- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ipv6
- From: California Wireless Incorporated <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:42:19 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> from "William Allen Simpson" at Dec 1, 94 05:24:53 pm
>The problem with IPv6 is that they quadrupled the size of the addresses,
>thereby destroying the thoughput for the usual typed traffic over our
>The committee that made this decision was made up of high speed vendors
>and big users such as Boeing, who think the entire world is going to be
>using 155 Mbps real soon now.
>My recommendation for hams would be to stay with IPv4, or change to SIP
>rather than IPv6.
Folks, I'd like to suggest that unless we get on with it, we're going to
have 1200 baud links well into the 21st century!
I say: let us get on with IPv6 now, and, simultaneously, get our physical
layers fixed. 56k should be the _bare minimum_ for any new IP station these
- Re: ipv6
- From: "William Allen Simpson" <email@example.com>