We'll be having the same post 20 years from now. NAT, for all its problems, has more or less solved the IP address problem.
As a geek, one who has put the networking stack into the ETA-10 (yeah, I know, nobody knows that machine, CDC spinoff super computer) and SCO's unix (yeah, I know, it sucked), so as a geek who gets the stack pretty well, I've never warmed up to IPv6.
To me, it seems like it went too far. 64 bits not enough? Really? Unless I'm doing the math wrong 64 bits is enough for 2635249153 addresses for every human on the planet.
slovax ~/p bc
2^64
18446744073709551616
./(7*1000^3)
2635249153.38707880228571428571
So 128 bits is needed why? I get that people used to say that 16 bits would be enough and they were wrong and the 32 bit people were wrong. I just don't see how we run out of 64 bits in the next $BIG_PILE of years.
I don't get it. Seems over engineered. IPv4 works pretty well, seems like a slight improvement would have been enough.
As a geek, one who has put the networking stack into the ETA-10 (yeah, I know, nobody knows that machine, CDC spinoff super computer) and SCO's unix (yeah, I know, it sucked), so as a geek who gets the stack pretty well, I've never warmed up to IPv6.
To me, it seems like it went too far. 64 bits not enough? Really? Unless I'm doing the math wrong 64 bits is enough for 2635249153 addresses for every human on the planet.
So 128 bits is needed why? I get that people used to say that 16 bits would be enough and they were wrong and the 32 bit people were wrong. I just don't see how we run out of 64 bits in the next $BIG_PILE of years.I don't get it. Seems over engineered. IPv4 works pretty well, seems like a slight improvement would have been enough.