On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 21:06 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
Seems to me that N will vary depending on what you are trying to do. A model where the device has to request resources from the network before enabling tethering, or before supporting IPv4-only apps, provides a much worse user experience. The user might have to wait a long time, or the operation might even fail.
I understand. I took issue only with the idea that any value of N could be "right". Don't forget though that IPv4 phones also need resources from the network - their public IPv4 addresses. Why isn't that a showstopper too? Hm... The essential difference with IPv6 compared to IPv4 is that (due to address abundance) all addresses are (or at least can be) globally routable. There can be a direct bidirectional relationship between a connected device and the world; of necessity, that relationship brings with it a higher degree of interdependence. It's a pretty simple thing really: You can have all that that IPv6 offers (both now and potentially), or you can cripple it so that the user experience is "just like IPv4". I get where you are coming from. It's just a bit sad, is all. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882