> > What would have been best, could have been done years ago and not cost > > lots of money and even more in security breaches and what I meant by > > ipv5 and would still be better to switch to even today with everyone > > being happy to switch to it is simply ipv4 with more bits for address > > space. > > This should be FAQ entry zero for the IPV6 FAQ... *NO* you can *NOT* > add more bits to IPV4, and still have it backwards compatable. It won't > work... period... end of story. Every piece of hardware and software > that deals with IPV4 has the concept of 32 bits *HARD-CODED* into it. > Switching over to IPV4-extended would be just as painfull as switching > over to IPV6.
No it would not, the headers would be different. All the hardware would have already updated because there would be no bad sides and it would have been released something like 15 years ago. But lets not discuss them as we would be here for an eternity and there are already whole websites dedicated to just that. I re-iterate it would be worth hardware not being backwards compatible again to go to ipv4 with large address space today. http://www.hackingipv6networks.com/past-trainings/hip2011-hacking-ipv6-networks.pdf That's just on security. There's a whole bad side to it's functionality too. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
