[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 6:08 PM, tom wrote: > You could (theoretically) re-allocate IP ranges and the problem would go > away - almost certainly for long enough for us not to worry about it again > in our lifetimes - but that is politically tricky and wont sell a whole > bunch of hardware we dont really need. You could also argue that a lot of people are making/will make money from the fact that IPv4 doesn't have an unlimited amount of IP addresses (while IPv6, in practise, does): by making you pay extra to run your web server on its own IP, by selling their unused address space, soon by charging you extra for not butting you behind a carrier grade NAT. I believe many of the things people do to overcome the fact that the IPv4 space is limited are sub-optimal: NAT, virtual website hosting, etc. IPv6 solves these problems. I'm not saying that IPv6 is the one solution to all the problems on the Internet, or that there aren't issues with IPv6 (at the moment there are a lot of security issues), but I do believe it's a step forward. That is not to say that most of these things work very well for most people and that as a end-user or small business for most the only real reason why you might want look into IPv6 connectivity is that it's good practise. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq