"Four-digit?" So wrong.
Everyone knows that IPv4 stands for four-BIT IP addresses, and the more modern IPv6 standard extends this to six bits.
They're just catching up to the ARPANET.
ok I have no tech knowledge on this - but based on your comments I'm concluding that this is all false? Or rather that the 6 bit version is in place + works fine + that we aren't going to run out of those anytime soon.
"it will be a matter of four to five months before we run out of IPv4 IP addresses.
After that time Internet users and providers have genuine cause for concern."
So.... this is just fear mongering?
ipV4 is 32 bits (about 10 decimal digits if a single number, usually expressed as 4 up-to-3-digit numbers like 127.0.0.1).
ipV6 is 128 bits.
In one sense, we're already "out of" ipV4 addresses. However, half the ones that have been issued have never been routed. If they were to become sellable for real money, a lot of them would magically become available.
There are also a lot of addresses that haven't been issued, but could be (e.g. experimental address space).
Thanks for translating the joke :)
Well, you've got to admit it's awfully close to being wrong.
2011-01-27 06:50 pm (UTC)
Wow. That's pretty good, even for Fox.
Let's see. Web developers aren't the ones who did it. It's not compensating, it actually fixes the intended problem (which arguably doesn't really exist, as you kind of hint in comments). Can I count TWO errors for six-digit and four-digit instead of just version numbers, or do I have to be fair and call that one error?
So that's arguably four, certainly at least 3 errors in the sentence.
Looks like they fixed it.
I guess even they can get laughed at too much.
For a very small value of "fixed", anyway:
"But IPv6 isn't backwards-compatible with IPv4, meaning that it's not able to read most content that operates on an IPv4 system. At best, the user experience will be clunky and slow."
That isn't even close to being wrong.