4 ms·

Yeah, that's smart. There's no need for everything to be uniquely identified on the internet anyway, right? Why would someone halfway around the world need to b

Yeah, that's smart. There's no need for everything to be uniquely identified on the internet anyway, right? Why would someone halfway around the world need to be able to ping my smart fridge after all? Even for tech support purposes, people shouldn't have the ability to directly test my appliances firewall capabilities. Actually, now that I've done the math, why not just extend IPv4 into hexadecimal? Once again, none of the current addresses would change with this change, but it would turn 60 billion possible addresses (12^10 = 61,917,364,224) into 184 quadrillion addresses (12^16 = 184,884,258,895,036,416). I feel like that would give us plenty of wiggle room. Sure, it's not on par with ipv6's ability to assign a unique address to every atom on the planet 100 times, but I think it would be enough for the next 40 years or so, right? And it's inherently backwards compatible, what's not to love about it?

justcool393 3y ago
> what's not to love about it hexadecimal, unironically. the url of http://[2002:914b1:::1] http://[2002:914b1:::1] is one of my major sticking points for IPv6. i'd rather just have it be 16 octets or even 8 decimal quartets where each thing is required. http://0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.192.168.1.1:14246 http://0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.192.168.1.1:14246 would've at least looked a bit better than it is. would've been super easy too. imagine the convo: "what's google's DNS IP in IPvX?" "oh it's just 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8"
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  So, in my IPv4.1 suggestion, every address you currently know would work perfectly fine. But then so would AE1.224.78.BC2 Sure, a little harder to remember maybe, but adding nearly a billion times as many IP addresses would alleviate the strain on the internet, be backwards compatible with IPv4 (but not forwards compatible, so most interior/home networks would use either a NAT or have a software ipv4-4.1 bridge software) It would also be much more similar to IPv6 which would ease transition to full IPv6 if the human race survives long enough to ever make the jump. IPv6 is just more hexadecimal after all.
  - Dagger2 3y ago
    Wait, you wanted to extend the text representation of v4 addresses? That's not a thing that exists in the protocol. The addresses are in binary in the packet format and in all data structures, so any extension of the character set in the text representation has to be implemented by increasing the bit length of the addresses. I don't know why you think this is "inherently backwards compatible" yet think v6 isn't. It's just as backwards-compatible as v6 is.
- p1mrx 3y ago
  Decimal addresses are an artifact from the time before CIDR, when subnets were always /8, /16, or /24. IPv4 subnet math now requires obscure binary/decimal conversion. Hexadecimal fixes that problem.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  "oh it's just 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8" I think what you are saying is that it should be turned into a jingle so everyone can dial it fast. [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6qutSER9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6qutSER9Q [video][11s]

justcool393 3y ago

> what's not to love about it hexadecimal, unironically. the url of http://[2002:914b1:::1] http://[2002:914b1:::1] is one of my major sticking points for IPv6. i'd rather just have it be 16 octets or even 8 decimal quartets where each thing is required. http://0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.192.168.1.1:14246 http://0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.192.168.1.1:14246 would've at least looked a bit better than it is. would've been super easy too. imagine the convo: "what's google's DNS IP in IPvX?" "oh it's just 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8"

BizarroLand 3y ago
So, in my IPv4.1 suggestion, every address you currently know would work perfectly fine. But then so would AE1.224.78.BC2 Sure, a little harder to remember maybe, but adding nearly a billion times as many IP addresses would alleviate the strain on the internet, be backwards compatible with IPv4 (but not forwards compatible, so most interior/home networks would use either a NAT or have a software ipv4-4.1 bridge software) It would also be much more similar to IPv6 which would ease transition to full IPv6 if the human race survives long enough to ever make the jump. IPv6 is just more hexadecimal after all.
- Dagger2 3y ago
  Wait, you wanted to extend the text representation of v4 addresses? That's not a thing that exists in the protocol. The addresses are in binary in the packet format and in all data structures, so any extension of the character set in the text representation has to be implemented by increasing the bit length of the addresses. I don't know why you think this is "inherently backwards compatible" yet think v6 isn't. It's just as backwards-compatible as v6 is.
p1mrx 3y ago
Decimal addresses are an artifact from the time before CIDR, when subnets were always /8, /16, or /24. IPv4 subnet math now requires obscure binary/decimal conversion. Hexadecimal fixes that problem.
LinuxBender 3y ago
"oh it's just 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8" I think what you are saying is that it should be turned into a jingle so everyone can dial it fast. [1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6qutSER9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6qutSER9Q [video][11s]