[VoiceOps] IPV6

Alex Balashov abalashov at evaristesys.com
Wed Oct 21 16:44:01 EDT 2009

Jeff McAdams wrote:

> Quick, is in the same network as  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

More information about the VoiceOps mailing list