[Gllug] IPv6 allocation options

[Mark Brier]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:08:02 +0000
John Hearns <hearnsj at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 18 January 2011 11:36, Daniel P. Berrange <dan at berrange.com> wrote:
> >>
> > More seriously though the ever increasing use of NAT is bad because
> > it strongly favours a client-server model and makes peer-2-peer
> > harder/less reliable. This is not good for resilience against
> > government and corporate censorship. Increasingly centralized
> > hosting, under the banner "cloud computing", is being pushed as the
> > future of highly flexible & reliable web hosting / publishing for
> > everyone. The wikileaks / Amazon incident demonstrates this is a
> > exceedingly fragile house of cards as far as freedom from political
> > or corporate decisions is concerned.
> 
> You are a COMMIE PINKO.
> Hell I bet you use leftie free software which is a cancer that
> attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
> touches.
> Heck don't you KNOW that the US Air Force has blocked access to your
> pinko liberal Guardian as it is a threat to the security of the free
> world?Sir,

Can we keep it on-topic ... please? Jeez man.

Your ISP is always going to be the provider of your access, regardless
of whether they give you a NATted address or a public one. I personally
don't see how a move to NAT over public or cloud over non-cloud has
implications for 'resilience against govt/corporate censorship'. Surely
if govts and companies want to censor the internet, they'll just
jump into bed with the ISPs?

Can you please expand and explain for me (and others who are missing
something here) ... how the .... "wikileaks / Amazon incident
demonstrates this is a exceedingly fragile house of cards as far as
freedom from political or corporate decisions is concerned" and how
this has anything to do with ipv6 or using NAT over public addresses.

MB
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug