From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200008010714.IAA13373@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Aug 2000 06:18:43 +0200."
             <20000801061843.E2173@cackle.proxima.alt.za> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue,  1 Aug 2000 08:14:11 +0200
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f0dca264-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:14:54AM -0400, presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> 
> I started an ipv6 stack and got disgusted.  I decided I'ld wait until there
> was someone worth talking to using it to finish.

i've sometimes wondered whether having an optional IPv6 stack would be a
good way to get further penetration of Plan 9 (or whatever OS you implement
it on): offering the box's functionality as a ready-made IPv6 backbone
system.

To increase the user base, users have to want something that they can't get
elsewhere, and IPv6 is the main example of something that _everyone_ might
want, at some point. Most other wide-scale wants are wishy-washy terms,
like "e-commerce" and "micropayments." (but strangely, not "security")

'Course, the fact that they don't want it _yet_ is telling.

steve