Re: If IP6v hadn't been made so goddamn complicated...
Wow your lack of skill seems to know now bounds, glad I never employed you as a programmer.
Seems that when you can't get people to agree with your misguided view, you get all insulting and hope to force your view that way - well guess what chum, that won't work with me. As to trying to use an age insult - well guess what, I've not seen that before on the Internet, you should try and patent it before someone copies it. BTW you are wrong on that too. I've probably got more grey hair than you too, not that that's significant on this forum.
Lets have a little think about your latest poor assertion that "There is no reason for an address that long"
In case you forgot, old computers in the 70's when the Internet was created were typically 8 or 16 bit, so it was easy to do maths on 4 x 8 bit (i.e. a long), hence the 32 bit addresses used in IPv4. This also mapped well against the relatively small amount of memory in systems of the day and allowed people to use dotted quad notation when working with the resulting addresses, so it was good design on the day.
Now, roll the clock forwards a couple of decades and machines are typically 32 or more commonly 64 bit, so doing maths on 4 x 32 bit or 2 x 64 bit is trivially easy too since it maps to two 64 bit registers that are common in the hardware, hence the 128 bit addresses,
Doing it on a smaller bit length just doesn't make sense, whereas the longer bit length allows for far greater structure on the allocation of addresses which helps significantly with global routing on the core Internet routers.
If you looked closely, you would see that most of the routing on the outside of a company (i.e. on the core or at the ISP level) is done only on the most significant 64 bits, which improves performance and aligns nicely to the bit length in 64 bit hardware. You might also notice that the least significant 64 bits are handled within the end customers network generally as a single subnet, again for simplicity on implementation. Those that want a /56 or similar (hey look, nicely 8 bit aligned) or a /48 (hey look nicely 16 bit aligned) have minimal routing to do in the lower bits of the upper register, so yet again well structured and easy to code or put into hardware.
You might also notice that the addresses continue with the simple dotted formation, but to differentiate them from their predecessors and take advantage of the longer bit length they just uses colon for separation and 32 bit hex for the segments of the address, This is yet another benefit of IPv6, you can subnet down to any nibble and get meaningful and readable addresses which is far better than the "only works on 8 bit boundaries" that IPv4 enforces due to the use of decimal formatting. Network engineers care about little details like this.
So, with that background and as a supposedly expert programmer, I'be be interested in your view on how you think that could be improved from you assertion that its not optimal - as once again, clearly you are wrong.
Its clear that the designers put a lot of thought into the addressing and what happens at the network layer and how that would be handled within hardware from a network optimised implementation on custom network hardware with something like an FPGA in it, which can then deliver high performance. Alternately, it can scale right down to a low power system with fairly easy software implementation in a similar manner.
Now, if your routing isn't working right - then that probably flows back to a lack of knowledge on how IPv6 or more specifically routing works as it seems to work OK for everyone else, unless of course its running your code and there is a bug in it that you need to look at.
Oh - and BTW - you can stop acting like a prat too. Do try and cheer up, its Easter.