Not surprised since the entire supposed purpose for creating IPv6 was BS to create a means to identify user and user device. They call IPv4 a 32 bit address it is not. It is four eight bit addresses known as octets. The biggest 8 bit integer is 256 that is why IPv4 is made up of the four 255's. 32 bit computers did not even exist when they invented IPv4 but they did when it was time to upgrade it to get more addresses. All they needed to do is upgrade IPv4 from using four eight bit octets to use 4 sixteen bit ones which would have increased the number of available addresses exponentially from 255.255.255.255 = 4,294,967,296 individual addresses to 65535.65535.65535.65535 = 18,446,744,073,709,552,000 individual addresses. Over 18 trillion just by going to 16 bit from 8. 3 billion addresses for every human being on the planet. See how simple upgrading IPv4 SHOULD have been? Continuing to use the 4 subnet format everyone was used to would have made it easily acceptable and the upgrade would probably already been done and over with years ago and cost next to nothing because computers were long since capable of holding the 16 bit values in single integers. Yet they have to be sneaky. Just like with everything else. Let's use the upgrade to make it easier to nail individual users to the devices they use. But nobody says anything and it is just another example of the deceitfulness that is prolific at every level and has permeated into ever corner of the tech industry today, it is beyond sickening that everything they do, everything they say, every upgrade, every new device, software, protocol, literally everything has a double purpose, the one they claim and the hidden deceitful one designed to facilitate spying and surveillance.
But these 16 bit * 4 is not compatible with IPv4, so it is still a completely new protocol facing the same adoption issues. And there must be way to simultaneously use both IPv4 and your new protocol for legacy systems. IPv6 allows for decentralization of the Internet, which is a good thing. There are also privacy extensions for IPv6 worth to mention. ISPs are obliged by law to create and store logs about who connected where, so IPv4 with NAT isn't making anybody magically anonymous. If you want to be more or less use non-logging VPN or Tor.
Upgrading from 8bit to 16 bit values isn't isn't a completely new protocol it would be a simple software upgrade to devices that were previously using 8bit numerical values to now accept 16bit ones. It would have meant existing IPv4 addresses would still work within the same protocol just by adding two zeros behind each old 8bit value. ISPs can log the usage of an internet connection by its IPv4 address. That doesn't allow them to know which device is being used and therefore which user. IPv6 does because it is calculated using the device hardware ID.
Yes, it is. Maybe that were possible if there would be some reserved space inside IPv4 header, but there isn't any. Theoretically speaking upgrading from IPv4 to IPv6 is just software upgrade in most cases. I know IPv6 has more differences than just simple upgrade to larger addresses, but this is still theoretically speaking software upgrade. I know some network devices have fixed electronic circuits to process IPv4 headers, but these are rare cases. You can setup NAT in IPv6 if you really want to. And not every IPv6 address is calculated from MAC, because of IPv6 privacy extensions.
Simplicity is overrated, though. Imagine how much less job security it would give. This way, we have years and years of activity ahead of us, millions and millions of jobs! Mrk
I didn't mean the existing IPv4 protocol would work with larger address values as is. I meant an update to the protocol could have allowed existing IPv4 addresses and new larger 4 x 16 bit addresses to work together in the same updated protocol while still giving us the trillions of new ip addresses which was supposed to be the reason for an upgrade.
Why do I have the feeling, that it is the architect from Matrix talking to us. Well, I will keep disabling IPv6 for as long as possible. No, they do not. A single router provides more than enough, connecting too many devices would be impossible anyway, simply because of the speed limitation.
