5 ms·
Why not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?
by bertolo1988 9y ago
Why not IPv16 and fix the problem for ever?
- corobo 9y ago> fix the problem forever Situation: There are 14 competing standards "14?! Ridiculous! We need to develop one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases." "Yeah!" Situation: There are 15 competing standards Src: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- ZenoArrow 9y agoIf you're getting downvoted and can't work out why, that XKCD is massively overused and shoehorned into conversations that have no bearing on what's being discussed. The whole '15 competing standards' meme only really makes sense when there are 15 competing standards bodies. In the case of IP addresses, there is only one standards body, the IETF. There is one legacy standard (IPv4), one new standard (IPv6), and the only question is how best to ease the transition between the two. I see no problem if that transition relies on an interim protocol.
- corobo 9y agoWin some, lose some. In hindsight it was pretty shoehorned in.
- oarsinsync 9y agoIf only we didn't have multiple competing transitional mechanisms defined as standards already.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoYou're suggesting there are networking standards that compete with IPv4/IPv6? What are those standards?
- mcguire 9y agoThere's like 4 (?) different IPv4/v6 integration systems. None of which worked the last time I fiddled with some of them.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoWhich would suggest there's room for an integration system that does work. In any case, the goal is a transition to IPv6, as long as the integration systems all share that goal there can be interoperability between them.
- joeblau 9y agoWill it fix it? This seems like a scaling issue we're going to have to deal with forever.
- jrimbault 9y agoIPv6 has a 2^128 address pool. edit: theoretically, we'll only ever use a fraction of that, both by design and because that's a huge number
- ghshephard 9y agoWell, because there is no equivalent to CIDR with IPv6, what you really need to focus on is the 2^64 networks available. Still a big number.
- jrimbault 9y agoThat's what I meant in my edit :)
- oarsinsync 9y agoAnd yet I still have /127, /126, /120 and /112 IPv6 subnets running on my network. Just because the IETF says SLAAC or bust doesn't mean it's true.
- ghshephard 9y agoGenuinely curious - Why? We were considering doing so at one point for PtP links (equiv to a /30 or a /31 if you area really bleeding edge) - but then decided that there wasn't any reason to not just use /64s everywhere. I take your point though - it certainly is theoretically (and in practice) possible to doing something other than a /64 - I've just never seen it in the wild.
- cesarb 9y agoI have heard of one good reason: with a /64, someone sending packets to random addresses within that /64 will fill up the neighbor cache, while with a smaller network like a /126, that can't happen.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mcguire 9y agoIPv27, with 3192-bit addresses, for when you're running TCP/IP on quarks.