3 ms·

> It adds unnecessary overhead to small packets Are you forgetting that NAT exists? IPv4 is barely functional based on how many workarounds we've had to implem

> It adds unnecessary overhead to small packets Are you forgetting that NAT exists? IPv4 is barely functional based on how many workarounds we've had to implement over the years

autokad 3y ago
NAT means we can work with IPv4 already and makes IPv6 moot. you just supported my argument. Honestly, all they had to do was add alpha characters. Just doing so would have gave us more IP addresses than we ever needed while keeping it human readable.
- c22 3y ago
  So use onion routing.
  - autokad 3y ago
    you are missing the forest from the trees. the point is, simpler solutions were available.
    - c22 3y ago
      I'd argue it's you who are focused on trees. Use DNS if you prefer.
- Minor49er 3y ago
  I change my default gateway from 192.168.0.1 to C0.A8.00.01. Is the problem fixed yet?
- chungy 3y ago
  IPv6 standard notation already uses alpha characters. Some notations of IPv4 use them too. "Just adding characters" isn't a solution on its own. IPv4 is 32-bit addresses, IPv6 is 128-bit addresses. That's all there is to that.
- icehawk 3y ago
  Source and destination IP addresses are 32 bit fields in an IP packet. Where do you propose they put these alpha characters?