Probably anathema to the dreams of IPv6+ IP-for-everything, but in your putative scheme, could we also make a carve out for local network? I like that 192.168.*, 10.* are defined as local.
So 0000:0000 local network, 0000:0001 legacy internet.
So 0000:0000 local network, 0000:0001 legacy internet.
Even for tech support purposes, people shouldn't have the ability to directly test my appliances firewall capabilities.
Actually, now that I've done the math, why not just extend IPv4 into hexadecimal?
Once again, none of the current addresses would change with this change, but it would turn 60 billion possible addresses (12^10 = 61,917,364,224) into 184 quadrillion addresses (12^16 = 184,884,258,895,036,416).
I feel like that would give us plenty of wiggle room. Sure, it's not on par with ipv6's ability to assign a unique address to every atom on the planet 100 times, but I think it would be enough for the next 40 years or so, right?
And it's inherently backwards compatible, what's not to love about it?
hexadecimal, unironically. the url of
http://[2002:914b1:::1]
is one of my major sticking points for IPv6. i'd rather just have it be 16 octets or even 8 decimal quartets where each thing is required.
http://0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.192.168.1.1:14246
would've at least looked a bit better than it is. would've been super easy too. imagine the convo:
"what's google's DNS IP in IPvX?"
"oh it's just 8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8"
I think what you are saying is that it should be turned into a jingle so everyone can dial it fast. [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6qutSER9Q [video][11s]
But then so would AE1.224.78.BC2
Sure, a little harder to remember maybe, but adding nearly a billion times as many IP addresses would alleviate the strain on the internet, be backwards compatible with IPv4 (but not forwards compatible, so most interior/home networks would use either a NAT or have a software ipv4-4.1 bridge software)
It would also be much more similar to IPv6 which would ease transition to full IPv6 if the human race survives long enough to ever make the jump. IPv6 is just more hexadecimal after all.
I don't know why you think this is "inherently backwards compatible" yet think v6 isn't. It's just as backwards-compatible as v6 is.