The State of IPv6 in 2020(dev.to)
dev.to
The State of IPv6 in 2020
https://dev.to/kwinnieprince/the-state-of-ipv6-in-2020-3p8k
3 comments
I get the issues with ipv4 and agree there needs to be a replacement.
One of the issues I have with ipv6 is the sheer length of them. You don't really want to type/copy them manually any more. This isn't really due to their nature as 128 bit numbers. It's more an issue of how they are being assigned. If we kept the 128 bit addresses, but assigned them more like ipv4 today, we'd have gotten a much more handleable addressing scheme.
E.g. we could have set the first 5 blocks to 0 for the time being and used only the last three until we exhausted them. This would have meant we'd have more handleable addresses like ::1337:120.43.88.10 and still yield us enough addresses for the forseeable future. We'd need to do some testing to ensure that all hardware/routers/ etc support the full 128 bit for future extensions, but this is an implementation detail.
But you can't even address a device in your local network using ipv6 because the numbers are just so long. I don't need it to be globally unique. Why not have addresses like ::42 for devices in your local network?
One of the issues I have with ipv6 is the sheer length of them. You don't really want to type/copy them manually any more. This isn't really due to their nature as 128 bit numbers. It's more an issue of how they are being assigned. If we kept the 128 bit addresses, but assigned them more like ipv4 today, we'd have gotten a much more handleable addressing scheme.
E.g. we could have set the first 5 blocks to 0 for the time being and used only the last three until we exhausted them. This would have meant we'd have more handleable addresses like ::1337:120.43.88.10 and still yield us enough addresses for the forseeable future. We'd need to do some testing to ensure that all hardware/routers/ etc support the full 128 bit for future extensions, but this is an implementation detail.
But you can't even address a device in your local network using ipv6 because the numbers are just so long. I don't need it to be globally unique. Why not have addresses like ::42 for devices in your local network?
> Why not have addresses like ::42 for devices in your local network?
That is possible: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/IPv6_Static_Addresses_using_Tok...
That is possible: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/IPv6_Static_Addresses_using_Tok...
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/20/05/30/0412238/ipv6-adopti...