Image of the glider from the Game of Life by John Conway
Skip to content

The Sheer Size of IPV6

I wanted something to sink my teeth into on just how large IPV6 really is. As such, I decided to do it graphically. Initially, this meant just representing each IP address with a single pixel. Surely, the images would be doable. However, as I started crunching the numbers, they were much larger than I thought, and I came to a very quick realization that this wouldn't be possible. I needed to do some compression if I wanted to show it visually. So, I took advantage of compression where possible, and I let your imagination work in a couple spots where even compression won't turn out anything reliable or representational.

To start, it's well known that we're running out of IPv4 addresses. IPv4 only address 2^32 possible IPs, which is 4,294,967,296. There are already 6.5 billion in the world, so we don't even have enough IPs for 1 per person. Given the fact that many of us have more than 1 (Internet, cell phones, cable/satellite TV) and many businesses have gobbled up millions at a time, such as IBM and Sun Microsystems, we're in trouble. It's estimated that we'll be out of IPv4 addresses within the next 2 years. There are things we can do to extend that life, but for the most part, it's time to move on to IPv6. To give a visual of how much of the space is left, consider the image below.

This first image is 256x256 pixels, for a total of 65,536 pixels. As already mentioned, there are currently 4,294,967,296 possible IPv4 addresses. As such, each pixel in my image represents 256 unique IPv4 addresses. There are currently only 511 million addresses left, or about 12%. My graphic below gives an accurate representation of the exhaustion, if black is all the used addresses and white is what is available.

IPV4 graphic of address exhaustion

Now, what about IPv6? Well, to start, it addresses 2^128 possible IPs, which is 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 possible addresses. There are a lot of technical points of interest with IPv6. First, it is NOT backwards compatible with IPv4, which means we'll be living a dual IP stack for some time. Second, 64-bits of the 128 in IPv6 are dedicated to your Ethernet hardware address, commonly referred to as the MAC address. Which means, that your ISP could give you the other 2^64, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 unique IP addresses when you sign up for an account. After all, as you'll see, we have more than enough room.

This number may not look large, but I want to put it into perspective visually, so you have an idea of what we're looking at. If each IP was a single pixel, this would produce an image 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 pixels square. Now, my monitor has the capability of showing 105 pixels per linear inch. This means my monitor would need to be 2,772,778,991,358 miles in length and width if I wanted to see the image without any scrolling. Just for comparison, a light year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles. It would take almost 6 months traveling at the speed of light to start from one end of my monitor to reach the opposite. Want an image to wrap your mind around it? The maximum distance of Pluto from our Sun is approximately 4,557,000,000 miles away. We need to do that distance about 600 times before reaching the end of my monitor. We're still well within the Milky Way however.

Let's get closer though. If I were to keep the same allocation of 256 IP addresses for a single pixel, as I did with my first image, then I would need a monitor capable of showing 72,057,594,037,927,936 pixels square. A linear distance of that size is about 1,083,116,793 miles across. This is slightly more doable as a visual representation. The distance from our Sun to Saturn is roughly 886 million miles. So, drive about 200 million miles further, long before we reach Uranus and we'll reach the edge of my monitor. Want a visual representation to scale? The yellow blob on the far left, just outside the white monitor is our Sun. The pink dot on the far right just inside the monitor is Saturn. Remember, this is our monitor size if each pixel on my monitor was 256 IP addresses.

IPV6 image of 256 IP addresses per pixel shown to scale on the Solar System

Certainly, this is much too large. Can't I get a monitor to fit on my desk? Let's allocate the entire IPv4 space to a singe pixel on my screen. This should give us a more manageable image, no? That means that I would need an image size of 4,294,967,296 pixels square. An image of this size would require a monitor width of only 645 miles. Putting the center of the monitor in the center of the United States, and I can see that my monitor is large enough to cover 6 states in the Midwest- Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Again, remember that each pixel in my monitor would be occupying 4.2 billion IP addresses. Think any hardware manufacturer is willing to make a monitor this large for me?

IPV6 image of 2^32 IP addresses per pixel shown to scale on the United States

So, there you have it. A visual representation of IPV6 as best as I could do. Hopefully, this will help you understand just how large IPv6 is, and that I don't expect us to run out of addresses with that vast number. Unless, of course, we enter inter-galactic communication on the same protocol.

(If I wanted to fit the entire IPv6 space on my physical monitor right now, each pixel would need to represent 192,903,836,122,980,988,357,922,113,056,557 IP addresses. Cool.)

{ 34 } Comments

  1. Jonathan using Firefox 3.0.3 on Ubuntu | March 8, 2009 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Great entry! I tried to Digg it but as soon as I click on submit Digg asks me to register a new account (and that's when I'm already logged in... grrrr.)

  2. Doran "Fozz" Barton using Firefox 3.0.6 on Fedora | March 9, 2009 at 12:46 am | Permalink

    A professor I worked for in college (in the 90s!) explained IPv6 like this: "It's large enough for every lightswitch in every home to have its own public IP address."

  3. Roger using Firefox 3.0.6 on SuSE 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    I presume you're referring to http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html when you say that IPv4 is predicted to run out of addresses in the next two years. If not, take a look - there are lots of graphs! :)

    Out of idle curiousity I started tracking the estimated dates on potaroo to see how they changed with time and it seems as though the estimated expiry date is moving backwards: http://atchoo.org/ipv4/

  4. h01ger using Konqueror 3.5 on Unknown O.S. | March 9, 2009 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    interesting idea to have a monitor this big :)

    i liked the idea that there are more ipv6 addresses than there are atoms on the surface of the earth - see for example http://www.edn.com/blog/980000298/post/820024082.html

    IMO this results in something which can be imagined easier that a monitor of this size :-)

  5. Scaine using Firefox 2.0.0.5 on Windows Vista | March 9, 2009 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    I managed to Digg this here: http://digg.com/linux_unix/The_sheer_size_of_IPv6. Great article.

  6. Jean Vincent using Firefox 3.0.7 on Windows Vista | March 9, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    We have been running out of IPv4 addresses since 1998. The solutions employed then to expand the address space are still valid and could expand the use of IPv4 well beyond 10 years.

    The real problem with IPv6 has been and still is compatibility. There were other ways to expand the address space while remaining much more compatible with IPv4 (by reshuffling some bits in the IPv4 header). The IETF made the choice of IPv6 over other compatible options and consequently we are still using IPv4 11 years after the standard has been adopted.

    As you point out 2^128 is a unimaginably huge number, it is in fact much larger than what humanity will need for the next one million years. It probably could address all hosts in the entire universe if we accounted for thousands of extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations. But then IP would probably not be the solution anyway, imaging the retransmission of a packet lost across 4 light years (the distance to our closest star).

    It has been only a year since ICANN/IANA has finally enabled IPv6 into root DNS servers.

    Eventually ISPs will move to IPv6 but very gradually and I bet there will still be IPv4 hosts for well over 20 years.

  7. Joseph Scott using Firefox 3.0.6 on Mac OS | March 9, 2009 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    I'd like a larger address space as much as the next guy, but using phrases like:

    It’s estimated that we’ll be out of IPv4 addresses within the next 2 years.

    Doesn't really help your argument at all, as we've been hearing this for a dozen years now. IPng anyone?

  8. Nick using Safari 528.16 on Mac OS | March 9, 2009 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    There's a typo. "the our Sun"

  9. Adam using Firefox 3.0.5 on Windows XP | March 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

    It looks like the purple dot is Uranus. Saturn is the yellow dot that comes after the big orange Jupiter.

  10. Aaron using Firefox 3.0.7 on Ubuntu 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    You're right. It was late when I made the image, so I must not have been thinking clearly. Thanks.

  11. Aaron using Firefox 3.0.7 on Ubuntu 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

    Fixed. Thanks!

  12. Aaron using Firefox 3.0.7 on Ubuntu 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ipv4+exhaustion

  13. Aaron using Firefox 3.0.7 on Ubuntu 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    It's a bit larger than that. If there are exactly 6.5 billion people on the planet, and each person lived in their own house, and each of house had 6.5 billion light switches (I think we've grossly overdone an even remotely accurate representation, no?), we would still have left over 340,282,366,920,938,463,421,124,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. Yeah- we're barely scratching the surface with that one. You might want to tell your professor to find a better model. :)

  14. Julien Goodwin using Opera 9.63 on GNU/Linux 64 bits | March 9, 2009 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

    Your comment about the IPv4 image is wrong.

    IPv4 is 2^32, dropping 2^16 (2^8 * 2^8 image) leaves 2^16 IP's per pixel, or a /16, 64k IP's per pixel.

    Also my personal way of describing v6 is:
    * Each ISP gets 4-billion subnets (a /32), there's potentially 4 billion of these
    * Each user is assigned either 256 (a /56) or 64k (a /48) subnets, 64k large allocations or 16M smaller ones
    * Each subnet is four billion times the size of the entire IPv4 internet

  15. Stephen P. Schaefer using Firefox 3.0.7 on Fedora | March 11, 2009 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    When I tried to get redundant routing from two separate ISPs, I learned that no public ISP routes less than a /24 and many don't route less than a /22. I don't understand the advantage to IPv6 until there is routing for /48 - and I haven't seen that discussed. What's the point to having an address if no one can discover how to get there?

  16. jorge using Firefox 3.0.7 on Windows XP | March 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn't IPV5 have been sufficient?

  17. mamou using Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP | May 11, 2009 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    Heyah, very nice article, though i think there is a mistake in the pixel representation of IPv4
    256 * 256 = 65536 = 2^16 pixels in your square
    IPv4 address space = 2^32 addresses
    so each pixel should be 2^16 addresses to get 2^16 * 2^16 = 2^32 addresses

    Does the solar system representation then count?

  18. you're awesome using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP | August 25, 2009 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    me view your content in ie6, which i'm forced to use by coroporate policy

  19. Aaron using Debian IceWeasel 3.0.12 on Debian GNU/Linux | August 25, 2009 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    @you're awesome

    I'm sorry you're bothered with using technology that is 8 years old, when it's been replaced two times over. Maybe you should pressure your corporation (not "coroporation"- another reason you should be using an up-to-date browser- spell check is a good thing) into updating the policy to allow at least IE7 or IE8 or some other browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

    I've thought about it, and I don't want to support IE6 users visiting this site. So, either don't visit my site with IE6 or use a different browser. After all, I didn't force you here. You came here on your own. You're more than welcome to leave.

  20. Air Rift using Google Chrome 5.0.375.70 on Windows XP | August 8, 2010 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    I’m sorry you’re bothered with using technology that is 8 years old, when it’s been replaced two times over. Maybe you should pressure your corporation (not “coroporation”- another reason you should be using an up-to-date browser- spell check is a good thing) into updating the policy to allow at least IE7 or IE8 or some other browser, like Firefox or Chrome.

  21. Air Rift using Google Chrome 5.0.375.70 on Windows XP | August 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    When I tried to get redundant routing from two separate ISPs, I learned that no public ISP routes less than a /24 and many don’t route less than a /22. I don’t understand the advantage to IPv6 until there is routing for /48 – and I haven’t seen that discussed. What’s the point to having an address if no one can discover how to get there?

  22. Ben using Google Chrome 7.0.517.44 on Windows XP | November 26, 2010 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Shizer!
    That is big...
    What would this new monitor of yours cost, and can i come and watch avatar on it... never mind actually, no need to come over, i will just watch from south africa :-p

  23. SRC using Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7 | January 21, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    So, 10 more days I suppose...

  24. Ken C. using Safari 533.19.4 on Mac OS | January 30, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    This is fascinating! It shows the inherent difficulties of representing data sets containing both extremely small and extremely large data values in a visual manner. Of course, you could show the data logarithmically, but many people do not as readily readily grasp the relationships of the data elements when shown that way.

    I think IPV4 will be around for a long time, since NAT provides a way to "hide" the real IPV4 addresses behind routers. Technologies often seem to live on well past their prime, simply due to the investments that have been made in them, and the costs of switching to a newer, better technology.

    After all... we're still using COBOL! I worked with a client last summer who has an entire claims processing system running in Cobol... on Unix, no less! It will likely still be running long after I retire... on IPV4! :O)

  25. TWE using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP | November 16, 2011 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Here's another mind boggling analogy:

    If, from the 128-bit IPv6 addressing space, a block of addresses equivalent to the entire IPv4 addressing space (~4.3 billion addresses; an entire “Internet”) were assigned every *nanosecond* since the dawn of the universe -– not the dawn of mankind or the dawn of the Earth, but from the big bang itself -– we would up to now have assigned less than 1% of the available IPv6 space, and would have enough addresses still left to keep going for another 2.5 trillion years. (Note that the universe is “only” about 13.7 billion years old, yet we would have enough addresses left to keep going for another 2.5 trillion years.)

  26. TWE using Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP | November 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    A few more points:

    As Julien @14 and mamou @17 pointed out, there are a few errors in Aaron's math.

    For the first image, each pixel represents 2^16 = 65,536 IPv4 adresses, not 256. Keeping that pixel representation (65536, not 256) in paragraph 6 makes Aaron's monitor's pixel size correct, but his converting that to miles is off by a factor of 10 - it would need to be about 10.8 billion miles, not 1.08 billion. That's approximately where the Voyager I spacecraft is now, 33 years after it was launched. (This is considered outside the sun's "sphere of influence", i.e. outside our solar system.)

    In the next paragrph (P 7), if we allocate an entire IPv4 address space per pixel, we'd need a monitor that was 2^48 = 281,474,976,710,656 pixels on a side (Aaron's value is off by a factor of 4096). That monitor, at Aaron's pixel density woul still have to be ~42.3 million miles on a side - about the distance from Mercury to the sun.

    For Aaron's "six-state" monitor illustrated in the third image, each pixel would need to represent 2^64 (~18.4 quintillion) IP addresses, not the 2^32 (~4.3 billion) that Aaron suggests.

    With these corrections, this still makes an awesome visualization of the vastness of IPv6 space.

    More comments on other readers' comments next...

  27. TWE using Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows XP | November 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Jean @6 suggests that using current "address stretching" solutions (presumably subnetting, CIDR, private addressing & NAT) we could extend the life of IPv4 for another 10+ years. (Not true) Simmilarly, Joseph @7 suggests that we’ve been warning of the demise of IPv4 for a dozen years (true), and suggests this is “crying wolf.” (Not true) And Ken @24 suggests that since NAT “hides” IP addresses, that it will allow IPv4 to be around for ‘a long time.’ (maybe true, depending on what you mean by ‘around’)

    A brief history.

    IPv4 was developed in 1974-75 out of a need for a universal addressing system for global routing. Back then smart phones, wireless laptops, and even PCs did not exist. (The microprocessor chip had just been invented 2 years earlier, and the very first microcomputer kits, like the Altair 8080 were just coming into existence; but these were more “geek toys” than practical computing or networking devices.) Computers were big, monstrous devices that took up large rooms – or at least large closets – and cost tens- or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only large corporations and universities had computers, and only a small percentage of their employees knew how to operate them. In that environment, 4.3 billion addresses seemed like a virtually unlimited supply. I’m not sure of the exact figure, but I’m guessing that there were less than 100,000 computers (or at most a few hundred thousand) in the entire world at that time. So the designers of IP were not concerned with address space efficiency and designed the classful system that only allowed for three sizes of networks; class C (254 hosts or smaller), class B (up to 65,534 hosts), and class A (up to 16,777,214 hosts). At the time, they anticipated that the vast majority of network address requests would be for class C. The classful addressing system allowed for 126 class A, 16,384 class B, and just over 2 million class C networks in total.

    When IBM introduced the PC in 1981, they legitimized the microcomputer as both a business tool and as a networking device. With the PC boom came a significant increase in the rate of requests for class B networks. Organizations came to realize that with a PC on every desktop, networks capable of supporting only ~250 host devices would not be large enough to accommodate future growth. This is when the “IP engineers” started to worry about the limits of the IPv4 address space. It was not that they would run out of IP *addresses* per se, but rather that they would run out of IP *networks* - specifically class B networks – by the early 1990’s. Once the 16 thousand class B networks were allocated, we could start giving organizations class A networks, but with only about 100 of them, that would not last long.

    The first significant “address stretching” solution introduced in the mid-1980’s was subnetting, and was later refined with Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) and Variable Length Subnet Masking (VLSM). This allowed organizations to divide larger class B and class A networks into smaller subnets and allocate only the portion of a classful network that an organization needed. Combined with re-claiming unused address space from previously-deployed class B and class A networks, this eased the address crunch.

    In 1991-92, the World Wide Web was introduced. HTTP gave a user-friendly interface to the previously “geeky” Internet. This, combined with increased accessibility through service providers like CompuServe, AOL, and MSN, again accelerated the rate of IP address allocation. It was estimated that somewhere around the turn of the millennium we would run out of IP address space. Another pair of “stretching” solutions – private addressing and Network Address Translation (NAT) – eased the crisis. Using private IP addresses locally and NAT for global services, a local network could have hundreds or even thousands of devices sharing only a few or even one global IP address. Instead of end-organizations being separate networks on the global Internet, each was simply a node (or a few nodes) on the service provider’s network. The widespread adoption of private addressing and NAT forestalled IPv4 address exhaustion into the 21st century. Still, each new customer required at least one global IP address, and the number of global addresses was starting to run very low.

    The most recent surge in IP address allocation came in the first decade of the new millennia. The popularity of mobile devices – wireless laptops and more recently smartphones – have again accelerated the consumption of IP addresses. On January 31 of this year (2011), IANA – the international “keeper of the IP addresses” – allocated the last blocks of IPv4 address space to APNIC, the Asia/Pacific regional Internet registry. As the regional registries allocate their remaining addresses to ISPs, they cannot replenish their stores. As the ISPs assign those remaining addresses to their customers, they, too will not be able to replenish. Once they’re out – that’s it. Nada. Nil. Over. Done.

    Local networks can still use IPv4 for as long as they want, but the ISPs will have to switch over to IPv6 if they want to continue to grow and expand their customer base. Customers who choose to stick with IPv4 locally will eventually still have to accommodate IPv6 on their WAN connection to their ISP (just as Comcast cable TV customers eventually had to get digital TVs or converters as the cable company phased out analog service). Any telecomm service providers that don’t migrate to IPv6 will find themselves dying by virtue of being obsolete. Sooner or later, the end-user networks will also make the switch over. (Does anyone still use DOS or Windows 95? Yes, but they’re technological “hermits” who exist with no support or sympathy.)

    The bottom line – while we’ve done a remarkable job in keeping this 37-year-old technology running this long (kind of like my grandfather’s 1967 Mustang), we are now at the point where it is beyond repair and it is time to replace it with a new, bigger, and better Internet Protocol.

    p.s. As to Jorge @16’s question about IPv5, there was an experimental protocol (Internet Stream Protocol, or ST) developed in the late 1970’s that was dubbed “IP version 5” (ca. 1994). Its intention was to create a protocol that would better handle virtual circuits and streaming data. It was never widely deployed, and has since been replaced by better protocols like Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). More to the point; ST (or IPv5, if you will) did not create a new addressing system – it used IPv4’s addressing scheme and therefore is/would be in the same predicament.

  28. Aaron Toponce using Debian IceWeasel 8.0 on GNU/Linux 64 bits | November 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I appreciate people checking my math, but it's not wrong. Let's go over it step-by-step:

    2^128=340282366920938463463374607431768211456 - total addresses
    sqrt(2^128) = 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 - addresses along one edge (Area of a square = length * width)
    105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 6652800 pixels per linear mile
    2^64/6652800 ~= 2772778991358 address miles per pixel
    256 addresses * 105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 1703116800 addresses per mile
    2^64/1703116800 ~= 10831167934 linear miles
    2^32 addresses * 105 pixels per linear inch * 12 inches per foot * 5280 feet per mile = 28573558426828800 addresses per mile
    2^64/28573558426828800 ~= 645 linear miles

    The math checks out fine.

  29. Alan Evans using Internet Explorer 9.0 on Windows 7 | February 1, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Another way of thinking about it is how many addresses can be assigned for each gram of mass on earth.

    Mass of eath in kg = 5.9736 x 10 ^24
    So in grames = 5.9736 x 10 ^27

    2^128 / 5.9736 x 10 ^27 = 56 Billion

    56 billion addresses per GRAM of matter on earth!

  30. John Wakeman using Firefox 10.0.2 on Windows 7 | March 1, 2012 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    Another motivation. More and more apps imbed the users IP address somewhere deeper in the packet than the Network layer. While there are plenty of Application Gateways to do the translation, each time we translate, the dialogue is delayed and departs from optimum.
    Oh and operationally, there is a motivation - you can do away with NAT and Application Gateways if you use IPv6.

    Too bad there is no killer app yet, that would accelerate the migration.
    cheers,
    John

  31. Michael using Google Chrome 19.0.1084.56 on Mac OS | June 14, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Growing IPv4 with NAT is a bad solution, and there's nothing wrong with moving on past a 30 year old protocol. IPv4 has about 6 billion addresses, significantly fewer actually usable. 7 Billion people. Plus how many devices in their homes and workplaces? Sure, you can NAT that, 100 billion devices even. But how are you going to make a reliable Skype connection when you're 3 NATs deep at your home and your friend is 5 NATS deep in China? It can be made to work, but ask any anyone in the business if an entire planet in a NAT mess like that wouldn't be severely dysfunctional. The cost of that vs deploying IPv6 and letting IPv4 go the way of IPX/SPX is far cheaper.

  32. Michael using Google Chrome 19.0.1084.56 on Mac OS | June 14, 2012 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    (just as comment to the few "IPv4 isn't running out any time soon and NAT is all we need anyway" posts)

  33. Aaron Toponce using Google Chrome 18.0.1025.168 on GNU/Linux 64 bits | June 15, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

    IPv4 only hands out 4.2 billion addresses, not 6 billion. It's a 32-bit addressing space.

  34. corrector using Google Chrome 19.0.1084.56 on GNU/Linux 64 bits | November 8, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Aaron, your math really is wrong. Basically you make the mistake of forgetting to square the "addresses along one pixel edge" to obtain the "address per pixel" value. Or it could be a language issue where you fail to distingu
    ish that these 2 terms mean 2 different things.

    Let's take your first example: a 65536-pixel image. If each pixel represented 256 addresses, then the image would represent 65,536 (pixels) * 256 (address/pixel) = 16,777,216 addresses. Far from 4,294,967,296, the total number of IPv4 addresses...

    In reality what you mean to explain is that each PIXEL SIDE represents 256 addresses, so each PIXEL represents 256*256 = 65,536 addresses.

{ 26 } Trackbacks

  1. IPv6: Where and when? | Lee's Blog | March 9, 2009 at 3:46 am | Permalink

    [...] Toponce posted some interesting “libraries of congress” analogies about the size of the IPv6 address space. I loved how he said that “18,446,744,073,709,551,616…may not look large” [...]

  2. Visualising IPv6 | | March 9, 2009 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    [...] has huge number of IP address how huge? 40,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 huge! This article puts this in perspective. For example: if every pixel of a monitor was 256 addresses your monitor [...]

  3. [...] En cambio necesitaríamos un monitor de tal tamaño que abarque desde la superficie del Sol hasta pasar la orbita de Saturno para ver las direcciones que nos proporciona IPv6. [...]

  4. [...] each pixel on your monitor were to represent a number of IPv6 addresses it would come out to about 192,903,836,122,980,988,357,922,113,056,557 per pixel to cover the entire amount of [...]

  5. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  6. [...] IP addresses has been under development, dubbed IPv6. IPv6 uses both numbers and letters to create 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 (which translates into “a lot”) addresses. With that number of possible addresses, [...]

  7. Ip’s are running out | January 22, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    [...] long before others did and invented IPv6, a system that uses both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses. Tags: ip, ipv4, ipv6 blog comments powered by Disqus [...]

  8. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  9. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  10. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  11. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  12. [...] la siguiente versión de direcciones, la IPv6, un sistema que invoca letras y dígitos para manejar 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 direcciones IP (a ver quién sabe leer este número de [...]

  13. Internet Space | January 24, 2011 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    [...] yes, I can prove it. Or at least show you a page proving it. No Related Post [...]

  14. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  15. | NerdCode | January 24, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  16. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  17. IPv4countdown | Outsource House | January 25, 2011 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  18. [...] is taking a step to encourage other ISPs to transfer to the new IPv6 system, which allows for 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 combinations. Their Twitter account is counting down the days and IP addresses left before we [...]

  19. [...] la siguiente versión de direcciones, la IPv6, un sistema que invoca letras y dígitos para manejar 340.282.366.920.938.463.463.374.607.431.768.211.456 direcciones IP (a ver quién sabe leer este número de [...]

  20. [...] long before we did and invented IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456addresses (shall we just call it “a [...]

  21. [...] have a ridiculously long phone number.IPv6, a system that invokes both letters and digits to handle 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses that are expect to be added to the internet.Any way if the internet crashes and all is [...]

  22. [...] is, since it can support longer IP addresses, it can allow for more IP addresses–a lot more). This page gives a graphical comparison of just how many more IP addresses IPv6 supports. Google has already flipped the switch on many of [...]

  23. [...] contains 3.4×1038 addresses. Compared to IPv4's 4.3×109 that's a lot more. So much more that it's deemed enough for the foreseeable future. So why isn't this similar to just dialing a number or more on your phone when you make a phone [...]

  24. Is het internet op? | Thomas van Manen | January 30, 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    [...] Het internet groeit en groeit. En dat gaat voorlopig niet veranderen. Helaas zitten daar allemaal problemen aan verbonden voor aanbieders, maar ook voor consumenten. Neem bijvoorbeeld IP-adressen, binnen twee weken is de huidige voorraad aan IP-adressen op. Geen paniek, daar is al een oplossing voor. We gaan overschakelen naar een ander ‘systeem’  met meer ruimte. Heel veel meer ruimte zelfs. [...]

  25. [...] En comparación con los 4.3×10^9 de la IPv4, que es muchísimo más. Muchísimo más es considerado suficiente para el futuro previsible. ¿Por qué esto no es similar a tan sólo marcar un número o más en tu teléfono cuando haces [...]

  26. Sie nennen es… « GlassBlog | March 2, 2011 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    [...] den Begriff IPv6 gestolpert, der den nachfolgenden Standard beschreibt. Damit stehen dann wieder echt viele IP-Adressen für das Netz zur [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

Switch to our mobile site