4 ms·
I find IPv6 to be simpler than IPv4 -- once I stopped trying to reason about things in IPv4 terms. The only real complexity I have encountered is in the variou
by betterunix2 7y ago
I find IPv6 to be simpler than IPv4 -- once I stopped trying to reason about things in IPv4 terms. The only real complexity I have encountered is in the various efforts to maintain compatibility with IPv4.
One way or another IPv4 will go away. The limits of scale were hit years ago and the workarounds break applications (NAT is basically a violation of the end-to-end principle and the results are predictable), and merging IPv4 private networks is a nightmare.
- kortilla 7y agoI don’t see it. No users care that NAT breaks the end to end principle. That’s only something users care about that want to accept connections, which is <1%. TCP and UDP have been running over NAT for so long that they work completely fine. People who make the mistake of assuming asymmetric ports or putting IPs in the payload fail so early that they quickly learn. There is so little actual pressure to implement ipv6 that it’s starting to look pretty doomed.
- johncolanduoni 7y ago> I don’t see it. No users care that NAT breaks the end to end principle. That’s only something users care about that want to accept connections, which is <1%. I'm not sure <1% of users want to video chat or to play games without dedicated servers. > There is so little actual pressure to implement ipv6 that it’s starting to look pretty doomed. There is so much pressure to implement IPv6 on mobile that Apple checks if your app can deal with an IPv6 only network before the approve it to show up on the store. If your website supports IPv6 and you have a sizable mobile userbase, you'll see plenty of it.