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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:50:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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?

Money saved in "no longer working around the limitations of IPv4".

Things like forced-NAT (because you can't get enough addresses, not because
you consider NAT a useful tool), address collisions in VPN setups, address
collisions on company mergers, endless hassle with IPv4 subnet sizing
(it's always too small or too big in hindsight) - this is causing hidden
costs that people won't notice until they take a close look at IPv6 and
find out "oh, there is no need to haggle about subnet sizes anymore, wow!".

All the nice bits like SeND, CGAs, SLAAC, etc., are a consequence of
"having (MUCH) longer addresses"...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279