When comparing IPv4 to IPv6, which of the following is an advantage of the IPv6 network addressing scheme?

Question

Options

• ALarger address space
• BShorter address space
• CHigh dependence on network routers
• DFast and unencrypted network transmissions

• A
  89% (33)
• B
  5% (2)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

IPv6 was designed specifically to address IPv4's exhaustion problem, expanding the address space from 32-bit (roughly 4.3 billion addresses) to 128-bit (approximately 340 undecillion addresses) - making A correct. Option B is wrong because a shorter address space would be a regression, not an improvement. Option C is wrong because IPv6 actually reduces dependence on intermediary router techniques like NAT (Network Address Translation), which were workarounds for IPv4 scarcity. Option D is wrong because IPv6 does not inherently make transmissions unencrypted - in fact, IPv6 was designed with IPsec support built in, improving security.

Memory tip: Think of IPv6 as "IPv4 on steroids" - the "6" means more (more bits, more addresses, more scalability), not less. If an answer choice suggests IPv6 is smaller, simpler in a bad way, or less secure, eliminate it.

No community discussion yet for this question.