alt Hacker NewsThat is a quite extreme outlier, then. Hardly relevant to the global IPv6 and peer-to-peer conversation we're having here, and your objection still only applies to one narrow use of the technology under discussion.
That is a quite extreme outlier, then. Hardly relevant to the global IPv6 and peer-to-peer conversation we're having here, and your objection still only applies to one narrow use of the technology under discussion.
>That is a quite extreme outlier, then. Hardly relevant to the global IPv6 and peer-to-peer conversation we're having here
It's China with it's 1bn of internet users and 2bn+ devices .
If you're happy to exclude half of the internet from your "global peer-to-peer conversation", then you don't need ipv6 either, just use the Chinese IPs for your own purposes, there are plenty of them.
Actually this is the attitude I am seeing from the ipv6 zealots all the time: blatant disregard of reality. Nobody wielding and non-negligible amount of power wants peer-to-peer communication. Companies don't want it, governments don't want it, large masses of people who want a person with a vested interest to be responsible for the link quality don't want it.
What ipv6 zealots don't realize is that ipv6 will not bring them their coveted p2p, because, guess what, incoming connections are to peasant computers are blocked by ISPs by default.