Nathan Ward wrote:
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same question and see if you get the same answer.
I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so think that static addressing is the only way forward.
With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes.
I wonder how much this is all going to change as there's an inevitable shift from "my computer" being The Client, to "my computer" being one of many "servers" that my cell phone uses, and is generally tethered to. Or just the situation that you have more than one place of residence and there is a somewhat indeterminate concept of what "my computer" really is. This is somewhat reminiscent of the pop/imap days, but there's just so much more stuff these days and broadband is still way too slow to really have a completely viable network/server solution. Fast servers in the network are great, but there are is a fairly large set of things that it just doesn't handle well; manifestly given the still huge split between local and network storage. (what percentage of "stuff" is in the cloud? 1%?) To me, that says that more and more people are going to want to access their "home computer" as if it were a server... which in fact it really is in the case of an iPhone wanting to suck down the latest dross from iTunes. And server means non-client accessiblity however you accomplish that. Mike