4 ms·

I agree with people blaming whole situation on ugly format of IPv6. I also believe that increase to 128bit address was unnecessary and harmful. We could have ju

I agree with people blaming whole situation on ugly format of IPv6. I also believe that increase to 128bit address was unnecessary and harmful. We could have just added another two segments, have 48 bits total and it would probably be enough. It would also be much easier for people to switch from 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.127.0.0.1 than to ::1.

seeekr 9y ago
We've done so much learning about good UX, backwards compatibility and smooth upgrade paths in the years since IPv6 was first thought of and specified that I suggest there is a group of people out there (or on here) who can sensibly come up with an "IPv4.1" draft that can represent a smooth upgrade path from where we are right now, towards an extensible internet addressing format/protocol. It would have at least the following properties: - IPv4-formatted addresses would continue to work as today - address space can be extended by adding bits to the existing IPv4 format, and 0 bits do not need to be typed out etc (in mathematical notation there's also no need to write 0001.200 if we just mean 1.2) (It feels like there should be a couple more fundamental properties to be stated here, but I can't think of any more right now.)
devdas 9y ago
The problem with changing anything from 32 bit would have run into the same issues. You have a whole new stack.