Conversation
Ipv6 is too inefficient, using 128 bits for the ip address. Instead I propose ipv1, where every address is just a single bit: 0 for localhost, 1 for not localhost.
We might need to layer some NATs to make it work, but think of the efficiency gains
2
8
2

@Mae remove port numbers while we're at it. you don't need those. if i wanted to host multiple services i would have multiple IPs

2
0
1

@5225225 @Mae unironically yeah

there is no reason for ports under ipv6

1
2
5

@Mae most CPUs only deal with bytes as the smallest chunk of information for speed. We can at least afford 256 IPs. Just reserve 1 for local host, 1 for the internet, and 254 for future use cases.

0
1
0

@Mae @5225225

just broadcast all packets to every single device in the entire world :D

the “correct” recipient will answer, while all other devices can just ignore the packet

1
1
0

@jcm @Mae "i don't need encryption" yes you do, the $SPY_AGENCY is coming

funnily enough this scheme Would have privacy benefits to some degree. (send all messages to everyone and let you sort through the ones that are meant for you through "being able to decrypt them" is a reasonably common strategy) at the cost of utterly dogshit efficiency.

0
0
0

@charlotte @5225225 @Mae if you want to host several services with one host how do you do that without ports? DNS maps one name to one IP, you would need different hostnames for each service?

1
0
0

@5225225 @760ceb3b9c0ba4872cadf3ce35a7a4 @Mae yeah srv records help with that, which also would also allow for https://blah.example and ssh://blah.example to be hosted on different servers without reverse proxying

1
0
1

@5225225 @760ceb3b9c0ba4872cadf3ce35a7a4 @Mae (reverse proxying itself kind of primarily works with http and https? technically possible with a bunch of other protocols if you don’t mind losing peer ip on the backend service)

0
0
1