There are situations where you need IPv4 due to rate-limiting. So while my stack technically supports IPv6 I have no reason to migrate to it.

You've been downvoted because this shouldn't be true, but since no-one else has stepped up, I'll bite :).

It's perfectly possible to do IP-based rate-limiting in the IPv6 world, you just need to do it based on different prefixes, rather than full IPs.

As a specific example, my ISP -- as is quite usual -- hands out /48s. So in the same way that you can rate limit my entire NAT'd IPv4 connection with a single entry, you can rate limit my entire IPv6 connection with a single entry, by storing the prefix.

That makes more sense than trying to force a completely unrelated opinion into a conversation.

Also, the notion that broad use of IPv6 = security in VOIP, IoT or any area is a postulation at best.

I've personally always found this to be a good overview of security issues involved in both protocols in VOIP:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6714161/

(Sci-Hub approved)

There are certain parts of the industry hesitant to transition for the possibility of security mis-configurations and human errors, the picture that the VOIP industry as a whole holds no interest in security is false. It could definitely improve, but that doesn't just apply to VOIP.

It's not an opinion or unrelated but an analogy to another case where there's very strong evidence of a massive benefit with very little downside which is being objected to based on conspiracy theories and lack of concern for the damage to anyone foolish enough to believe them.

As a side note, the debate is not that simple. Vaccines work, but many vaccines are manufactured without what many would consider proper testing, and using toxic substances banned in different countries.

The debate is more about sloppy implementations than about the idea of vaccines as a whole. It's like someone is forcing the issue down to choosing poorly-regulated vaccines - or no vaccines at all. A false dichotomy.

The guidelines ask us to eschew flamebait, which means to avoid it altogether—both making it and taking it. This is what happens.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> The debate is more about sloppy implementations than about the idea of vaccines as a whole. It's like someone is forcing the issue down to choosing poorly-regulated vaccines - or no vaccines at all. A false dichotomy

This actually goes quite strongly against what I've observed though. Literally all of the anti-vaxxers I've met are 100% against vaccines. They are not vaccinated, nor are their children.

They're not doing research and choosing to use some vaccines but not others. They're completely ignoring all vaccines.

> As a side note, the debate is not that simple. Vaccines work, but many vaccines are manufactured without what many would consider proper testing, and using toxic substances banned in different countries.

Those are big claims without any supporting evidence. From the sounds of it, you're repeating the anti-vax claims about mercury.

Ethyl vs Methyl mercury is one of the most popular debates (because mercury is scary!). Most vaccines switched to Thiomersal which has ethylmercury in it. However, even ethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier. Other 2 big ingredients are formaldehyde and aluminum. From there you have to get more specific about which vaccine you are talking about.

You still haven’t specified your claims. Which vaccines aren’t well tested? Which substances are included at levels known or suspected to be toxic, and by whom?

My claim is about the debate itself, not about any certain vaccine or danger.

So far you're following the anti-vax script perfectly: lots of FUD, no claims specified in enough detail to even evaluate them much less counteract the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are a public good with no reputable downside.

I've been supplying information and you've been complaining. I fail to see how I'm at fault for trying to answer questions.

You didn't just talk about the debate. You stated as a fact that many vaccines have improper testing or substances. If you state something as a fact, you should be prepared to back it up.

> You stated as a fact

You're putting words in my mouth. What I said was "...without what many would consider..."

I'm still taking about the debate itself and you're trying to make this a binary debate about vaccination.

You stated toxicity as completely objective. (And you had better mean "toxic at the doses given", because anything is toxic in large-enough quantity.)

> What I said was "...without what many would consider..."

That's still calling them correct about the vaccines not meeting those standards. There are a lot of claims about vaccine testing that are objectively false. It's not that their standards are higher, it's that they falsely believe vaccines undergo less testing than they actually do.

I don't want this to be a binary debate. I want you to quantify 'many' and provide actual evidence of anything.

You're still not supporting your claims. If, as you said, the debate is not that simple the onus is on you to justify the claim that there is in fact any significant debate over vaccination in the scientific community.

There's more mecury in the fish you eat and it's the methyl kind which sticks around for weeks. If you eat fruit, there's methanol naturally present which the body metabolizes into formaldehyde. I am willing to bet your kid gets a higher dosage of formaldehyde from the juices they drink then a vaccine.

> That makes more sense than trying to force a completely unrelated opinion into a conversation.

I'm curious, at what point does that opinion become fact? Isn't the evidence overwhelming?

I mainly ask because it feels like if the evidence for vaccination were not sufficient to warrant it as more than simply an opinion, wouldn't many other things become merely opinion too?