8 ms·
Allow 0.0.0.0/8 as a valid address range (2018)
- bell-cot 3y agoHow about 224.0.0.0/4? There are vastly more addresses going to waste up there...
- JdeBP 3y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20430219 et al. from the last time that this was on Hacker News.
- sgjohnson 3y agoNo. Implement IPv6. 0.0.0.0/8 wouldn’t even be enough to clear the current RIPE & ARIN waiting lists.
- tuatoru 3y agoIPV4.2: IPV4 with six octets. We'd have it well before now if the second system effect and the architecture astronauts had been quelled.
- photonbucket 3y agov6 is already at 45% of google search traffic, it seems pretty inevitable at this point
- sgjohnson 3y agoAbout ~75% of my traffic by TBs at home is IPv6. Of course a lot of it is Netflix & Youtube etc., but still. Not sure how it’s looking like per host.
- sgjohnson 3y agoNo. It still wouldn’t be backwards compatible and would have the same exact implementation problems as IPv6 would. Besides a 48 bit address length makes very little sense.
- photonbeam 3y agoCan HN go IPv6-only and start a trend
- v3ss0n 3y agoI am not going to type or remember gazillions of characters to ping my servers
- sgjohnson 3y agoIf only someone invented something that could translate something akin to yourname.com to the said gazillions of characters…
- BenjiWiebe 3y agoEven on my v4 lan the first thing I do when adding another host is give it a nice name in my dhcp server. Then I can ping/ssh/webadmin straight to nicename.lan.
- v3ss0n 3y agoThen why we have ip addresses in the first place . Let's just have In place of IP address. And then everything become centralized
- joombaga 3y ago> 0.0.0.0/32 is still prohibited, of course. Good. I won't have to change my hosts file.