4 ms·
> What is the rational reason, if any, for gripes like these? The time to have this discussion would have been in like 1993 or so. Now, IPv6 is what we have, an
by brongondwana 11y ago
> What is the rational reason, if any, for gripes 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 rational reason is that despite tons of "we have to adopt IPv6 or the world will end", people aren't learning it. Trying to understand the underlying reasons is worthwhile. The shittyness of the representation is one of those reasons.
(I agree with the people who say "making the parsing namespace even more complex won't help anyone" though)
- teddyh 11y agoIt no longer matters if some people want to learn IPv6 or not. The world at large has adopted IPv6, by necessity. Those who refuse to follow with the times will, sooner or later, be replaced by those who are happy to learn new things. It’s not like the world will suddenly one day decide to give up and go back to IPv4. Adapt or die.
- Bud 11y agoYou seem to be confusing the difficulty of "learning" something which is trivially easy with the difficulty of using something that is designed in an obfuscated way that makes it hard to use. This situation is the latter. That's the argument of the article.
- Dylan16807 11y agoThe article is rather against the use of a colon at all, and that is not obfuscation.
- elktea 11y agoHardly. IPv6 is straight forward for any network engineer with experience with existing networks. It's IPv4 but you get to design address space to logically suit your infrastructure and needs.
- bigbugbag 11y agoYou seem to be confusing the difficulty of "learning" something with the difficulty of "unlearning" something to learn something new. I don't see any actual argument in the article, just narrow minded rant failing to see farther than it's own nose.
- woah 11y agoEveryone wants to have the larger address space that ipv6 provides. All the other stuff rolled into it and the obvious representation shortfalls etc are very unfortunate.
- XorNot 11y agoThere isn't a clean way to solve representation of a 128-bit number. It's a big number. It'll be big to represent. I am curious what other problems you think it has, that don't just come along with the bigger address space? The realistic perspective here is still essentially the cost one: most people who have IPv4 hardware see little reason to move at all, until they have a problem.
- mirimir 11y agoI'm concerned about privacy implications. Let's say that I'm a dissident somewhere. I'm using VPN services, JonDonym, Tor, etc to help obscure my identity. But then maybe WebRTC or whatever reveals the device IPv6. I'm sure that it's possible to generate a new IPv6 for each session. But it's yet another pitfall for the unwary. For now, I just disable and firewall.
- duskwuff 11y agoWhat you're describing already exists. RFC 4941 defines a standard method for regularly "rotating" IPv6 addresses on a client machine, which is implemented by most major operating systems.
- citrin_ru 11y agoRotating IP is nightmare for network admin: http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-that-ate-my-week/ http://blog.bimajority.org/2014/09/05/the-network-nightmare-...
- mirimir 11y ago> UPDATE (2014-09-06): As Stéphane Bortzmeyer was the first to point out, RFC 7217 addresses all of my issues with “privacy” addresses. Let implementation come soon!
- moreentropy 11y agoPeople are learning and using it just fine. Yes, it looks a bit different but that's about it. Everything works just the same except building properly routed networks is a lot easier with IPv6.