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