> IPv6 was poorly designed. I'd like to point out some design decisions I love about IPv6: - 128-bit addresses instead of 32-bit. I can't imagine having a sho

> IPv6 was poorly designed. I'd like to point out some design decisions I love about IPv6: - 128-bit addresses instead of 32-bit. I can't imagine having a shortage of routable IP addresses for a long, long time. - I don't have to use NAT if I don't want because there are enough IP addresses to go around. We've grown so used to NAT that we take it for granted, not recognizing it for the ugly hack it is. On my home network, just about every machine has a routable IPv6 address. - A consistent subnet: it's almost always gonna be a /64. When I lay out my networks, I don't have to regret specifying a /24 and then, as the office grows, wishing I could extend it to a /22. Every IPv6 subnet is big enough. - A consistent subnet means that you don't need to use a subnet calculator as much. - Not wasting .0 and .255 addresses (network & broadcast addresses). It's particularly bad with very small subnets (e.g. an IPv4 /30 wastes half its usable IP addresses). - On that note, I like having my machines being able to have a .0 (::) address. My favorite IPv6 address? 2600::. You can ping it to see if your connectivity is working. - ::1 is loopback. 127.0.0.1 is lookpback on IPv4, but 127 is a kinda weird number (okay, it's 2^7 - 1, but it's still weird). - Without NAT I don't have to worry about network collisions when I VPN into corporate ("What? They're using 10.0.0.0/24? That's my home network's subnet! Dang!").