From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9BB3B29E for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:13:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A6C18057; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:15:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id n9U8OwiHOHsD; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D722B1800C; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A216614; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:13:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: David Lang cc: Steve Crocker , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <869538s1-742s-63q6-85sn-5n6913r79onn@ynat.uz> References: <28034.1635270711@localhost> <8007.1635359366@localhost> <869538s1-742s-63q6-85sn-5n6913r79onn@ynat.uz> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:13:46 -0400 Message-ID: <19171.1635513226@localhost> Subject: Re: [Starlink] thinking about the laser links again X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:13:48 -0000 David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, Steve Crocker wrote: >> Why wouldn't they make it completely IPv6??? > Because IPv4 only services still exist. because IPv4 as service works over IPv6-only infrastructure very well.