• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    122 years ago

    How hard would it have been to just add another octet or two? I like using my 10key and if I have to type letters for an IP address it’s a bad system.

    • aPearson
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

      You’d still need to update and replace every system a packet would touch. Why just add another 8 or 16 bits and make it where we’d have to go through this entire painful process again? IPv6’s design was “we never want to do this again”.

      An example of this “we never want to do this again” is only 1/8 of the v6 address space is currently marked usable for allocation. We have 7 more chances to change allocation methods without having to update or change any system.

    • Adama
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Not to mention that we can “visualize” the segments and networks by the numbers. Makes it easier to recognize, as an analogy,

      This state, that city, this road, that house.

      Versus ipv6. Of course there’s so much space in v6 that it isn’t an issue except it’s such a pain to work with for people who tend to think in ipv4 octets and bit masks

      • @gredo
        link
        42 years ago

        IPv6 is also built like that and IP4 never was globally (except the country/region part), but it could be continued to be that router in the building, that device that network card in the device and even give separate IPs per service and serve them all on the same port.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      There’s way more to ipv6 than additional octets. I don’t run ipv6 on my wlan (pretty much only for my mobile phone) because I can’t be arsed to wrap my head around ipv6 autoconfig and NAT (or rather not NAT) whereas setting up dhcp is a breeze.