3 ms·
IPv6 addresses theoretically should be easier to memorize & work with than IPv4 thanks to the double colon shorthand acting as a wildcard for zeros and due to i
by yesco 5y ago
IPv6 addresses theoretically should be easier to memorize & work with than IPv4 thanks to the double colon shorthand acting as a wildcard for zeros and due to it being hex grouped rather than octet grouped.
As an example 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0000:0000:0370:7334 could be written as 2001:db8::370:7334 instead (notice that leading zeros were also culled). This paired with the fact that hexadecimal tends to be easier to memorize and doesn't have the strange subnet masking logic like IPv4, gives it a lot of advantages over IPv4's address notation.
The problem is that it's almost like router firmware and ISPs go out of their way to make their addresses harder to work with by filling out all 8 hex groups in the addresses they grant. Considering the sheer amount of available IPv6 addresses, it's from my understanding, completely unnecessary and I'm really curious if they have any kind of justification or technical reasoning for doing this.
- the8472 5y agoRandomizing the prefix makes network scans more costly.
- est31 5y agoTwo explanations come to mind: 1. easier routing tables if you can add meanings to specific bit ranges of your ipv6 address. In the tightly assigned ipv4 networks we have arrived at this is a bit annoying. 2. If the ipv6 conventions were that you set, say the highest 5 hex groups to 0, and use the lowest 3 hex groups for addresses, it would still be 65536 times as large as the ipv4 space and would suit most needs for the mid term future. You could even write ipv6 addresses nicely using e.g. ::ef13:2.1.7.100. This is a valid ipv6 notation! If this space ever got too tight one could open another one of the available hex groups and use two hex group prefixes. But I think when this happens, a lot of configurations would break because they'd assume that only 48 bits are used of the total 128. To prevent router,switch,firewall, etc. vendors from putting any such assumptions into their devices, using the full 128 bits from the start is a good option.
- cortesoft 5y agoEven your shortened version is a lot harder to remember and type than an IPv4 address.
- yesco 5y agoThat part is a bit more subjective I suppose. For me at least, I find hex far easier to remember than strings of numbers.
- Symbiote 5y agoMy aunt's phone number in Germany was 14 digits as dialled, compared to her brother's 6 digits; he lived in the same town as us. Giving everyone, worldwide an internet address means they have to be longer than limiting it to the early adopters.
- cortesoft 5y agoI understand that, but right now people are able to get by with IPv4 only, and aren’t going to switch until they have to. The long term reality isn’t going to make someone voluntarily switch.