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