Talk:IPv4

message: The current text specifies a quintillion users to have a set of a quintillion adresses,
this is ambiguous since both short scale 1018 or long scale 1030 could be meant. 
An unclear factor of 1012, if anyone knows how to recalculate the possibilites of addresses, please clarify this</sub>.
--ananta 11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: quintillion no longer appears in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify: Quintillion(Short Scale or long scale?)

message: In the options area of the article there are two red links for LSRR and SSRR, an article exists for Loose Source Routing: Loose_Source_Routing
Some with more networking experience, should this be linked up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.62.110.70 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These terms are no longer in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LS(R)R and SS(R)R 

message: Under the 'addressing' section this page mentions classful networking as part of the addressing architecture redesign.  This should be classless addressing not classful, as classful was part of the original standard.  I didn't mess with it because it's linked, if someone wants to fix it.  Also, 'Classful vs Classless' probably deserves its own heading, as the definitions are lumped under 'Allocations' which doesn't make a ton of sense (or it could just be linked off to the Classful Network page).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.144.200 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Classful appears to now be used properly in this section. ~Kvng (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Classful vs Classless

message: The section on addresses ending in 0 or 255 is somewhat misleading, and much more complicated than necessary.  The addressing rule is quite simple.  You can't use the first address on a network because that's the network itself, and you can't use the last address on a network because that's the broadcast address.  These addresses most often end in 0 or 255, but it isn't specific to Class C or /24 or any other network designation.  You can't use the first and you can't use the last applies to all IP networks and subnetworks.  Is it possible to get some consensus on a different rewrite of this section that addresses the general rule rather than working around specific cases?  -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That section makes my head hurt. How about we gut it and rename it "Broadcasts" and include the information from RFC 1122 section 3.3.6 in the simplified manner you've suggested. -—Kvng 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Completely agree. What's there now is more like "arcana you never needed to know". It should be titled "Network and broadcast addresses" or maybe "Reserved addresses" and express the rules in 1 or 2 simple sentences, max. PlaysWithLife (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "networks with CIDR suffixes /24 to /32 (255.255.255.0–255.255.255.255) may not have an address ending in 0 or 255."  That's not true for /31 (see RFC 3021) and /32. 2A00:8A60:1:F0:D5FB:B6AF:7404:9357 (talk) 07:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The /31 exception is now mentioned. ~Kvng (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addresses ending in 0 or 255 Revisited 

message: I propose this change on two facts which are
One. The article on IPv6 is named similarly and we should aim for parity on naming both
Two. The short form is more commonly used NotPixel (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to IPv4 from "Internet Protocol version 4" 

message: In this recent edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Protocol_version_4&oldid=1186722017,
@Kvng add the following sentence to the Header Checksum section:
 A value of 0xFFFF is expected.
To my knowledge (and confirmed by their source article), the value should be zero instead:
 If there is no corruption, the result of summing the entire IP header, including checksum, should be zero.
I'm not too familiar; maybe someone with more experience (or @Kvng themselves) can weigh in how to correct this discrepancy. Cpiber (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see #Header Checksum above ~Kvng (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I overlooked that entry. Cpiber (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit adds incorrect information to Header section 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet Protocol version 4 →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT with IPv6. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 May 2024