3 ms·
Honestly I like ipv4 better than v6. I like having a NAT and easy addresses like 192.168.1.3 instead of fe80::210:5aff:feaa:20a2. They didn't need to mess with
by hot_gril 3y ago
Honestly I like ipv4 better than v6. I like having a NAT and easy addresses like 192.168.1.3 instead of fe80::210:5aff:feaa:20a2. They didn't need to mess with those things just to expand the address space, like how utf8 didn't require remapping ASCII.
- jrockway 3y agoIPv4.1 should have just had 39 bits, to be written like 999.999.999.999. (I know this wouldn't have actually had much effect, nobody is going to add new routes in the middle of "class A" spaces that already existed, so it would just give those that already had IP addresses more IP addresses. Additionally, people really abuse decimal addresses in horrifying ways; for example, Fios steals 192.168.1.100-192.168.1.150 for its TV service, and that range doesn't really correspond to anything that you can mask off in binary. It only makes sense in decimal, which is not what any underlying machinery uses. They should have given themselves a /26 or something. You get 3 for yourself (modulo the broadcast and gateway address), and they get 1 for TV.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoHaving it actually be decimal might've been nice, but at this point people are used to the 1-254 range, and I think the least jarring addition of extra bits would be to simply extend it for the addresses that need them (and not for the ones that don't). So you could have 123.444.3.254 or longer like 123.444.3.254.12.43.
- Dylan16807 3y agoGo ahead and use fe80::3 as a link-local address. For site local, fec0::3. Yeah site-local is discouraged but you can still do it. Or you can slightly misuse fd00::3. You only get those latter 16 hex characters if you explicitly don't want to choose addresses.