You can use the 8-byte addresses earlier if you want, just requires your hosts and stuff in between to support v5, same story as with v6 there. The point is that you aren't asking everyone to do nearly as difficult of a…
Even Apple's PC lets you install whatever you want
Exactly, it'd be horrible. They picked the right format for v6. The problem isn't the space size, it's the entropy. V6 addrs are randomly spread, but if you were using the most significant bytes first, you could have…
Need an IP address and a prompt explaining to Claude how to parse it
Github.com doesn't have an AAAA record, so I don't know how you're reaching it if you don't have a v4 anywhere. Even if they had that, they said that basic features like cloning repos won't work over v6. Only one…
Because devices randomly generate the last 64 bits of the address without coordinating. They need it to be long to avoid collisions.
You need ipv4 to reach GitHub right now. The ipv5 "people can turn it on but not use the last bytes" stage wouldn't require ipv4 to reach it.
The problem is they designed v6 with no good compatibility in either direction. I get that there's no way for v6 to support v4, but at least going from v4 to v6 should've been easier. 6to4 etc didn't cut it. Assigning…
Maybe your ISP is really tunneling v6 over v4?
Because you can't generally turn on v6 without thinking about it. Maybe consumers can, even then not always cause it messes random things up. Power users and offices maybe can't. Service operators really can't. If it…
Oh I mixed it up with 3. Yes you don't need #4. I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1, so it's 1:1 but not onto. Instead v6 did completely new /64s with random…
That's using v4 like the parent comment said. But anyway I don't want ipv6 to be dominant, I want them to scrap it and do something easier.
No I know it's point 4, that was the point. You can do forwards compatibility that way.
Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly…
You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.
> how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet Only because of NAT. Those cellular CGNATs are v6 on the inside but v4 on the outside (well also v6 but customers need the v4 more).
That's what overengineered implies, it's capable of things you don't need. The problem with v6 isn't 128-bit addrs though.
If ipv5 worked just like ipv4 except with a larger address space, it would be easier than moving to ipv6. I shouldn't have to change my address to switch for example.
If they're going to make ipv5, might as well make it 8 bytes instead of 4
You can use the 8-byte addresses earlier if you want, just requires your hosts and stuff in between to support v5, same story as with v6 there. The point is that you aren't asking everyone to do nearly as difficult of a…
Even Apple's PC lets you install whatever you want
Exactly, it'd be horrible. They picked the right format for v6. The problem isn't the space size, it's the entropy. V6 addrs are randomly spread, but if you were using the most significant bytes first, you could have…
Need an IP address and a prompt explaining to Claude how to parse it
Github.com doesn't have an AAAA record, so I don't know how you're reaching it if you don't have a v4 anywhere. Even if they had that, they said that basic features like cloning repos won't work over v6. Only one…
Because devices randomly generate the last 64 bits of the address without coordinating. They need it to be long to avoid collisions.
You need ipv4 to reach GitHub right now. The ipv5 "people can turn it on but not use the last bytes" stage wouldn't require ipv4 to reach it.
The problem is they designed v6 with no good compatibility in either direction. I get that there's no way for v6 to support v4, but at least going from v4 to v6 should've been easier. 6to4 etc didn't cut it. Assigning…
Maybe your ISP is really tunneling v6 over v4?
Because you can't generally turn on v6 without thinking about it. Maybe consumers can, even then not always cause it messes random things up. Power users and offices maybe can't. Service operators really can't. If it…
Oh I mixed it up with 3. Yes you don't need #4. I could still have 8.8.8.8 routed to me in v-next, and then later do something with 8.8.8.8.1, so it's 1:1 but not onto. Instead v6 did completely new /64s with random…
That's using v4 like the parent comment said. But anyway I don't want ipv6 to be dominant, I want them to scrap it and do something easier.
No I know it's point 4, that was the point. You can do forwards compatibility that way.
Yes, we want ipv5 that just does 1, 2, 3 instead of ipv6 which does the most complicated variants of those and more. We didn't have requirements 4. change all the pre-existing addresses 5. make addresses randomly…
You've put yourself in a position where you can't access a lot of websites, including things like GitHub. That might be fine for you personally but isn't what most people do.
> how do you think we got several billion smartphones connected to the Internet Only because of NAT. Those cellular CGNATs are v6 on the inside but v4 on the outside (well also v6 but customers need the v4 more).
That's what overengineered implies, it's capable of things you don't need. The problem with v6 isn't 128-bit addrs though.
If ipv5 worked just like ipv4 except with a larger address space, it would be easier than moving to ipv6. I shouldn't have to change my address to switch for example.
If they're going to make ipv5, might as well make it 8 bytes instead of 4