Why don't computers have "computer-numbers" equivalent to phone numbers
Why don't computers have "computer-numbers" equivalent to phone numbers
Why doesn't every computer have 256 char domain name, along with a private key to prove it is the sole owner of the address?
Edits: For those technically inclined: Stuff like DHCP seems unnecessary if every device has a serial number based address that's known not to collide. It seems way more simple and faster than leasing dynamic addresses. On top of that with VOIP I can get phone calls even without cell service, even behind a NAT. Why is the network designed in such a way where that is possible, but I can't buy a static address that will persist across networks endpoint changes (e.g. laptop connecting to a new unconfigured wifi connection) such that I can initiate a connection to my laptop while it is behind a NAT.
- Yes, it would be a privacy nightmare, I want to know why it didnt turn out that way
- When I say phone number, I mean including area/country code
- AFAIK IP addresses (even static public ones) are not equivlent to phone numbers. I don't get a new phone number every time I connect to a new cell tower. Even if a static IP is assigned to a device, my understanding is that connecting the device to a new uncontrolled WiFi, especially a router with a NAT, will make it so that people who try to connect to the static IP will simply fail.
- No, MAC addresses are not equivalent phone numbers. 1. Phone numbers have one unique owner, MAC addresses can have many owners because they can be changed at any time to any thing on most laptops. 2. A message can't be sent directly to a MAC address in the same way as a phone number
- Yes, IMEI is unique, but my laptop doesn't have one and even if it did its not the same as an eSim or sim card. We can send a message to an activated Sim, we can't send a message to an IMEI or serial number
You're viewing a single thread.
a) what the hell is ipv32?
b) it’s astounding how many upvotes some of these nonsensical answers have
I see you getting downvoted for a correct answer.
IP addresses are like street addresses. I can live at 10 High Street in London, you can live at 10 High Street in Ohio. Those are not the same address right? Folk confusing public and private ip addresses.
- Yeah I was lazy with saying ipv32 just to mean something excessively long. I didnt want to say ipv6, since I kinda think it needs to at least be 64bits (edit: ipv6 is actually 128bits), and really for a public-private key pair it should be larger, so more like 512 to avoid anything like the v4 v6 cacatestrophe again in 20 years with post quantum forms of asymetric key challenges. But I didnt feel like writing all that out.
- I'm with you. I knew I'd get people not reading and say "that's the ip address", but MAC address? 🤦♂️
IPv6 has a maximum number of addresses of 2^64, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. Enough addresses that all 9 billion people on earth could each own 2 billion unique address. A theoretical IPv32 is wholly unnecessary for a very very long time.
I was wrong, I didnt realize ipv6 was 128bit. Still stuff like IPFS and git hashes are larger than 128bit to prevent collisions so there is a precedence for using larger address spaces when not having address reuse.
Yes there is precedent because in those cases you need a unique address historically. Evener commit within the project needs a unique hash for as long as the project exists. However, a unique address needs to be unique for the time it is being used.
George Washington needs to have his commit to the Linux kernel maintained, but we don't need to keep his phone number locked away forever. He can't use that phone number anymore, so someone else can have it. IPv6 is more than enough address space, so long as the dead don't need to keep their 2 billion addresses for themselves.