Nathan Ward wrote on 16 April 2003:
In that case RFC1918 space can be used... else beware the whining gamer who can't play CounterStrike with a v6 address.
Please let us not head down the path of handing out RFC1918 space to end
users as if this is a real connection. That way leads to Much Pain with Less
Than Friendly Protocols. Which seems to be an awful lot beyond CS weenies :)
The day an ISP hands me an address which is RFC1918 is the day I switch
away.
--
David Zanetti
I was not suggesting it as an option, it was meerly to point out that giving a v6 address in place of a v4 address is just as bad, if not worse. Nathan Ward Zanetti David wrote:
Nathan Ward wrote on 16 April 2003:
In that case RFC1918 space can be used... else beware the whining gamer who can't play CounterStrike with a v6 address.
Please let us not head down the path of handing out RFC1918 space to end users as if this is a real connection. That way leads to Much Pain with Less Than Friendly Protocols. Which seems to be an awful lot beyond CS weenies :)
The day an ISP hands me an address which is RFC1918 is the day I switch away.
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 11:56, Zanetti David wrote:
Please let us not head down the path of handing out RFC1918 space to end users as if this is a real connection. That way leads to Much Pain with Less Than Friendly Protocols. Which seems to be an awful lot beyond CS weenies :)
36878 players and 3132 clans ranked on 3 servers in 7 days. I wouldnt exactly say 36 thousand paying customers are 'weenies'
participants (3)
-
Jeremy Brooking -
Nathan Ward -
Zanetti David