11–20 of 60 posts
Can someone explain to me how about a decade ago we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses in a matter of months and we needed to switch to IPv6 or else , but now we’re still using it fine?
Can someone explain to me how about a decade ago we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses in a matter of months and we needed to switch to IPv6 or else , but now we’re still using it fine?
i get the whole legacy thing but since transitioning to lets say gigabit internet and beyond, that is somewhat fresh tech so why wasn't that stack made ipv6 primarily and not ipv4?
i am truly clueless on this
What is the rational reason, if any, for bringing up things like these? The time to have this discussion would have been in like 1993 or so. Now, IPv6 is what we have, and the standards are what they are, flaws and all. The only reason I can think of is psychological: People don’t want to learn new things, so they find reasons to dislike the new thing to be able to pretend they don’t need to learn it.
Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.
i have a question, when iphone was introduced in 2007, 3G came AFTER that, then 4g and now 5g. why didn't the mobile revolution help move ipv6 adoption? i mean at the time, why wasn't 3G built on ipv6 instead of basing on ipv4? couldn't apple have forced websites to play nice with ipv6 to get more users from iphone crowd? android would have followed suit? i get the whole legacy thing but since transitioning to lets s…
1992: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1347
What is the rational reason, if any, for bringing up things like these? The time to have this discussion would have been in like 1993 or so. Now, IPv6 is what we have, and the standards are what they are, flaws and all. The only reason I can think of is psychological: People don’t want to learn new things, so they find reasons to dislike the new thing to be able to pretend they don’t need to learn it.
I think it could be argued that the flaws in IPv6 are significant enough to result in an scenario where IPv4 is never actually retired and therefore IPv6 is never fully adopted. Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.
Can someone explain to me how about a decade ago we were going to run out of IPv4 addresses in a matter of months and we needed to switch to IPv6 or else , but now we’re still using it fine?
As a result many home and mobile users only get personal IPv6 addresses with IPv4 connections being tunneled over shared addresses.
What is the rational reason, if any, for bringing up things like these? The time to have this discussion would have been in like 1993 or so. Now, IPv6 is what we have, and the standards are what they are, flaws and all. The only reason I can think of is psychological: People don’t want to learn new things, so they find reasons to dislike the new thing to be able to pretend they don’t need to learn it.
I think it could be argued that the flaws in IPv6 are significant enough to result in an scenario where IPv4 is never actually retired and therefore IPv6 is never fully adopted. Its been decades, but still IPv6 is deployed (at best) as a parallel network that effectively doubles management/maintenance overhead. And at worst sites just add an IPv6 reverse proxy.
But in the end, IPv6 is cleaner, and it seemed better not to distract too much from progress there. If I'd known it would have taken another quarter century to make much progress, I might have made a different decision.
There were quite a few "extend IPv4" solutions over the years.