Just a couple of concerns: So this has been bugging me since I first read technical reports on the whole thing quite a few years ago: Isn't 128-bits kinda, well, a lot? I mean that's 4 times bigger than 32-bits, so doesn't that mean it will incur 4x more overhead?
For example, I have a 160bps upstream with my DSL provider...right now is just barely enough to stream mp3's on IPv4. On IPv6, however, I worry that a much bigger chunk of my bits will be used simply for addressing. How does IPv6 answer this (as it is really the only thing holding me back). Also, does IPv6 or could IPv6, 7, or 8 :) Employ a type of 'smart addressing' feature? For example, if all I need to do is communicate amongst my subnet or my local network, it seems wasteful to send 128-bits for that. So why not simply send the number of bits that is in the subnet mask or assume a right justification of the bits recieved so that the computer can and it to a mask and know where it came from or something similar? On a grand scale that would be awesome because if I was just playing a game with local friends in the say Austin, TX area I could save a few bits, could I not? And if not why not? :) I have been burning to ask these questions for quite some time, so thanks very much for you patience in reading them :) Cheers and Take Care, Tim Soderstrom Computer Science Major at University of Texas @ Austin -- /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ | Tim Soderstrom | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://mightytim.corbantek.com | | | | "Life is like a box of chocolates - never know what you gonna get" | | -Forrest Gump | \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- The IPv6 Users Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe users" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
