Jeff McAdams wrote:
Quick, is 1.2.3.70/29 in the same network as 1.2.3.71/29? Ugh. I'll take hex, where, it may not be easy, because, yeah, we're used to mentally dealing with decimal (because we have 10 fingers), but it does actually end up being easier in hex than decimal.
Fair point.
As you suggest, it's something one can probably get used to. But it sure is ugly in the interim.
There is an adjustment period, but then we all had an adjustment period to get used to IPv4 network/netmask/broadcast/network computation rules, too. Ultimately, once you make the adjustment, IPv6 ends up actually being easier. Trust me, I was surprised by it as well, but it really does.
I'll take your word for it. For all my griping, I certainly haven't had to get into it deeply enough to see it from the other end of the conversion process.
Again (trying to retain some semblance of on-topic-ness here), native IPv6 isn't absolutely necessary. There are other ways of getting IPv6 to endpoints. I have IPv6 on my home network, when my broadband provider probably hasn't even heard of the concept, yet. Other techniques can get IPv6 addressing and transport on endpoints without upstream networks, or even the local network, supporting IPv6. If those techniques were built into endpoints, all of the problems with NAT suddenly disappear, even without end-to-end control all the way out to the edge.
That's true. And any amount of augmented complexity - real or imagined - with IPv6 is likely to be offset by the benefits of getting rid of NAT entirely, especially in protocol stacks that don't really deal with it well (SIP). -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671