Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Not when the server relies on name-based vhosting that requires digging through a month's worth of project management and change contrl and RFCs to modify.
|
Yuck! But you really should have a better way of testing deployments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
They thought the same about IPv4 when it was invented.
|
Perhaps, but that was more short sightedness in terms of how big the internet (Arpanet?) would get at that time. I don't think they intended IPv4 to be in use for as long as it has been. IPv6 has been specifically designed to scale for a long, long time.
I mean think about what you're saying, wasting billions of addresses but you're only wasting billions of addresses
within the scope of your network. Unless you expect your network to have to support a few billion devices in the next few years, it's really a non-issue.
You've been assigned those addresses via that scope, they've already been "wasted" by the ISP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
If you enjoy it so much, go ahead and do it. I'm not stopping you.
Meanwhile I'll continue to dislike IPv6 just as much as I dislike ATM or IPSec or salt and vinegar crisps regardless of whether you agree with my reasons or not.
|
That's your call, but eventually the IPv6 train will come. Choo Choo!