Yeah, the Universe keep making bigger fools (of us all). But, we should still use IPv6 instead of clawing the tattered remains of IPv4. I just wish my ISP agreed.
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.
Yeah, the Universe keep making bigger fools (of us all). But, we should still use IPv6 instead of clawing the tattered remains of IPv4. I just wish my ISP agreed.
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.