On Sunday, July 10, 2022 06:48:10 PM Andy Smith wrote: > Otherwise I'm afraid your claims about IPv6 so far have been quite > bizarre, on the level of "IPv6 ate my homework" or "my father was > killed by a 128-bit integer", and can't be taken seriously.
From the peanut gallery: I disabled IPv6 quite some time ago. I don't recall how I did it, but I might have that information in my notes, somewhere. The reason that I disabled it (which might not be totally logical) is that in IPv4, I have always had my computers (and LAN) behind a NAT device. I could not find (in the searching I did) equivalent functionality for IPv6, so I disabled IPv6 in hopes of keeping my systems (fairly) secure. I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense, and I'm sure [some | many | most | maybe almost all] will disagree, especially based on the 128(?)-bit address space in IPv6, but that was the reason I disabled IPv6. -- rhk If you reply: snip, snip, and snip again; leave attributions; avoid top posting; and keep it "on list". (Oxford comma included at no charge.) If you change topics, change the Subject: line. A picture is worth a thousand words -- divide by 10 for each minute of video (or audio) or create a transcript and edit it to 10% of the original.
