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

You wrote "I really don't know". In my vocabulary "not knowing"
implies ignorance.

There is a gradation between "not knowing" and "ignorance" ... the
latter carries a definitely negative undertone ...

And this is coming from the most ignorant person I've ever known. =))))

Alex

--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes! Dump Trump! (1:129/14.1)

Alex,

And this is coming from the most ignorant person I've ever known. =))))

I don't know what the problem is with you, but there must be a pill for it. Be careful you don't take the one to cure constipation.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-

<SNIP dodging and misinformation>

As far as I am concerned: EOT.

Yep, I expected that. You're more than willing to run off at the mouth
when preaching your own brand of bullshit, but don't like it much when
others offer sound/sensible arguments against it. When the
questions/facts get too hard to handle, it's time to leave.

You, Bjorn, Ward .... Birds of a feather.



... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.27-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hello Ward!

Wednesday June 04 2025 23:07, you wrote to me:

I don't know what the problem is with you, but there must be a pill

Ward, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.

for it. Be careful you don't take the one to cure constipation.

Thanks for the concern, but I'll leave the laxatives to you - clearly, you're the one full of it.

Alex

--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes! Dump Trump! (1:129/14.1)

Hello Ward!

04 Jun 25 23:07, you wrote to Alex Galiyev:

\%/@rd

Few points, related to that thread, but not only for you:

- if something is not working in fidonet flow, should be fixed. "is for free" defines of course priority, but should not be excuse

- if I can not figure something out (here how to connect somewhere) and somebody helps me with advice which I do not like, I would say thanks (here to use ipv6)

- in general: ignoring ipv6 is OK, but is limiting oportunities. If I have non stable [missing] ipv6, I consider it as disadvantage.

Karel

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209
* Origin: Plast DATA (2:423/39)

Dan,

You, Bjorn, Ward .... Birds of a feather.

That's a compliment, you know ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Alex,

Ward, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.

OK, if you say so pretending knowing me that well.

Enjoy the week-end,

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)