3 ms·
I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses. I know DNS makes that a non issue for the majority of users but I still think i
by sherburt3 2y ago
I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses. I know DNS makes that a non issue for the majority of users but I still think it's an important quality for people in charge of maintaining networks and stuff.
- blueflow 2y agoI like IPv6 addresses more because they force you to use copy-paste, which removes the risk of typing errors. And nobody would try to dictate me an IPv6 address via phone.
- preisschild 2y ago> I just don't think IPv6 addresses are human readable compared to IPv4 addresses Then you just didn't read enough into IPv6 documentation yet. IPv6 addresses can be short if you want because of the `::` operator. Example: Instead of IPv4 where you'd have the addresses `10.0.0.2` - `10.0.0.100` for clients on your LAN + a single global IPv4 address, you just have `2001:db8::2` - `2001:db8::100` (where `2001:db8` is the "house address" part of your LAN and `2-100` is the specific device address)
- viraptor 2y agoThey can be short if they can be short. My fe80::3846:9cff:fe24:a5c7 is not going to get shorter.
- magicalhippo 2y agoI have a 56-bit prefix which cannot be shortened. That alone makes it very tedious to type by hand, never mind when the host has used SLAAC. ULA makes it somewhat better, but not that much. In my view, IPv6 requires DNS for all hosts to be manageable. We have mDNS which, when it works, makes that easier for internal hosts, but for external IPs using DynDNS is required.