Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#41

Post by [deleted] »

orev wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything new in sysadmin/netadmin circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get. "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything old and stable in developer circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of developers only seem comfortable with technology invented in the past 18-24 months, regardless of how untested and unstable it is. “What's this? It was written 2 years ago? It must be old and useless. I’m going to require my app to use the latest version and I don’t care…

[deleted]

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#42

Post by Latty »

dmitshur wrote: post #36
scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

If https://apenwarr.ca/log/20110328 is still current, you’re not the only one.

That article was really very optimistic about NAT traversal, while being very pessimistic about solutions to avoiding memorising IP addresses, which I think says something about their perspective going in.

NAT is a nightmare that has directly lead to the crappy world of every "IoT" device relying on some remote service that can shut down any time, instead of just... connecting to your device. Also every game having connectivity issues when trying to do peer-to-peer play. Not to mention a reliance on NAT as security, something this article advocates for, despite being a job it isn't good at.

The obsolescence of NAT is the bit of IPv4's demise I look forward to most.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#43

Post by edmcnulty101 »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

They have short cuts to the 128 bit. I think there will be a lot of unused space for a while.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#44

Post by magila »

orev wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything new in sysadmin/netadmin circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get. "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything old and stable in developer circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of developers only seem comfortable with technology invented in the past 18-24 months, regardless of how untested and unstable it is. “What's this? It was written 2 years ago? It must be old and useless. I’m going to require my app to use the latest version and I don’t care…

Sure, that's annoying too, but I don't see how it's relevant to the topic at hand. IPv6 isn't some shiny new tech, the original RFC just turned 26. It's also not just a superficial re-write of some existing tool, it fixes a real problem which clearly needs to be addressed (no pun intended).

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#45

Post by bilal4hmed »

tesin wrote: post #30
btbuilder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve used ipv6 on xfinity for years, but I do use my own equipment. Unless there are regional differences it’s important to make sure it is set up right in your router.

You're absolutely right. I'm in the same situation. 10/10 ipv6, but it took a lot of configuration. I'm sure if the parent commenter connected their device directly to their modem via ethernet they'd find they had a functioning ipv6 address. Comcast is terrible for lots of reasons, ipv6 isn't one of them.

exactly what happened. I had ipv6 disabled on my amplifi router, quick switch and its all systems go

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#46

Post by throw0101a »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

> Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

Consider the counter-factual: what if 64 bits ended up being not enough?

Given all the effort that needed and still needs to be done to move from IPv4 to IPv6, if we eventually needed to move to IPv7/8 it would even more difficult given how much IP in general has/is pervading civilization.

It's better to have the extra addresses and not need them, than need them and not have them.

It's the reason why ZFS went with 128 bits as well:

> Some customers already have datasets on the order of a petabyte, or 2^50 bytes. Thus the 64-bit capacity limit of 2^64 bytes is only 14 doublings away. Moore's Law for storage predicts that capacity will continue to double every 9-12 months, which means we'll start to hit the 64-bit limit in about a decade. Storage systems tend to live for several decades, so it would be foolish to create a new one without anticipating the needs that will surely arise within its projected lifetime.

> If 64 bits isn't enough, the next logical step is 128 bits. That's enough to survive Moore's Law until I'm dead, and after that, it's not my problem. But it does raise the question: what are the theoretical limits to storage capacity?

* https://web.archive.org/web/20171118074243/https://blogs.ora...

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#48

Post by dijit »

zorked wrote: post #29
sneak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything new in sysadmin/netadmin circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get. "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"

Just witness the pitchfork army whenever systemd is mentioned.

Just don’t want it forced on me and by its nature it becomes a hard dependency over time, thus, it does.

I’m not interested in another argument but calling my position “pitchforks” is a bit disengenuous and irritating (which is why I’m replying, off-topic, to you).

While I think it has something to offer I would like potentially better alternatives to be able to exist in future, this is not “pitchforks”.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#49

Post by kstrauser »

dmitshur wrote: post #36
scoopertrooper wrote: post #14

Am I the only one that hates IPv6 ergonomics? I have to transcribe IPv4 addresses all the time, I'd hate to try and do it with a 128 bit address. Could they not have gone with 64 bit addresses, was 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 addresses really not enough?

If https://apenwarr.ca/log/20110328 is still current, you’re not the only one.

I don’t believe a single point of that was valid in 2011, let alone now. Witness the rise of CGNAT as a workaround for not migrating.

Re: United States IPv6 adoption over 50%

#50

Post by jsiaajdsdaa »

orev wrote: post #26
sneak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything new in sysadmin/netadmin circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of technologists only seem comfortable with the technology that was available when they were 18-24, regardless of how old they get. "What's this? I never needed it before, what's the sysctl to turn it off?"

There is a lot of cultural inertia that instantly biases against anything old and stable in developer circles. It's super annoying, tbh. A subset of developers only seem comfortable with technology invented in the past 18-24 months, regardless of how untested and unstable it is. “What's this? It was written 2 years ago? It must be old and useless. I’m going to require my app to use the latest version and I don’t care…

I guess we can agree that there is a cultural inertia that instantly biases someone against something based on perceptions of time XD
Post reply on HN