Scott Leibrand writes:
Um, have you heard of dual stack? My Windows XP does it quite
transparently (after I enable IPv6 at the command line), and presumably
Vista will do IPv4/IPv6 dual stack transparently without any command-line
enabling.
How does your ISP handle this?
How much extra does your ISP charge you for IPv6 support?
As I argued in another message, IMO ISPs will not be able to charge extra
for an IPv6 /64.
A /64 is a criminal waste of address space; they _should_ charge extra
for that.
That gives you basically as many hosts as your
routing/switching gear can handle on a single subnet (as you won't be able
to put 2^64 hosts on a single broadcast domain).
And even with a million hosts, you'll be wasting fully
99.9999999999945% of the /64.
Do you see why IPv6 address space will soon be exhausted?
As long as you already have v6-capable gear, enabling IPv6 shouldn't be
significantly more expensive than running v4. IMO it doesn't make sense
to try to run v6 on gear that only supports v4, but since pretty much all
new gear supports v6 now, folks should be able to gradually turn on v6 as
appropriate in their networks.
When did all applications become capable of handling IPv6?
Your ISP charges you 9 times as much for IPv4 addresses as they do for
bandwidth?
My current ISP doesn't even give me the option. I'd have to change to
a much more expensive ISP before having access to that kind of luxury.
I'd recommend switching ISPs.
Make your check payable to my ISP.
All the ones I've seen charge a
small premium for additional IP space, but it's never more than about a
50% premium.
Fifty percent is a small premium?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf