|
IPv4, so simple, just four numbers from 0 to 255 giving the highest IP address as: 255.255.255.255
Some reserved, such as 192.168.0.0-255 or 192.168.1.0-255, and a few others I can't remember.
So then, we run out of IPv4 addresses and we need another. If I had to do this, I would have first had "IPv5" with five sets: 255.255.255.255.255 - the IPv4 would be contained with 255.255.255.255.0, which is a heck of a lot more addresses! After that just 255.255.255.255.255.0, etc. Compatibility with older IPv4 addresses is simple, all IPv4 addresses are just "IPv5", "IPv6" or "IPv7", etc. with the last one, two or however many sets being 0. Simples! An IPv4 address or 123.234.123.234 would be represented in "IPv8" as 123.234.123.234.0.0.0.0 without any further complication!
Why did they have to come up with a new, complex system that is not backwards compatible and is therefore much harder to implement and therefore not being taken up as quickly as it could have been?
Your thoughts and deeper knowledge appreciated.
[update] The zeroes could be leading instead of trailing, eg. 0.255.255.255.255
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I have to look at IPV6 I need to go and reread the regs, it just doesnt stick in the head. It is pretty simple though when you get into it. It just never sticks though.
|
|
|
|
|
Translate your post to hexadecimal, you will see that IPV4 and your proposal are not straightforward as they look in decimal. Try to think as microcontroller.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, it is about bits in an exact order on a wire or fiber, not even bytes and definitely not strings!
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the hierarchical nature of the address scheme would have made it hard to extend, strangely. If you own 123.234.345.456, then anything that starts with that has to be part of your network or it would be disaster. So, if they extended it with trailing four zeros, you would suddenly be the owner of more addresses than existed in the IP4 world. They couldn't give out any of those numbers to anyone else or it would be a security and routing nightmare.
Doing them as leading zeros could have possibly worked. Ultimately zeros have to mean 'unused', so they would have had to at least reserved one value in the new extended address space to hold all of the IPV4 ones. So maybe 0x7FFFFFFFxxxxxxxx contained all of the IPV4 addresses within it or something. But I'm sure there would have been a LOT of gotchas involved there as well.
But not sticking to the existing scheme also has some really nice benefits. One of them is that now every machine in your network can get an automatically assigned, guaranteed unique local IPV6 address without any sort of central management scheme to provide them. It's just derived from the MAC address. If everything locally just used IPV6, there would be no need for address management on the local LAN anymore, which would be a huge benefit.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It's just derived from the MAC address.
I did not know that.
However, does that mean if you have more than one network card you have more than one IPv6 address? ...and your address will change if you replace a faulty or slow network card?
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
You would always have more than one IP address if you have more than one network card, even in the IPV4 world. They are assigned at the network interface level.
Your address would change if you change the network card, but that's not much of an issue in principle since no one would generally be using the IP addresses directly, they'd be doing name lookups to get the addresses. IPV6 obviously encourages that scheme even more because of the fact that the addresses aren't very memorable.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
Fun fact: Modern operating systems generate a new (client) IPv6 address daily for the sake of privacy. Don't even need to change your NIC, just wait long enough.
|
|
|
|
|
What annoys me most is that when I ping a domain name to find out its IP address, it sometimes comes up with an IPv6 address -- and there's no way in the fruggin' world I'm going to remember that!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Honesty: Are you walking around remembering IPv4 addresses?? What for?
|
|
|
|
|
I do sometimes but not intentionally. I have a list written down with a whole bunch of them but I access some of them so often that I remember their address.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
System Administration in a private enclave; you have to know your DC/Realms and gateways, and you're a fool if you don't.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of DNS failure, it has saved me quite a few times when DNS crashed, and DNS on a large scale can die too look at the DYN Denial of service attack that affected most of the east coast, also for me numbers seem to be easier to remember than names or strings depending on the complexity so IPv4 was simple enough to remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, get a real man's job, and you'll find out.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: What annoys me most is that when I ping a domain name to find out its IP address, it sometimes comes up with an IPv6 address -- and there's no way in the fruggin' world I'm going to remember that!
All you need to remember is a single number: 4
ping -4 localhost
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming that the site has an IPv4 address. One of the reasons for introducing IPv6 is that internet ran out of addresses; there is not one for everyone. In the years to come, we will see an increasing fraction of DNS entries having IPv6 addresses only. At work, we have so many machines that we have consumed the IPv4 addresses allocated to us, so they have IPv6 addresses only.
Another aspect with IPv4 vs. IPv6: The lack of IP addresses have lead a lot of ISPs to allocate IPv4 addresses temporarily, on demand, to their customers. The address you use today, someone else may use tomorrow. If you offer a service, you have to pay extra for a fixed IP address. Lots of companies dynamically translate a fairly small number of external IPv4 addresses to a large set of internal addresses.
With IPv6 there is no technical need for doing such temporary / dynamic allocations; all devices will (/may) have persistent IPv6 addresses. So if you have looked it up in DNS once, you may keep the translation "forever" in your local cache, and will not depend on DNS again for that address.
This is certainly not by definition; even IPv6 addresses may change (or e.g. a given service is taken over by a different device), but there is far less technical need to update or translate the IP address. Our dependence on DNS stability will be significantly reduced, once static IPv6 addresses are commonplace.
That also means that authorities who want to ban certain web sites will have far less use of DNS censorship; if you have obtained the IPv6 of some illegal site once, you don't need DNS any more. On the other hand: If you had one IPv4 address yesterday, another one two days ago, and a third one today, that would to a certain degree mask your use of dubious services. When you get yourself a fixed IP address, it is far easier to identify the traffic going to you from anywhere along the route, without tracing how your IP address changes over time.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that right? Cheers!
I'll give it a try, next time a ping returns an ipv6 address.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Because doing things from scratch after you've learned from past mistakes is more sensible than continuing pretty much where you left off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who claims that 32 bit is simple? I know it can be, but when I was teaching elementary computer architecture (as a software man, seeing architecture from a software man to software students) trying to explain the IA-32 mess has kept me forever away from attempting to learn IA-64. I had lost the architecture battle: I was fighting for MC68030 based *nix workstations (so it is long ago!), but the department head overruled the decision preferred by the majority of the teaching and technical staff, demanding that we go for Intel. In my lectures, I did sneak in some examples from non-Intel architectures, but couldn't give the students exercizes on anything but IA-32.
If Intel did a thorough cleanup with IA-64, it might be far easier to understand. I don't know. IA-32 gave me so many frustrations that I never wanted to touch another IA-whatever architecture.
The only thing that is impressive about IA-32 is how they can make that mess spin around as fast as it does. You would think that interpreting hodgepodge of instruction and addressing formats, the MMS and everything, would take so many clock cycles than any other achitecture could easily beat it. The fact that IA-32 essentially knocked down all competiton proves one thing: The hardware implementation guys at Intel must be super clever. I wouldn't say the same about those guys drawing up the x86 architecture. But that was long ago, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
politics man (read economics).
they make everything anew so that common people won't know how things work anymore. it is not allowed for people to know all, how the car, the computer, the internet, the washing machine... works. you have time to learn only one thing in life and for the rest of things you can only be a consumer.
that thing moves the business, by making new things that brake how old things work.
and those new things are going to be explained by a mass of new technical abbreviations and acronyms that have almost exactly the same meaning as the old ones, but these are brand new.
and the hipsters are going to love this and show off.
at the same time science is moving in the opposite direction. scientists are trying to discover the unified natural law that explains everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: the unified natural law that explains everything
Sh*t happens!
There, done.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunno why but something got me thinking about the moonies,
used to be all over the news in the 90's or thereabouts,
these days not a peep.
Did their [superior alien beings] spaceship finally come and pick them up?
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
Nah ... the leader died in 2012, and there was internal fighting about who took over as the son of gawd.
But it was never a "big church" or even a "big cult" even at its height - 30,000 across the US is less than TV evangelists manage after molesting choir boys and pilfering the offerings tray - it was "hyped" by the media is all I suspect.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
