Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 07:48:11 -0600 (MDT)
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<200008221348(_dot_)e7MDmBq24934(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
| Both IPv6 and ATM-to-the-desktop-and-replacing-IP
| - require major changes to applications, hosts TCP code, and the boxes
| that connect hosts.
The IPv6 changes range between fairly minor and non-existant, depending upon
the application (and when done, result in code that still works over IPv4).
| - claim to be desert toppings AND floor waxes
No, IPv6 claims only to be a (really fairly minor) enhancement of IPv4
| - suffer standards committee bloat and silliness, such as the typical
| standards committee doubling of the IPv6 address from 64 to
| 128 bits, the lunacy of 48 byte cells and the 54 flavors of AAL.
There were reasons for the address size increase - it should allow just
about anything to autoconfigure successfully - but note we already (still)
have people who claim it isn't big enough.
| The differences are
ATM requires new hardware (everywhere), IPv6 runs just fine on ancient
hardware (my main stable IPv6 node is a 486 from about a decade ago...
It is stable because it is too slow to do a lot with, I also have it
running on ancient Sun boxes that date from the (late) 80's). Even assuming
I wanted to run ATM to my desk, I'm not sure it is possible to buy an
interface card that would work for my workstation, I'm certain it wouldn't
be economic.
The two aren't comparable at all in terms of what they're attempting to do,
or what is involved in upgrading from one to another.
kre