3 ms·
We should just make an IPv5 which takes a current address: 216.3.128.12 and makes it 0.0.0.0.216.3.128.12 So any address of the current length you just treat i
by MagicMoonlight 4y ago
We should just make an IPv5 which takes a current address: 216.3.128.12 and makes it 0.0.0.0.216.3.128.12
So any address of the current length you just treat it as if it has zeroes in front, otherwise you use the longer length which allows for many more addresses. Problem solved.
- throitallaway 4y agoIPv6 became a draft standard in 1998; good luck with introducing "IPv5." Most operating systems/devices have IPv6 for a very long time now, we just haven't been forced away from IPv4 yet. IPv4 addresses are getting to be increasingly expensive (and CGNAT really sucks); eventually a market tipping point will be reached.
- aidenn0 4y agoYou're leaving out what happens if an ipv4 only host gets a packet from an ipv5 host. It only knows how to respond to a 4-byte address. If you manage to solve that problem, you'll probably have invented something a lot like NAT64, which TFA talks about.
- hot_gril 4y agoDrops the packet and the sender retries with v4. Ipv6's solution to packet fragmentation has the hosts retry too, iirc. But I'm a little rusty on this subject; would this actually work?