<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IPv6 &#8211; Failure is an Option?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/</link>
	<description>bangky's blog about life, politics and ip networks. an odd combination, but that's what it is.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:41:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bangky</title>
		<link>http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/comment-page-1/#comment-688</link>
		<dc:creator>bangky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bangky.net/blog/?p=462#comment-688</guid>
		<description>The increase in available address space is probably one of the biggest &quot;selling points&quot; of IPv6. However, it should also be noted that there are other improvements in IPv6, such as the restructuring of the protocol headers to remove (now) redundant fields, provision for the possibility of header extensions, removal of fragmentation requirements for intermediate routers, etc.

Understandably, these improvements have not been as hyped up as the increase in address space; but this doesn&#039;t mean that we ought to overlook them or brush them aside.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The increase in available address space is probably one of the biggest &#8220;selling points&#8221; of IPv6. However, it should also be noted that there are other improvements in IPv6, such as the restructuring of the protocol headers to remove (now) redundant fields, provision for the possibility of header extensions, removal of fragmentation requirements for intermediate routers, etc.</p>
<p>Understandably, these improvements have not been as hyped up as the increase in address space; but this doesn&#8217;t mean that we ought to overlook them or brush them aside.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: n. jensen</title>
		<link>http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/comment-page-1/#comment-687</link>
		<dc:creator>n. jensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bangky.net/blog/?p=462#comment-687</guid>
		<description>The whole concept of ipv6 is flawed. There should be a solution which simply extends v4 address space, similar to what was used to handle IDE drives over 137 GB size (48-bit LBA addressing).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole concept of ipv6 is flawed. There should be a solution which simply extends v4 address space, similar to what was used to handle IDE drives over 137 GB size (48-bit LBA addressing).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver Bell&#8217;s Weblog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IPv6 Roundup, Monday 1/12/08</title>
		<link>http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/comment-page-1/#comment-531</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver Bell&#8217;s Weblog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IPv6 Roundup, Monday 1/12/08</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bangky.net/blog/?p=462#comment-531</guid>
		<description>[...] IPv6 - Failure is an Option? - By bangky The cold, hard, truth is that the short-term marginal benefit of IPv6 does not exceed the cost of upgrading a network to run IPv6. It’s true it would be far easier for an ISP to implement carrier-grade NAT. In fact, that’s what a number &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] IPv6 &#8211; Failure is an Option? &#8211; By bangky The cold, hard, truth is that the short-term marginal benefit of IPv6 does not exceed the cost of upgrading a network to run IPv6. It’s true it would be far easier for an ISP to implement carrier-grade NAT. In fact, that’s what a number &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: geof lambert</title>
		<link>http://www.bangky.net/blog/2008/11/ipv6-failure-is-an-option/comment-page-1/#comment-530</link>
		<dc:creator>geof lambert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bangky.net/blog/?p=462#comment-530</guid>
		<description>Yes, very well said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, very well said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
