Do you think routers perform their work using the human-readable addresses?
replyIf so, that is incorrect. They use the binary values. The actual difference between IPv4 and IPv6 is that IPv6 uses 128-bit addresses, not 32. So you can devise whatever human-readable abstraction you like, it won't change how networking actually operates.
And there’s no reason we should be limited to 128. It’s all just so dated and stagnant.
replyChips can be made that dwarf that limitation, instead we’re stuck with this decade old nonsense to “work around” again.
Flip flopping between “the code needs it” and “the chips need it”.
How long should addresses be? 256 is good, lets you encode a whole ec25519 key. 512 for expandability? 1 megabyte for post-quantum?
replyWhy cap it at all?
replyIf you can process 512 then you get access to those, else you don’t.
Let the free market decide where it’s comfortable like it did with wireless security.
What good is a standard if it doesn't make devices interoperable?
replyCatcher pitcher model. Pitchers pitch, catchers decide what to catch. You want access to the 512 space, pick up the 512+ capable device.
replyFree market decides where it lands.
If there’s nothing of value at 512, it’ll naturally flop.
What does a packet header look like?
reply