(18:10:53) <&Shawn> The IPv6's are in Hexidecimal's :o (18:10:55) <~Zenexer> More or less; I started to memorize hex multiplication tables and such... never got far. (18:10:56) <@Tyler> Heya zen (18:11:05) <~Zenexer> Shawn: IPv4 is, too. (18:11:08) <~Zenexer> Tyler: Hello (18:11:56) <&Shawn> IPv4 isn't in hexidecimal.. Whois -> [Earth2Me-IRC:Louis|] (18:12:06) <~Zenexer> It doesn't appear as if it is... (18:12:10) <&Shawn> Its not. (18:12:10) <~Zenexer> But I assure you, it is ;_0 (18:12:13) <~Zenexer> ;)* (18:12:13) <&Shawn> It is not. (18:12:18) <~Zenexer> Okay, I'll prove it to you. (18:12:25) <~Zenexer> What's 0xFF? (18:12:28) <&Shawn> If it was, we wouldn't be switching to IPv6 to create more addresses (18:12:33) <&Shawn> idk, I can't do it in my head yet. (18:12:34) IPV6 FTW (18:12:35) IPV6 FTW (18:12:36) :| (18:12:38) <~Zenexer> 256 (18:12:47) <~Zenexer> We'll take away one, for computer-purposes :P (18:12:48) <~Zenexer> 255 (18:13:04) <~Zenexer> Ever wonder why each "digit" of an IP is separated by a . (18:13:17) <&Shawn> In IPv4, its called an octec (18:13:17) <~Zenexer> It's because we're representing "digit" in hex. (18:13:34) <&Shawn> 4 octects of 8 bits each = 32bit addressing. (18:13:34) <~Zenexer> I don't care what it's called... it's two hex digits :P (18:13:52) Shawn (18:13:54) <&Shawn> ? (18:13:54) You know how to IPv4? (18:13:55) <~Zenexer> octets? (18:14:02) <&Shawn> 127.0.0.1 (18:14:07) <&Shawn> 127 = octect 1 (18:14:07) <~Zenexer> I don't think it's octec or octect (18:14:12) <~Zenexer> I think it's octet (18:14:15) <&Shawn> I can't spell. (18:14:21) You know how to IPv4? (18:14:21) <~Zenexer> Or maybe octect... but I think it's octet. (18:14:21) You know how to IPv4? (18:14:22) <&Shawn> but anyway, thats what it is. (18:14:35) <~Zenexer> Shawn: Yes. (18:14:38) <&Shawn> Yeah (18:14:40) <~Zenexer> That's because it's based in Hex. (18:14:48) <&Shawn> Its not based in Hex >_> (18:14:50) <~Zenexer> It gets translated into hex, more or less. (18:14:54) <~Zenexer> I assure you it is. (18:15:18) <~Zenexer> Why limit the "digits" to 255? (18:15:20) <&Shawn> If it was based in hex, we wouldn't have to worry about the number of addresses running out. (18:15:22) <~Zenexer> Why such an odd number? (18:15:29) <~Zenexer> Ah, but we would. (18:15:33) <~Zenexer> Think about it. (18:15:38) <~Zenexer> It's the same as a color code. (18:15:40) <&Shawn> It runs in a base 2 system, Binary. (18:15:42) <~Zenexer> Same number of digits. (18:15:44) <~Zenexer> Yes... (18:15:46) <~Zenexer> But... (18:15:50) <&Shawn> Not hexidecimal. (18:16:01) <~Zenexer> Let's see, what's 10.10.0.1 (18:16:12) <~Zenexer> 1010 1010 0000 0001 (18:16:14) <~Zenexer> Right? (18:16:17) <&Shawn> Yes (18:16:26) <~Zenexer> Now... (18:16:27) Still banned of SSirc........... (18:16:28) <&Shawn> But IPv4 wouldn't care about it in hex (18:16:28) <~Zenexer> Watch. (18:16:46) <~Zenexer> 0A0A0001 (18:16:50) <~Zenexer> That's the hex version of it. (18:17:05) <~Zenexer> In hex, it will always be the same number of digits. (18:17:12) <~Zenexer> However... (18:17:23) <~Zenexer> We're trying to use decimals to represent hex place values. (18:17:33) <~Zenexer> So, we separate every other place value with a . (18:17:43) <~Zenexer> 0A.0A.00.01 (18:17:49) <~Zenexer> 10.10.0.1 (18:17:53) <~Zenexer> ;) (18:18:03) <~Zenexer> In reality, 10.10.0.1 simply represents... (18:18:10) <~Zenexer> (Pulls out calculator...) (18:18:24) <&Shawn> So why would IPv6 show the actual addressing in hex, instead of decimial like IPv4, if its based on the same system but with a larger address? (18:18:32) <~Zenexer> 168427521 (18:18:40) <~Zenexer> That's what 10.10.0.1 represents. (18:18:55) <~Zenexer> Simply because it takes up less space, and it's closer to what it really is. (18:19:06) <&Shawn> >_> Lame (18:19:20) <~Zenexer> Not really. (18:19:31) <~Zenexer> It was lame to represent IPv4 addresses the way we did.