4 ms·

Hi, I'll be honest, I have misgivings about this one. Mainly: 1. Old Operating system configurations -> if this is solved with routing changes well great! 2.

Hi, I'll be honest, I have misgivings about this one. Mainly: 1. Old Operating system configurations -> if this is solved with routing changes well great! 2. Poorly coded programs leaking data -> this one is the main point why I think this is a bad idea: 127.X.X.X has always been the bastion of inside MY computer and nowhere else. I get why this is an idea, but shouldn't we create a new IP system that people actually want to use? And for the record, yes I know IPv6 is a thing, but it has been a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time and we still aren't using it. Maybe we should make IPv8 which is compatible with IPv4, and has sane notation that I can actually make sense of. Anyway good luck with your proposal.

mysterydip 5y ago
I honestly don't know why we don't just have "IPv5" which adds an octet to the front of IPv4. Everything on the internet now would be 0.a.b.c.d and everything else would use 1-255.a.b.c.d
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of IPv6 adoption: _all_ equipment along a network path needs to be updated to be compatible with the new addresses for them to be usable.
  - jffry 5y ago
    Yeah, and if we're going to be changing all of the equipment, why not take the time to smooth over some of the other known warts besides address space? It's my understanding that IPv6 is essentially that, and not just a move to a 128-bit address space
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  This means changing every piece of network equipment everywhere. And if you need to change it, why keep all the broken parts of ipv4, if you can fix them (atleast partially), like we did in ipv6?
- Dagger2 5y ago
  Because that's basically what v6 did. It just added enough octets that we don't need to turn around and do it again immediately afterwards, since deploying new L3 protocols is hard enough as it is without needing to do it twice.

mysterydip 5y ago

I honestly don't know why we don't just have "IPv5" which adds an octet to the front of IPv4. Everything on the internet now would be 0.a.b.c.d and everything else would use 1-255.a.b.c.d

Denvercoder9 5y ago
That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of IPv6 adoption: _all_ equipment along a network path needs to be updated to be compatible with the new addresses for them to be usable.
- jffry 5y ago
  Yeah, and if we're going to be changing all of the equipment, why not take the time to smooth over some of the other known warts besides address space? It's my understanding that IPv6 is essentially that, and not just a move to a 128-bit address space
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
This means changing every piece of network equipment everywhere. And if you need to change it, why keep all the broken parts of ipv4, if you can fix them (atleast partially), like we did in ipv6?
Dagger2 5y ago
Because that's basically what v6 did. It just added enough octets that we don't need to turn around and do it again immediately afterwards, since deploying new L3 protocols is hard enough as it is without needing to do it twice.