On 2012-10-14 21:00, Brian Wood wrote:
> What do you think of ipv6?
I'm a fan of it. I've been using it for about 10 years now; I've
enabled everything I've deployed personally for the last 5+ years, and
bring tunnels (via HE/SixXS or homegrown using OpenVPN) wherever I can't
get native. I advocate. I mentor. I answer questions -- lots of
questions. I help others get it up and running in their environments.
I patch software to enable support. I specifically declare IPv6 to be a
technical requirement for new circuits and equipment (to mixed results).
What have you done with or for IPv6?
> I've read that less than 1% of the traffic on the internet is ipv6
> traffic.
Yep! That's a lot of progress, considering how few networks, web
sites, and consumer CPE support IPv6.
> What baffles me about ipv6 is why they decided to go
> from 4 byte addresses to 16 bytes. Wouldn't 8 byte
> addresses make more sense?
What baffles me is when people look at their small environments, don't
see a personal need for IPv6, and write off other people's need for it,
its features, and the amount of work new protocol deployment takes on a
global scale.
No, 64-bit host addresses wouldn't "make more sense." If you're
thinking of the IPv6 address space as 128-bit host addresses, you're
doing it wrong. Think of it as 64-bit network addresses, each with an
irrelevant number of hosts. The lower 64 bits were engineered for
autoconfiguration, and can be ignored for 90+% of scalability discussions.
Jima