abalashov at evaristesys.com
Wed Oct 21 16:44:01 EDT 2009
Jeff McAdams wrote:
> Quick, is 220.127.116.11/29 in the same network as 18.104.22.168/29? 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.
>> 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
> 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
Alex Balashov - Principal
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
More information about the VoiceOps