7 ms·

Sort of. I think people would understand 201.20.188.24.6 And most of what they know about how it works clicks in their mind. It just has an extra octet. I al

Sort of. I think people would understand 201.20.188.24.6 And most of what they know about how it works clicks in their mind. It just has an extra octet. I also think hardware would have been upgraded faster.

sedawkgrep 9mo ago
It would've been even easier and lasted longer to use two bytes of hex at the start. That would've expanded the Internet to 65536x its current space. Something like aaff:a.b.c.d Leaving off the prefix: could just mean strictly IPv4.
- cylemons 9mo ago
  I think making the extra hex at the end is better, that way its like we are subdividing our existing networks without moving them around
- Macha 9mo ago
  In IPv6, this is spelled ::ff00:a.b.c.d It didn’t speed up adoption and people then tried most of the other solutions people are going to suggest for IPv4+. Want the IPv4 address as the network address instead? That’s 2002:a.b.c.d/48 - many ISPs didn’t deploy that either
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
raffraffraff 9mo ago
Think of it like phone numbers. For decades people have accepted gradual phone number prefix additions. I remember in rural Ireland my parents got an extra digit in the late 70s, two more in the 90s, and it was conceptually easy. It didn't change how phones work, turn your phone into a party line or introduce letters or special characters into the rotary dial, or allow you to skip consecutive similar digits. For people who deal with ip addresses, the switch from ipv4 to ipv6 means moving from 4 digits (1.2.3.4) to this: 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0008:0800:200c:417a 2001:db8:0:0:8:800:200c:417a 2001:db8::8:800:200c:417a Yes, the ipv6 examples are all the same address. This is horrible. Worse than MAC addresses because it doesn't even follow a standard length and has fancy (read: complex) rules for shortening. Plus switching completely to ipv6 overnight means throwing away all your current knowledge of how to secure your home network. For lazy people, ipv4 NAT "accidentally" provides firewall-like features because none of your home ipv4 addresses are public. People are immediately afraid of ipv6 in the home and now they need to know about firewalls. With ipv4, firewalls were simple enough. "My network starts with 192.168, the Internet doesn't". You need to learn unlearn NAT and port forwarding and realise that with already routable ipv6 addresses you just need a firewall with default deny, and then add rules that "unlock" traffic on specific ports to specific addresses. Of course more complexity gets in the way... devices use "Privacy Extensions" and change their addresses, so making firewall rules work long-term, you should use the device's MAC Address. Christ on a bike. I totally see why people open this bag of crazy shit and say to themselves "maybe next time I buy a new router I'll do this, but right now I have a home with 4 phones, 3 TVs, 2 consoles, security cameras, and some god damn kitchen appliances that want to talk to home connect or something". Personally, I try to avoid fucking with the network as much as possible to avoid the wrath of my wife (her voice "Why are you breaking shit for ideological reasons? What was broken? What new amazing thing can I do after this?").
- Sesse__ 9mo ago
  > Yes, the ipv6 examples are all the _same address_. This is _horrible_. Try `ping 16909060` some day :-)
  - raffraffraff 9mo ago
    I used it to get around proxies back in the 2000s
- ziml77 9mo ago
  What is confusing about that? That's like complaining that you can write an IPv4 address as 001.002.003.004 or 1.2.3.4. Even the :: isn't much different from being able to write 127.0.0.1 as 127.1 (except it now becomes explicit that you've elided the zeroes).
  - raffraffraff 9mo ago
    While it's possible to write an ipv4 address in a bunch of different ways (it's just a number, right?) nobody does it because ipv4 standard notation is easy to remember. Ipv6 is not, and none of these attempts to simplify it really work because they change the "format". I understand it and you understand it, but the point here is that it's unfriendly to anyone who isn't familiar with it.
- Dagger2 9mo ago
  These are all the same address too: 1.2.3.4, 16909060, 0x1020304, 0100401404, 1.131844, 1.0x20304, 1.0401404, 1.2.772, 1.2.0x304, 1.2.01404, 1.2.3.0x4, 1.2.0x3.4, 1.2.0x3.0x4, 1.0x2.772, 1.0x2.0x304, 1.0x2.01404, 1.0x2.3.4, 1.0x2.3.0x4, 1.0x2.0x3.4, 1.0x2.0x3.0x4, 0x1.131844, 0x1.0x20304, 0x1.0401404, 0x1.2.772, 0x1.2.0x304, 0x1.2.01404, 0x1.2.3.4, 0x1.2.3.0x4, 0x1.2.0x3.4, 0x1.2.0x3.0x4, 0x1.0x2.772, 0x1.0x2.0x304, 0x1.0x2.01404, 0x1.0x2.3.4, 0x1.0x2.3.0x4, 0x1.0x2.0x3.4, 0x1.0x2.0x3.0x4 v6 has optional leading zeros and ":: splits the address in two where it appears". v4 has field merging, three different number bases, and it has optional leading zeros too but they turn the field into octal!
- cruffle_duffle 9mo ago

sedawkgrep 9mo ago

It would've been even easier and lasted longer to use two bytes of hex at the start. That would've expanded the Internet to 65536x its current space. Something like aaff:a.b.c.d Leaving off the prefix: could just mean strictly IPv4.

cylemons 9mo ago
I think making the extra hex at the end is better, that way its like we are subdividing our existing networks without moving them around
Macha 9mo ago
In IPv6, this is spelled ::ff00:a.b.c.d It didn’t speed up adoption and people then tried most of the other solutions people are going to suggest for IPv4+. Want the IPv4 address as the network address instead? That’s 2002:a.b.c.d/48 - many ISPs didn’t deploy that either

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

raffraffraff 9mo ago

Think of it like phone numbers. For decades people have accepted gradual phone number prefix additions. I remember in rural Ireland my parents got an extra digit in the late 70s, two more in the 90s, and it was conceptually easy. It didn't change how phones work, turn your phone into a party line or introduce letters or special characters into the rotary dial, or allow you to skip consecutive similar digits. For people who deal with ip addresses, the switch from ipv4 to ipv6 means moving from 4 digits (1.2.3.4) to this: 2001:0db8:0000:0000:0008:0800:200c:417a 2001:db8:0:0:8:800:200c:417a 2001:db8::8:800:200c:417a Yes, the ipv6 examples are all the same address. This is horrible. Worse than MAC addresses because it doesn't even follow a standard length and has fancy (read: complex) rules for shortening. Plus switching completely to ipv6 overnight means throwing away all your current knowledge of how to secure your home network. For lazy people, ipv4 NAT "accidentally" provides firewall-like features because none of your home ipv4 addresses are public. People are immediately afraid of ipv6 in the home and now they need to know about firewalls. With ipv4, firewalls were simple enough. "My network starts with 192.168, the Internet doesn't". You need to learn unlearn NAT and port forwarding and realise that with already routable ipv6 addresses you just need a firewall with default deny, and then add rules that "unlock" traffic on specific ports to specific addresses. Of course more complexity gets in the way... devices use "Privacy Extensions" and change their addresses, so making firewall rules work long-term, you should use the device's MAC Address. Christ on a bike. I totally see why people open this bag of crazy shit and say to themselves "maybe next time I buy a new router I'll do this, but right now I have a home with 4 phones, 3 TVs, 2 consoles, security cameras, and some god damn kitchen appliances that want to talk to home connect or something". Personally, I try to avoid fucking with the network as much as possible to avoid the wrath of my wife (her voice "Why are you breaking shit for ideological reasons? What was broken? What new amazing thing can I do after this?").

Sesse__ 9mo ago
> Yes, the ipv6 examples are all the _same address_. This is _horrible_. Try `ping 16909060` some day :-)
- raffraffraff 9mo ago
  I used it to get around proxies back in the 2000s
ziml77 9mo ago
What is confusing about that? That's like complaining that you can write an IPv4 address as 001.002.003.004 or 1.2.3.4. Even the :: isn't much different from being able to write 127.0.0.1 as 127.1 (except it now becomes explicit that you've elided the zeroes).
- raffraffraff 9mo ago
  While it's possible to write an ipv4 address in a bunch of different ways (it's just a number, right?) nobody does it because ipv4 standard notation is easy to remember. Ipv6 is not, and none of these attempts to simplify it really work because they change the "format". I understand it and you understand it, but the point here is that it's unfriendly to anyone who isn't familiar with it.
Dagger2 9mo ago
These are all the same address too: 1.2.3.4, 16909060, 0x1020304, 0100401404, 1.131844, 1.0x20304, 1.0401404, 1.2.772, 1.2.0x304, 1.2.01404, 1.2.3.0x4, 1.2.0x3.4, 1.2.0x3.0x4, 1.0x2.772, 1.0x2.0x304, 1.0x2.01404, 1.0x2.3.4, 1.0x2.3.0x4, 1.0x2.0x3.4, 1.0x2.0x3.0x4, 0x1.131844, 0x1.0x20304, 0x1.0401404, 0x1.2.772, 0x1.2.0x304, 0x1.2.01404, 0x1.2.3.4, 0x1.2.3.0x4, 0x1.2.0x3.4, 0x1.2.0x3.0x4, 0x1.0x2.772, 0x1.0x2.0x304, 0x1.0x2.01404, 0x1.0x2.3.4, 0x1.0x2.3.0x4, 0x1.0x2.0x3.4, 0x1.0x2.0x3.0x4 v6 has optional leading zeros and ":: splits the address in two where it appears". v4 has field merging, three different number bases, and it has optional leading zeros too but they turn the field into octal!
cruffle_duffle 9mo ago