10 ms·
imho ARIN should let these shady companies own IPv4. Only driving up prices of v4 will promote v6 adoption.
by karmanyaahm 5y ago
imho ARIN should let these shady companies own IPv4. Only driving up prices of v4 will promote v6 adoption.
- Scoundreller 5y agoIf a government was smart, it would create an IPv4 tax and capture that value for itself. Tax the inelastic and all.
- nlitened 5y agoWhich country’s government and why?
- onphonenow 5y agoFor sure. This has the secondary benefit of freeing up unused space.
- Symbiote 5y agoFreeing up unused IPv4 space has the opposite effect, it delays adoption of IPv6 since it increases supply, thus lowering the price.
- onphonenow 5y agoWhich is fine. IPv6 is a pain in the neck to deal with. There is a fair bit of unused IPv4 space. Put a $5/year tax on IPv4 and a ton would free up.
- b112 5y agoThis is unfair, for those waiting for ipv8.
- f0xtrot 5y agoWoh there, I hear that causes rabies in cancer cells.
- da_chicken 5y agoPrecog DNS is the future of subzero latency.
- greyface- 5y agoThe US DoD owns 14 /8s and appears to be preparing to sell some of that space. Value captured.
- iqanq 5y agoCGNAT exists (and it works well).
- yholio 5y agoCancer exists too, and it's effective at what it does.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoCGNAT provides positive value to humans. Do you have a point to make?
- karmanyaahm 5y agoCGNAT does provide value in our current v4 situation, but it's far from ideal. Not having NATs allows for more decentralization (p2p connections, self-hosting), and saves the resources - unnecessary energy and compute - that NAT consumes
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throaway46546 5y agoDumpster fires exist (and are a valuable source of heating).
- MertsA 5y ago>CGNAT exists (and well... it "works"). FTFY. CGNAT means consumers get to be behind a double NAT, no port forwarding, poor P2P support, etc. CGNAT is the IPv4 solution of last resort.
- imdsm 5y agoIPv6 was poorly designed, and will never be fully adopted because of this. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck between IPv4 and IPv6 when really, what we need is a new solution, something better designed and easier to adopt.
- camkego 5y agoThat's a strong statement about IPv6, is there an article or paper you are referring to?
- imdsm 5y agoNot really. Just personal experience. And I think that's the key point here - coming up with a design that is fit for the world (wide web), and not just academically viable. I suppose the evidence I would give to back up my statement is that if it was well designed, it would have been adopted. As it stands, I only find it is supported among the more distinguished services that I use.
- vore 5y agoThere's a difference between "poor design" and "difficult to adopt", and I think confounding the two doesn't make sense. For another example, Python 3 has much better design than Python 2, and the difficult adoption a result of having people fix what they had written using the poor Python 2 design, and making it easier to adopt would have meant preserving the poor choices. I don't know enough about IPv4 vs IPv6 to make a judgment in this particular case, but I don't think your argument broadly in itself here follows.
- Plasmoid 5y agoI've heard people complaining how hard IPv6 but I've never see a plan that is actually easier than migrating to IPv6. It's always massive CGNAT investment or making non-backwards compatible changes to IPv4 that is somehow "easier" to work with.
- kmonsen 5y ago