[VoiceOps] IPV6

Jeff McAdams jeffm at iglou.com
Wed Oct 21 13:28:19 EDT 2009

Alex Balashov wrote:
> Sure, a 128-bit address is going to be unwieldy in any notation.

> Why is hex better, I am genuinely curious?  Does being able to slice at 
> the half-byte boundary allow for some highly advantageous granularity I 
> am failing to appreciate as an IPv6 n00b?

There is some advantage to that, yes, when you're talking about DNS 
delegations, but I think the critical thing is that "255" is fewer 
characters than "ff".  It really does come down to it being that simple.

My employer has an IPv6 block out of ARIN's PI assignment space of 
2620:0::/23.  So I express the first two octets of that address with 
"2620" which ends up being more concise than the dotted decimal octets 
equivalent.  Even when the conversion would leave you with two character 
results, versus 3, you still end up more concise because you drop the 
"." and still have a very readable chunk of the address.

To step back, I agree with the original poster.  I am absolutely 
dumbfounded that the voice industry, and VoIP industry in particular, 
hasn't latched on to IPv6 much much more than they have.  Its a 
relatively closed ecosystem of devices and systems that could (at least 
in theory) be IPv6 enabled without having to enable a huge extra amount 
of infrastructure to support it (even transport networks need not be 
fully IPv6 enabled, although its certainly beneficial to be fully native).

Losing NAT from the equation is zOMG hugely beneficial, or would be.  I 
truly am dumbfounded at the resistance to IPv6 in the voice industry, 
one of the industries that would benefit the most from IPv6 adoption in 
my estimation.
Jeff McAdams
jeffm at iglou.com

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list