11–20 of 74 posts
I am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM. These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
Everything is "seamless" with ChatGPT.
IPv6 is seamless, etc...
I am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM. These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
Indeed! Look at these formulations: "Respecting these governance frameworks is crucial to maintaining the open, collaborative model that underpins global Internet development and its technological evolution ... collaborative approaches that engage technical communities, promote open standards, and prioritise interoperability are essential... To overcome these challenges, a strategic approach combining economic and op…
My hunch is that AWS charging for v4 addresses will start applying pressure across a broad cross-section of businesses as they start asking why don’t they just use the free thing
Half of AWS services aren't even available from an IPv6 endpoint, it's a clusterfuck. I'm all for carrot and stick but they are making a giant mess of it. Source: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... , see 'IPv6 only support' column.
Is that relevant? There's nothing wrong with having RFC1918 addresses and globally-routable IPv6 addresses assigned to your VPC.
Have the RFC1918 addresses accessing IPv4-only AWS resources and the globally-routable IPv6 addresses serving the world. Easy.
After all, the major cloud providers don't charge for RFC1918 addresses... they just charge for globally-routable IPv4 addresses.
they completely ignore the actual problem with IPv6 which is that they didn't just extend IPv4 in a straightforward manner. they could have made the address fields 64 bits and been done with it. but, oh no, they had to make it the protocol for the ages.
it's completely analogous to the failed Intel Itanium vs. AMD x64.
My hunch is that AWS charging for v4 addresses will start applying pressure across a broad cross-section of businesses as they start asking why don’t they just use the free thing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Half of AWS services aren't even available from an IPv6 endpoint, it's a clusterfuck. I'm all for carrot and stick but they are making a giant mess of it. Source: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ipv6-su... , see 'IPv6 only support' column.
> ... see 'IPv6 only support' column. Is that relevant? There's nothing wrong with having RFC1918 addresses and globally-routable IPv6 addresses assigned to your VPC. Have the RFC1918 addresses accessing IPv4-only AWS resources and the globally-routable IPv6 addresses serving the world. Easy. After all, the major cloud providers don't charge for RFC1918 addresses... they just charge for globally-routable IPv4 address…
It's a pretty backwards way to build your network. You pay all the costs and gain none of the benefits.
I am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM. These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
"seamless", appearing 5 times. Everything is "seamless" with ChatGPT. IPv6 is seamless, etc...
I am not sure if it is me on the article sounds like it was passed through an LLM. These days I see more and more content similar to how the chat GPT would generate and describe things
On another matter, whose brainchild is IPv6+? I haven't heard of that one before.
My hunch is that AWS charging for v4 addresses will start applying pressure across a broad cross-section of businesses as they start asking why don’t they just use the free thing
Maybe that's enough to remove the friction around IPv6 and make it "just work" to the point that everyone just keeps it on. Or maybe it doesn't and we get a divide where everything consumed by machines moves to IPv6 while content consumed by humans keeps preferring IPv4.