Bob Sneidar bobsneidar at iotecdigital.com
Mon Oct 12 15:36:01 EDT 2015

My tongue was partially in my cheek, yes. I understand that the diminishing address pool is a problem. What I am unsure about is why it is necessary to have everything everywhere convert to a system which is as complex as the MAC address scheme IPV4 was supposed to alleviate. I can just remember a subnet and a few IPV4 addresses. I can promise you I will *NOT* remember a single IPV6 address. If that is the case, why not just eliminate the whole layer 3 and just use Mac addresses from now on? (Again, tongue in cheek).

My point is that I think we can do IPV6 on the WAN side of things whilst maintaining IPV4 on the local side. Which gets back to the question, why is Apple pushing for IPV6 ONLY and the local level?

Bob S

On Oct 12, 2015, at 11:34 , Richard Gaskin <ambassador at fourthworld.com<mailto:ambassador at fourthworld.com>> wrote:

There are so many ways climate change and IP address allocation are different it's difficult to tell if you were just having fun, but the simplest and most important is this:

With climate change the number of variables in play are so vast that one could quite plausibly suggest it's the single most complex model humans have ever attempted.

But the IPv4 address range is a single integer, easily discerned by the scheme.

People seem to enjoy debating climate change, but there's not much room for debating the largest value that can be expressed by a four-byte integer.

Unless there's some vast conspiracy between IANA, national leaders, device manufacturers, and industry analysts about the growing number of devices in use, any reasonable person can look at the number of devices and the range of possible IPv4 addresses, and quickly appreciate the recommendation from IANA that another larger scheme is needed, and soon.

Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

More information about the use-livecode mailing list