|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> In-Reply-To: <270017.4386.qm@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:48:00 +0200 To: nanog@merit.edu Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On 18 jun 2010, at 18:04, Zed Usser wrote: > With marketing campaigns like these, no consumer will want to use = IPv6, if it becomes associated with privacy problems. >=20 > = http://torrentfreak.com/huge-security-flaw-makes-vpns-useless-for-bittorre= nt-100617/ >=20 > It is, of course, totally irrelevant whether the reporting is = factually correct or even based on real IPv6 issues or not, this is how = public opinion is formed.=20 >=20 > The only takeaway from this to a non-technical user is that IPv6 is = bad and the correct solution is to turn it off. Why do people still think consumers 'want IPv6', they want IPv6 as much = as they want IPv4. They don't know what an IP addresses is, let alone = will grasp the whole idea there are 2 kinds. All they want is their googles, facebooks, twitters and the occasional = download to work (of course nobody would admit to filesharing). And it's = our job to make it so, wether it's via IPv6 or CGN. In the end they = won't have much choice and if we do our jobs correctly, 95 % of them = won't even notice. Just my 2 cents, MarcoH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |