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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf