No, MAC addresses are put inside an IPv6 address because they allow for an easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP. Nobody said you have to use this address. Not all types of networks use MAC addresses.
I use multicast for monitoring video output of remote television transmitters over an ATM network, as well as video conferencing for board member meetings. Please don't assume that your own needs dictate everyone elses, though I do agree with you that IPv4 address space has been wasted away to some extent.
You can't change IPv4, it's just not going to happen to a protocol that has been around for what 30 years now? There are already too many transitional provisions.
Cisco routers can be upgraded to the latest software, which is stable, and no, it doesn't cost a million dollars. Small branch office routers such as the 2600 series can easily accomplish IPv6.
As far as IPv6 security goes, I'd like to see the new and interesting worms and network scanning utilities that can scan such a huge number of addresses, 4 billion addresses wasn't a difficult feat for programs that simply scanned incremented octets in IPv4, but now we have a lot more address space to slow such things down... this could just as easily be a problem though, imagine blacklisting a network from a spammer... oh darn, looks like they just need to find another billion addresses to randomly use.
Slashdot Mirror
No, MAC addresses are put inside an IPv6 address because they allow for an easy way to automatically configure the interface without the use of a protocol such as BOOTP/DHCP. Nobody said you have to use this address. Not all types of networks use MAC addresses.
I use multicast for monitoring video output of remote television transmitters over an ATM network, as well as video conferencing for board member meetings. Please don't assume that your own needs dictate everyone elses, though I do agree with you that IPv4 address space has been wasted away to some extent.
You can't change IPv4, it's just not going to happen to a protocol that has been around for what 30 years now? There are already too many transitional provisions.
Cisco routers can be upgraded to the latest software, which is stable, and no, it doesn't cost a million dollars. Small branch office routers such as the 2600 series can easily accomplish IPv6.
You're all afraid of change.
As far as IPv6 security goes, I'd like to see the new and interesting worms and network scanning utilities that can scan such a huge number of addresses, 4 billion addresses wasn't a difficult feat for programs that simply scanned incremented octets in IPv4, but now we have a lot more address space to slow such things down... this could just as easily be a problem though, imagine blacklisting a network from a spammer... oh darn, looks like they just need to find another billion addresses to randomly use.