Erik Anderson:

> Absolutely not.
> Making a change like this is a *big deal*, both in terms of money (to
> upgrade/replace network infrastructure) as well as in terms of having
> to learn a new technology. As such, it was very wise for the IP
> governing boards to not just make an incremental bump in the IP
> address space, but make a *huge* increase. This decision ensures that
> we won't need to go through this whole process again in the
> foreseeable future.

8 bytes is a huge increase.  IPv4 has lasted longer than expected
so I can't imagine 8 bytes being exhausted in the future.  I read that
16 byte addresses can address more atoms than are thought to exist.
>From a practical point of view I think the 16 byte addresses are
a mistake.  Systems have to work through all of that before they
can start to do something useful.  That's a good reason not to
switch to IPv6. I believe you about IPv6 being an improvement
over IPv4 in a number of ways, but think the length of the addresses
was a mistake.

I don't think anyone is paying for IPv6 specific upgrades to hardware.
When they upgrade for a practical reason, the hardware they get is
more IPv6 capable than what they had.

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
(651) 251-9384
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>