3 ms·
ipv6 is untenable. We need ipv4.1. Just add another octlet at the start, but stored in the options field. Old stuff won't get confused, and new stuff will kn
by b112 4y ago
ipv6 is untenable. We need ipv4.1.
Just add another octlet at the start, but stored in the options field. Old stuff won't get confused, and new stuff will know that empty means 1.x.x.x.x.
Problem solved.
- kortex 4y agoHow does that solve anything? Any hardware is gonna try to route packets to the "original" x.x.x.x and completely ignore this option field.
- zokier 4y agoOver third of the world is happily using that untenable ipv6. That train left the station long time ago and is chugging along at steady pace now.
- dtech 4y agoI fail to see how that is better than the already widely used NAT
- Beltalowda 4y agoThe problem with this is that it requires hardware upgrades across the world: your computer, router, all the world's switches, a lot of software (e.g. software that stores IP addresses as uint32, but also native types that map to uint32), DNS infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. This is basically the same problem as IPv6, except worse since we'll start from zero. In hindsight, clearly a better plan than "this is IPv6, it's new, it's better, everyone will adopt it!" was needed for IPv6, and it would have helped if the IPv6 people were a bit more pragmatic from the start in their design (religious opposition to NAT springs to mind), but now it's about 20 to 25 years too late.
- b112 4y agoEasy to fix. All we have to do, is explain that ipv6 reduces anonymity online, and thus, makes it easier for predators to track children. And thus, ipv6 endangers children! This will enable a wellspring of governement grants, to roll out firmware updates for switches and routers, etc. See? A non-problem.