4 ms·
I do not really understand the issue. Is it because IPv6 is vary hard ? I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would
by jmclnx 3y ago
I do not really understand the issue. Is it because IPv6 is vary hard ?
I still wonder why they did not enhance IPv4 by adding more digits. Maybe that would have been easier ?
The phone company did that 50 years ago. When I was a kid we only needed to dial 5 numbers for local, 7 for long distance with a 1. As time went on, additional digits were added.
- Pikamander2 3y ago> enhance IPv4 by adding more digits I mean, that's not too far off from what IPv6 is. The main difference, at least as far as the visual addresses go, is that IPv6 also supports letters, which drastically increases the total number of addresses beyond what extending the number of characters would do. I think part of the idea was that, since transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 is going to be difficult, we might as well make it worthwile be ensuring that another transition never needs to happen again for the forseeable future.
- sambazi 3y agoit brings different pain points and constraints and hence requires reorganization and thinking. there are no "additional bits" left to use and it would also require cosiderable effort to implement
- Ekaros 3y agoIPv6 added more digits, maybe too many... But it also fixed some weirdness of IPv4. Mostly being sensible upgrades aiming for less manually configured networks. Adding more digits sounds simple, but there is no good room in IPv4 packet. And then any solution using existing one would not anyways be backwards compatible. So for each round of new byte you add to header you would have different version anyway. Requiring new hardware and software.