Re: Why do we need IPv6
For example, if they have five different servers that could work, they don't need to have large load-balancers to handle that case. Five ports on a public IP would mean that there was a theregester.co.uk:443, theregister.co.uk:444, etc. Who is going to type :444 when they don't have to? Nobody. Five servers running internally that are mapped to the same IP takes more networking setup that isn't really necessary. If they have servers in different places, many places can easily direct people to a nearby one, but again, doing that with the same address, while possible, takes more effort than doing it with five distinct ones. If addresses had a good reason to be rare, then I'd have more sympathy with the argument that people are just wasting them and should be better, but there isn't such a reason, as addresses can be made extremely long and extremely plentiful. So go ahead, use a hundred addresses if you have a hundred things at the other end.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike IPV6. I agree with most arguments, even the often-attacked hard to remember the addresses argument. However, the argument that four billion addresses should just be enough for a world of seven billion people and millions of companies, including tech companies with a lot of stuff running on them, and that we should just fix the problem of people using too many addresses, seems foolish to me.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
