> I think it might be as simple as ipv4 is just nicer to look at…maybe we should have just done “ipv5” and added another block. Eg 1.1.1.1.1. This was discusse

> I think it might be as simple as ipv4 is just nicer to look at…maybe we should have just done “ipv5” and added another block. Eg 1.1.1.1.1. This was discussed in the early 1990s. Criteria that were to be used for selecting then-IPng (§5.1: 10^12 / 2^40 was the minimum): * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1726 The winning proposal, SIPP, was originally 'only' 64 bits, but it was decided to go to 128: * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752 > I know its stupid, but ipv6 addresses are just so hard to remember and look at that I think its just human nature to gravitate towards the simplicity of ipv4. If only there was a system that allowed for easy to remember human labels to be translated to a machine-usable sequence of bits that we call "an address"…