2 ms·
but it was easy to run out of them So often in computing we've completely overhauled the stack with loads of new complexity, when simply adding more of some li
by rkagerer 2y ago
but it was easy to run out of them
So often in computing we've completely overhauled the stack with loads of new complexity, when simply adding more of some limited but unexpectedly popular resource would have sufficed (great example... IPv6).
(Ps. Thanks for your informative reply to my comment)
- thrw42A8N 2y agoHow do you propose we add more IPv4? Not to mention that the IPv6 protocols are less complex than IPv4 - as they were designed after the "natural" evolution of IPv4 concluded.
- actionfromafar 2y agoOne could have made an overlay network on top of IPv4, where applications (and/or operating networking stacks) could have been aware of how to manipulate the data. Majorly more kludgy, but feasible. A number of real IPv4 addresses would have been allocated to serve as gateways/proxies to access the new IPv666 network.
- aidenn0 2y agoThat sounds a lot like TRT; NAT64 seems to have been more successful. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism for all of the various flavors of mixing ipv6 and ipv4.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kbolino 2y agoAdd a little more to this number here, and a little more to that number there, piecemeal and conservatively, and before too long you have more complexity than if you just designed for larger numbers in the first place.