stupid question, wouldn’t it be easier to just have sub addresses?
like my fictional ip address is 123.123.123
and I can set my router to give up to 1000 sub addresses, so one computer can host a Minecraft server at 123.123.123.001 I have another for my some projects, the projects ones each have sub addresses like 123.123.123.002.001 and 123.123 123.002.002…
a company could have countless layers and any amount of addresss they want.
and we’re never going to run out of addresses.
For every IPv4 address, IPv6 has 18 quintillion IPv4 Internets.
But, sure, it might be possible for us to fsck up allocations, again.
wouldn’t surprise me if we end up in a situation where individual programs have their own IP. then individual variables, so different programs in different networks can access them.
that might actually end up consuming all the addresses …
stupid suggestion. just saying that future technologies might figure up a way to fuck this up again
without a doubt ipv6 is an improvement. only loss is that it’s humanely possible to remember ipv4 addressed, but that ain’t necessary.
my only “objection” is that an actual solution should accommodate unlimited growth, rather than what we consider a big enough number.
I think that’s a bad objection. It’s idealistic in the worst way, it’s making “Perfect […] the enemy of the good”. Plus, there are significant practical advantages to a fixed-length addressing scheme, and any fixed-length going to have a maximum. So, under the constraint of fixed-length addressing “big enough” is all we have.
128 bits really is quite hard to fill up, we’ll have to worry about a lot of very different things before the run out of addresses. Like speed-of-light latency vs. TCP (and possibly TLS session) timers for interplanetary connections.
going to gave each atom in the solar system its own IP address.
checkmate
Xylight
🍉 Albert 🍉