IPv4 Vs IPv6

By | February 5, 2014
I have question in my mind that IPv6 is the long-term solution for nearly all issues, but why we are still using and assigning IPv4 addresses on the Internet. 
really funny..!!
I got following Answers from:


” It is because the people who control the IT department’s budget do not understand that not changing is going to hurt more then changing. Yes it will cost a lot to change over, but soon it will cost more to not be changed over. Yes IPv4 will be phased out, yes it will cost a lot of money, yes IPv6 is coming, yes it will cost a lot of money. Google is seeing an increase in the amount of IPv6 traffic, if they did not support IPv6 they would see a decrease in ad dollars. Places around the world have run out of IPv4 addresses others are phasing out IPv4 now think about it with out some sill hacks (like tunnelling) you, on a IPv4 address, can not see your buddy, on an IPv6 address, that is a finical issue. So in short we should all switch over as soon as possible the only reason we have not is the people who control the money do not see the importance of switching over “

” IPv6 is really dumb and overkill, and that’s why the world is hesitant in switching over to it e.g.:

* A lovely IPv4 address: (nice and straight forward).

* IPv6 on the other hand: 2001:db8:0:0:0:ff00:42:8329 (wtf is this shiz?)

I believe IPv6 is waaaay overkill! We should have gone from [] to [] – that would have increased our capacity more than 256 times, and also make migration simpler for everybody involved.

It’s still not too late however, the resistance IPv6 is facing leaves the field open for something more reasonable. (Like my IPv4.1 example above).

As evidence IPv6 is overkill and a simpler system would do the job is: It’s 2013 and the world is still quite happily using IPv4! “

” The reason why the IPv4 is still being used is because the address pool supports the continual demands and extends its usefulness. Another reason is that IPv4 and IPv6 are not compatible and as a result it will take a huge financial toll in the transition which is considered an impediment. “

2 thoughts on “IPv4 Vs IPv6

  1. Steve Sybesma

    Very late comment, but nonetheless:

    I feel IPv6 is overkill, and not just overkill but to the exponential…if Bill Gates suddenly developed the same overkill mentality about memory (640kB is enough) we'd be having machines with 640kB^4 memory right now (comes out to approx 185 terabytes…last I saw, most of us are about 0.0025% of that right now and we're not hurting for it).

    Yet, it's a lot worse than that, because 640kB was adequate for about a year or two and it went to 1MB, then kept doubling to what we have now…IPv4 was adequate with no increases for about 20 years. So, the scale isn't even in the same ballpark when comparing adequate IP addresses to adequate memory in PCs. Even if we ONLY SQUARED Bill Gates original memory, we'd still have over 100x more memory (430GB) than we have now in the average PC (4GB).

    Squaring the IP address pool we have now (more reasonable) would probably last hundreds of years. By that time, do you really think we'll even be using IP addresses anymore?

    No matter how you slice it…having many trillions of IPs for every square millimeter of the earth's surface will be overkill 10,000 years from now.

    But if you still want IPv6 and want to have IP addresses for individual atoms and molecules, the addresses still have to be small enough to (somehow) fit onto the label of the ultramicroscopic device.

    IPv6 should be thrown out in favor of something a lot more practical.

    IPv5 should be reclaimed from the IP standard's version sequence and have it be IPv4^2

    This gives you over 4 billion times what we have now…why is that not enough for long into the future?

    If it still isn't enough, go to IPv4^3, which multiples that extreme total over 4 billion yet again.

    But IPv6 is just unnecessary and laughable. Kill it and start over.

  2. Steve Sybesma

    IPv4 provided 4,294,967,296 IP addresses…not enough for the approximately 7.15 billion now living.

    Obviously we needed more (thousand times, million times, billion times more?), but IPv6 is just ridiculous.

    IPv6 provides approximately 340,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (340.25 undecillion)


    To get an idea of how many that is, the human body has only 37.2 TRILLION cells.

    So, in terms of that, you would have approximately 1.28 QUADRILLION IP addresses FOR EACH CELL in your body.

    It has been estimated there are 1 SEPTILLION grains of sand on earth.

    Even at that, you would still have 340.25 BILLION IP addresses FOR EACH GRAIN of sand.


    A more reasonable number to ensure there would be enough for the distant future would have been to simply square the existing number to 17.89 QUINTILLION…that's a hell of a lot…more than can be used in hundreds of years keeping in mind it took 20 years to use only 1/4.3 billionth of that number.

    If that were done instead, you would have over 2.5 BILLION unique IPs for each person right now. For the very distant future, that will take care of assigning IP addresses to over a million times more than the worldwide total of devices that have ever appeared up to now. That would be over 17.89 TRILLION devices, and even nowhere near that staggering number of devices has been reached yet…not even close.

    Frankly, Earth could not sustain a small fraction of the population needed to cause IPv4^2 to run out but even so, it would take thousands of years to achieve a population that begins to be in the same neighborhood as that number, and as said before…would we really still be using 'primitive' IP addressing anyway?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *