| ▲ | wolvoleo 20 hours ago | |||||||
Yes. I wish they had simply used a more sane address length instead, and maybe given everyone 65535 addresses at most. More than enough for the craziest home lab ever. Really, just adding 2 bytes to IPv4 would have fixed everything and made it a lot simpler to move over. IPv6 is overkill and I think that really hurt its adoption. I remember being at uni and being told "this is the next big thing". In 1993. And it's not even a big thing now. Not on the user side anyway, I can still access everything from IPv4. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Dagger2 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Adding two bytes would have been just as much work as adding 12 bytes, and would have left us with too few addresses rather than too many. The MAC address space is now 64 bits and L3 is necessarily less dense than L2, so 128 bits is the smallest power of 2 where we can be reasonably sure we won't end up with too few addresses. Considering how hard deploying a new L3 protocol is, we're only going to get one shot at it so it's a lot better to end up with too many addresses rather than too few. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | hrmtst93837 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
[dead] | ||||||||