this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
321 points (100.0% liked)

196

16503 readers
2961 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MsPenguinette@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

we need to downgrade to a new IPv5 and just add an extra triplet of numbers to IPv4 addresses

[–] Moira_Mayhem@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

That's a pretty good idea actually but may not cleanly translate to existing infrsatructure.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's only 140 IP addresses per person. With things like microservices and IoT, we have already passed that.

Every major website uses hundreds of thousands of IP addresses each. Every part of your car has an IP address. Every digital sign in public places have IP addresses. Every electronic lock might have an IP address. Every electronic that you own might already have an IP address. Every light bulb in your house will have an IP address.

But yeah, IPv6 is needed. The solution I think is not to make ipv6 addresses shorter, but to make DNS ubiquitous.

[–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Every part of your car has an IP address. Every digital sign in public places have IP addresses. Every electronic lock might have an IP address. Every electronic that you own might already have an IP address. Every light bulb in your house will have an IP address

Yeah, but not a public facing one. My light bulb and your light bulb can both be 192.168.0.27, so long as our WAN IPs are different. I can understand 140 IPs per person being insufficient if every device was publically accessible, but I seriously doubt there has to be 140 telephone lines on the planet for each person.