11–20 of 40 posts
Not for purposes like:
* I want the IP header I'm transmitting between these two nodes to be as small as possible
* I want a CPU and memory efficient TCP/IP stack for an embedded system.
Pretty much no successor of anything is better than its predecessor for "every purpose", just every purpose that the speaker happens to care about.
> Current and future work builds on IPv6, making it better for every purpose than the old protocol. Not for purposes like: * I want the IP header I'm transmitting between these two nodes to be as small as possible * I want a CPU and memory efficient TCP/IP stack for an embedded system. Pretty much no successor of anything is better than its predecessor for "every purpose", just every purpose that the speaker happens…
I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
NAT is not a security feature. Please stop repeating this toxic drivel. NAT is not the same as firewalls, and firewalls do not require NAT. NAT is just an ugly hack to stretch IPV4's inadequate address space, and it's one that breaks quite a few protocols and generally makes a lot of things painful and complex. Remember back when there were two dozen different networking layers vying for the ability to link Docker co…
Everyone take note that this is an individual v0 draft, it says "Type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)" and "Intended status: Standards Track". Before this becomes and RFC (if it ever does at all) it has to go through discussions as an individual draft, then it has to be voted to become standards track, at which point it will become a working group draft where it goes through more comments, editing, and waiting, a…
That's not entirely true. An RFC can get published very quickly. At this point there are almost 8000 of them.
Perhaps you are thinking of an Internet Standard document:
> Current and future work builds on IPv6, making it better for every purpose than the old protocol. Not for purposes like: * I want the IP header I'm transmitting between these two nodes to be as small as possible * I want a CPU and memory efficient TCP/IP stack for an embedded system. Pretty much no successor of anything is better than its predecessor for "every purpose", just every purpose that the speaker happens…
I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
NAT is not a security feature. Please stop repeating this toxic drivel. NAT is not the same as firewalls, and firewalls do not require NAT. NAT is just an ugly hack to stretch IPV4's inadequate address space, and it's one that breaks quite a few protocols and generally makes a lot of things painful and complex. Remember back when there were two dozen different networking layers vying for the ability to link Docker co…
A /80 for Docker is preferred because it can map 1 to 1 onto the mac address for SLAAC.
see also: https://docs.docker.com/v1.5/articles/networking/#ipv6
I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere A) Get bent. B) You think they don't already know the only chance of dualstack going away is so it can become tristack?
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11300655 and marked it off-topic.
I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
Please edit acerbic swipes out of your comments to HN. It's distracting, provoking and detracts from your otherwise substantive comment.
I know it pains neckbeards to hear this, but IPv4 is not going anywhere, as long as it remains in the business interests of major cloud providers, and as long as people continue to deploy NAT based firewalls as a security feature. Re: business interests: Cloud businesses can acquire IP addresses at price points far higher than the average developer can. Now that the ARIN address space is exhausted, cloud providers wi…
NAT is not a security feature. Please stop repeating this toxic drivel. NAT is not the same as firewalls, and firewalls do not require NAT. NAT is just an ugly hack to stretch IPV4's inadequate address space, and it's one that breaks quite a few protocols and generally makes a lot of things painful and complex. Remember back when there were two dozen different networking layers vying for the ability to link Docker co…