So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?

[Doug Barton]

On Mon, 24 May 2010, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
>
> Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> writes:
>
>> Whether you agree with the reasons enterprises want DHCP or not,
>> enough folks have repeated those reasons often enough at this point
>> that by disregarding or diminishing them it only makes you look
>> foolish, and out of touch.
>
> Maybe.  But maybe I've seen too many people who want IPv6 to be
> nothing more than "IPv4 with longer addresses".

I'm responding to this bit separately because I think it deserves its
own topic. I hear this all the time, and I'm genuinely curious about the 
answer to this question.

Given all the churn in network protocols that was happening in the 90's 
already I have a theory that if "we" had simply done "IPv4 with longer 
addresses" in the first place that IPNG would have been deployed almost 
immediately and all the energy and drama that's been spent on trying to 
make it more than that could have been better spent elsewhere.

So my question is, other than longer addresses, what are the benefits to 
IPv6 that I can point clients to which will help them justify the 
expense of the upgrade?


Doug

-- 

 	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
 	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

 	Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
 			-- Pablo Picasso