Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 2003 Report

From: Kurt Roeckx <Q(at)ping(dot)be>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>,Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 2003 Report
Date: 2003-01-31 19:21:21
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Soon, the NAT + CIDR bag-on-the-side will run out of room, and people
> will have no choice but to use IPv6.  But the pain of making them
> interoperate is part of the cause of resistance.  The compatibility
> addresses are going to _have_ to work if people are really going to
> move, unless someone is contemplating another great TCP/IP cutover
> day.

What do you mean with "compatibility addresses"?  I don't know of
any such thing.

The ipv4 mapped ipv6 address is just a "hack" on the local
system.  You never see those "on the wire".

Anyway, what is the problem?  ipv4 and ipv6 can happely live on
the same network, it does so far a long time now.  Host just
support both ipv4 and ipv6 now.  If an application is written
properly, you shouldn't even notice the connection is over ipv4
or ipv6.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2003-01-31 19:28:41
Subject: Re: Odd website behavior...
Previous:From: Curtis FaithDate: 2003-01-31 19:18:29
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Greg CopelandDate: 2003-01-31 19:37:08
Subject: Re: 2003 Report
Previous:From: Kurt RoeckxDate: 2003-01-31 19:04:46
Subject: Re: 2003 Report

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group