=== Start of Windows Clipboard ===Thanks for the advice, but it's much easier for one person to change
XLATCHARSET CP850 CP866 850_866.chs
=== End of Windows Clipboard ===
their name than for thousands of people to update their configs.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?How does my name look now? It's in my native Cyrillic. Everyone, please add charset 866 to your editors. Nonsense.
I don't know what the problem is with you, but there must be a pillWard, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.
for it. Be careful you don't take the one to cure constipation.Thanks for the concern, but I'll leave the laxatives to you - clearly, you're the one full of it.
\%/@rd
Yes, Massa Gimme-Gimme. I will, of course, immediately see if I can
give your Very Important Traffic on a depreciated network protocol,
such as IPv4, higher priority.
It's not "deprecated" (the proper spelling of what you mean).
It's a world-wide standard, in widespread use.
Also, I wasn't asking for
higher priority, just that your system match what it advertises as it's capabilities. CM/IBN/INA. There aren't any "busy signals".
Why would it affect them at all? Are you using some kind of deprecated hardware, or something?
Strange how your system(s) are so unreliable.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?How does my name look now? It's in my native Cyrillic. Everyone,
please add charset 866 to your editors. Nonsense.
Who uses IPv6 networks anyways,
That depends very much on what values you actually look at. Most FTN operators count as "end user", so traffic comparison by volume on the carrier level is maybe not the best metric here. Also, this heavily depends on geography. Just to get an idea (yes, I know this is from
2022, but you still get the idea): https://labs.ripe.net/author/wilhelm/ipv6-10-years-out-an-analysis-in- users-ta bles-and-traffic/
they're damn slow.
Nonsense. In fact IPv6 is a bit faster than IPv4. Less overhead.
Tell this to our Comcast ISP users in Pennsylvania, in order to get
better speeds, they have to disable ipv6.
I could not care less about having/using IPv6. Version 4 works just
fine.
GUI viewers/editors shouldn't have any issues too.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?
Everyone, please add charset 866 to your editors.
Björn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yes, Massa Gimme-Gimme. I will, of course, immediately see if I can
give your Very Important Traffic on a depreciated network protocol,
such as IPv4, higher priority.
It's a world-wide standard, in widespread use.
It was.
A standard from 1981, when the web was more than a decade
from being introduced and worldwide (sic) internet adoption was still another decade away.
Also, I wasn't asking for
higher priority, just that your system match what it advertises as it's capabilities. CM/IBN/INA. There aren't any "busy signals".
What signals were they then? If you had quoted the errors you
received, it might have helped you identify the problem.
Why would it affect them at all? Are you using some kind of deprecated hardware, or something?
You have no idea about my system, so why even try to tell me how to operate it?
Strange how your system(s) are so unreliable.
Not to any of my paying clients or free-of-charge important Fidonet friends, as far as I know. Yes, I know that there still are some IPv4 problems, but it does not seem to be a problem for all of them since
they all use IPv6; therefore, my IPv6 theory. If you have any other explanation, I'm all ears.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I could not care less about having/using IPv6. Version 4 works just
fine.
IPv4 will not keep "working just fine".
In fact for many in the world
it already has stopped "working just fine" after their ISP put their
IPv4 behind CGNAT.
IPv4 will not keep "working just fine".
Is that like Al Gore saying the world would end "soon" due to "global warming" about 25 years ago?
In fact for many in the world it already has stopped "working just
fine" after their ISP put their IPv4 behind CGNAT.
Yeah, well, I can't worry about (or fix) all the world's problems.
Many people go to sleep hungry every night too. That sucks, but I
can't fix that,
Tell this to our Comcast ISP users in Pennsylvania, in order toThen Comcast and/or their users are doing something wrong. Native IPv6
get better speeds, they have to disable ipv6.
is definitely not slower than IPv4.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
In fact for many in the world it already has stopped "working just
fine" after their ISP put their IPv4 behind CGNAT.
Yeah, well, I can't worry about (or fix) all the world's problems.
Many people go to sleep hungry every night too. That sucks, but I
can't fix that,
But contrary to all these other problems, this is something you CAN do something about. You CAN upgrade your system to support IPv6. You may perceive it as not needed and you may be lucky and indeed not need it
any time soon. IPv4 exhaustion may not be as big a problem in your neck of the woods as it is here. In the beginning your part of the world got
a lot of IPv4. More than a fair share. So be it. But what happened to
hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology. so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard once you get the hang of it.
Why not give it a try? Just for the fun of it?
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the help
you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Then Comcast and/or their users are doing something wrong. Native
IPv6 is definitely not slower than IPv4.
It's definitely slower by design:
- Bigger headers (40 B vs. 20 B) add per-packet overhead.
- Path MTU Discovery failures (blocked ICMPv6 "Too Big") lead to drops/retries.
- Transitional tunnels (e.g. 6in4, Teredo) introduce
extra hops and encapsulation cost.
- Less hardware offload and OS-stack tuning for IPv6 vs. decades of
IPv4 optimizations.
But what happened to hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet
great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology.
so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard
once you get the hang of it. Why not give it a try? Just for the fun
of it?
My ISP doesn't offer me IPv6.
I'm not interested in putzing around to get some "workaround" tunnel
thing working.
Don't have time for such silliness, and there is no "fun of it" for
me, as I'm just not interested in something which isn't a problem for
me.
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the
help you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Yes, I read the echo. Seems to be mostly a self-congratulatory
meeting place of mutual celebration/masturbation,
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing somethingMaybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
wrong.
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing something
wrong.
Maybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
NM.
Hello Michiel!
Friday May 30 2025 18:01, you wrote to me:
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing something wrong.Maybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
Alex
--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes! Dump Trump! (1:129/14.1)
Where is your evidence of that? Seems pretty much the same.Simply sending 56-byte ICMP echo requests is not enough, this cannot serve as evidence.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
But what happened to hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet
great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology.
so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard
once you get the hang of it. Why not give it a try? Just for the fun
of it?
My ISP doesn't offer me IPv6.
And you are stuck with them? If so I do not envy you. Here I have a choice between over a dozen providers distributed over three fysical media. Nearly all of them offer native IPv6.
I'm not interested in putzing around to get some "workaround" tunnel
thing working.
I have played around with tunnels before I got native IPv6 now nearly a decade ago. It was fun and an interesting experience.
Don't have time for such silliness, and there is no "fun of it" for
me, as I'm just not interested in something which isn't a problem for
me.
If you are no longer interested in trying out new things that seem to have no obvious purpose at first glance, why are you still in Fidonet? Fidonet is like a shipping company without passengers or cargo. But we just keep the ships running for the fun of it. It serves no real
purpose any more.
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the
help you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Yes, I read the echo. Seems to be mostly a self-congratulatory
meeting place of mutual celebration/masturbation,
Like most of Fidonet...
Simply sending 56-byte ICMP echo requests is not enough, this cannot serve as evidence.
You need to send real payloads over a period of a few days to gather some evidence.
I've worked in MSPs my whole career, so I have real-life experience with how IPv6 works here in Pennsylvania and IT SUCKS.
So a 1GB file was 2 seconds quicker over ipv6 than ipv4 from someNope, this is still not a valid test.
random host I found. I suppose this isn't enough of a test either?
You, Bjorn, Ward .... Birds of a feather.
Ward, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.
Yes, it is the only realistic option I have. Not uncommon in the USA as far as I know. Cable/broadband companies often have their "territory"
and they are the only provider in that area.
Not really, it's quite different from most as far as I can see. I mean, what "real purpose" does it serve? Just a way for folks to congratulate each other on having an IPv6 address? LOL Very silly.
I always thought "old hardware or some archaic OS" was the very
definition of a FTN system these days... ;-)
I think the question is not so much about the technical support (for
Linux or *BSD, IPv6 is available since around 2000). I know a couple
of admins who -even if their provider supports IPv6- simply disable it
on all machines due to the unnecessary complexity it comes with.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
If you are no longer interested in trying out new things that seem to have no obvious purpose at first glance, why are you still in Fidonet? Fidonet is like a shipping company without passengers or cargo. But we just keep the ships running for the fun of it. It serves no real
purpose any more.
I think the question is not so much about the technical support (for
Linux or *BSD, IPv6 is available since around 2000). I know a couple
of admins who -even if their provider supports IPv6- simply disable
it on all machines due to the unnecessary complexity it comes with.
So why the reluctance to embrace IPv6?
| Sysop: | Gargoyle |
|---|---|
| Location: | Wayne, OK |
| Users: | 22 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 85:04:43 |
| Calls: | 147 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 295 |
| Messages: | 66,703 |