3 ms·

> 32bits is just about large enough (within an order of magnitude sense) if the space was used more efficiently. Well, not really. Between just the population

> 32bits is just about large enough (within an order of magnitude sense) if the space was used more efficiently. Well, not really. Between just the populations of the US, Europe and China (places with high levels of internet connectivity), you have over 2 billion people (this site claims over 5 billion internet users: https://www.statista.com/topics/1145/internet-usage-worldwide/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/1145/internet-usage-worldwid...). > But I don't think IP6 addresses are being assigned randomly, hmm That is, in fact, exactly how IPv6 addresses are assigned using SLACC with Prefix Delegation. Your ISP assigns you a prefix, and your computer randomly picks an address within it. You can also self-assign a (non-routable, like 10...*) prefix from the fc00::/7 ULA block by randomly filling in the remaining 57 bits to form a /64 subnet.

cesarb 3y ago
> Between just the populations of the US, Europe and China (places with high levels of internet connectivity), you have over 2 billion people You have to consider the context: back then, multi-user computers were common. Each user didn't have their own computer; instead, they had a terminal to connect to a central computer. So a single computer would serve tens or hundreds of people, and as computers became more powerful, you could expect each computer to be able to serve even more people.
mixmastamyk 3y ago
Not really. Under ten billion would be plenty if used efficiently. A significant fraction of addresses we want to be private, and not directly routable. Sure, if you want your refrigerator, oven, and dishwasher publicly addressable on the internet it isn't enough, but you don't actually want that. Further, 64 bits is many orders of magnitude overkill already. So what does 128 bring to the party, besides making addresses harder to type? Also, random with a prefix is not really random.

cesarb 3y ago

> Between just the populations of the US, Europe and China (places with high levels of internet connectivity), you have over 2 billion people You have to consider the context: back then, multi-user computers were common. Each user didn't have their own computer; instead, they had a terminal to connect to a central computer. So a single computer would serve tens or hundreds of people, and as computers became more powerful, you could expect each computer to be able to serve even more people.

mixmastamyk 3y ago

Not really. Under ten billion would be plenty if used efficiently. A significant fraction of addresses we want to be private, and not directly routable. Sure, if you want your refrigerator, oven, and dishwasher publicly addressable on the internet it isn't enough, but you don't actually want that. Further, 64 bits is many orders of magnitude overkill already. So what does 128 bring to the party, besides making addresses harder to type? Also, random with a prefix is not really random.