Asklemmy

43445 readers

996 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

104

People still working in IT, thoughts on IPv6? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Now currently I'm not in the workforce, but in the past from my work experience, apprenticeship and temp roles, I've always seen ipv4 and not ipv6!

Hell, my ISP seems to exclusively use ipv4 (unless behind nats they're using ipv6)

Do you think a lot of people stick with the earlier iteration because they have been so familiar with it for a long time?

When you look at a ipv6, it looks menacing with a long string of letters and numbers compared to the more simpler often.

I am aware the IP bucket has gone dry and they gotta bring in a new IP cow with a even bigger bucket, but what do you think? Do you yourself or your firm use ipv4 or 6?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That was so insane - "we need a unique number, let's just use the MAC" - it was like people didn't even think through any of the implications when making ipv6 address schemes.

Similar with the address proposals that ignored the need to minimise the size of core internet routing tables.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

That proposal was made when every computer hooked straight into the internet without a firewall. Every device already had a unique IP address that was globally routable and you needed to race to a firewall download page before a scanner would infect your computer (you had about five minutes, much less if you had the network cable plugged in during setup).

The routing table size reduction has always been stupid. The protocol should not be adjusted to help the penny pinchers save on RAM. And the same problem happened to IPv4 a few years ago, because nobody learned their lesson.