[Info-vax] What would you miss if DECnet got the chop? Was: "bad select 38" (OpenSSL on VMS)

[Dirk Munk]

Chris wrote:
> On 09/18/16 23:01, Kerry Main wrote:
>
>> The reality is that the future IoT world is not going to happen
>> on IPV4, so start planning your coexistence strategy now.
>>
>
> IPV6 may be the future and will be required for externally facing
> kit, there's no need for it at all for a small to medium sized
> network behind a router or firewall.  My isp may use IPV6 and I
> suspect much of the path to external sites is or will be IPV6,
> but it's about appropriate tech for the task in hand and avoiding
> kit upgrade for no reason at all. Much of the older or even recent
> ip infrastructure is still IPV4 only and if you don't need the
> address space, you don't need IPV6, not the expensive kit upgrades.
>
> In fact, with the kit here, IPV6 is either disabled or removed from
> the kernel build options altogether, so never appears to clutter
> up interface listings. Less is more etc...
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>

That is the usual approach for these things, never do something new if 
you can avoid it.

Or you can use the Facebook approach. They were fed up with dual stacks, 
brain dead programmers who only built in the IPv4 stack in their 
applications, and so on. So they went for IPv6 only on all systems, 
except for the ones facing the internet of course.

Instead of fleeing backwards, they fled forward. A better approach in my 
view, because in the end you will have to convert anyway.


>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kerry Main
>> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com
>>
>