3 ms·

IPv4, technically, is another 32-bit bomb, but that's not Linux-specific.

by fph 2y ago

samatman 2y ago
I wouldn't call this a bomb at all. Bombs are events, not processes. Resource contention for IPv4 has been around for a long time, with a number of workarounds and the ultimate out of supporting IPv6. There has been, to date, no moment of crisis, nor do I expect one in the future. It will just get steadily more annoying/expensive to use IPv4 and IPv6 will relieve that pressure incrementally. We're at least two decades into that process already.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  Two decades in, and IPv6 is still the more annoying option. I wish they were less ambitious and just increased address sizes when designing ipv6.
  - icedchai 2y ago
    If more people bothered to configure IPv6 instead of complaining about it, V4 would be a thing of the past already.
    - o11c 2y ago
      A lot of people don't have a choice. Just last(?) year I finally switched to an ISP whose equipment supports IPv6. But I still can't actually use it since my wifi router's support for IPv6 somehow fails to talk to the ISP equipment. Hm, there's a firmware upgrade ... (installs it) well, re-trying all those options again, it looks like one of them lets it finally work now. The others (including the default) still fail with arcane errors though!
      - account42 2y ago
        Interesting that the IPv6 adoption still differs so wildly for consumer connections aroundthe world. ISPs here have started to not give you a real public IPv4 address unless you ask for it. I expect it to become a paid option soon enough (main reason normal people ask for it is to connect to shitty IPv4-only corporate VPNs that don't like the ISPs NAT).
      - icedchai 2y ago
        I mean, you are right. ISPs also need to stop complaining about supporting it and get off their butts. All enterprise routing equipment for the past 15+ years has supported IPv6. There is no excuse not to support it. Once you understand it, it is actually simpler than IPv4 + NAT.

IPv4, technically, is another 32-bit bomb, but that's not Linux-specific.

by fph 2y ago

IPv4, technically, is another 32-bit bomb, but that's not Linux-specific.

I wouldn't call this a bomb at all. Bombs are events, not processes. Resource contention for IPv4 has been around for a long time, with a number of workarounds and the ultimate out of supporting IPv6. There has been, to date, no moment of crisis, nor do I expect one in the future. It will just get steadily more annoying/expensive to use IPv4 and IPv6 will relieve that pressure incrementally. We're at least two decades into that process already.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
poincaredisk 2y ago
Two decades in, and IPv6 is still the more annoying option. I wish they were less ambitious and just increased address sizes when designing ipv6.
- icedchai 2y ago
  If more people bothered to configure IPv6 instead of complaining about it, V4 would be a thing of the past already.
  - o11c 2y ago
    A lot of people don't have a choice. Just last(?) year I finally switched to an ISP whose equipment supports IPv6. But I still can't actually use it since my wifi router's support for IPv6 somehow fails to talk to the ISP equipment. Hm, there's a firmware upgrade ... (installs it) well, re-trying all those options again, it looks like one of them lets it finally work now. The others (including the default) still fail with arcane errors though!
    - account42 2y ago
      Interesting that the IPv6 adoption still differs so wildly for consumer connections aroundthe world. ISPs here have started to not give you a real public IPv4 address unless you ask for it. I expect it to become a paid option soon enough (main reason normal people ask for it is to connect to shitty IPv4-only corporate VPNs that don't like the ISPs NAT).
    - icedchai 2y ago
      I mean, you are right. ISPs also need to stop complaining about supporting it and get off their butts. All enterprise routing equipment for the past 15+ years has supported IPv6. There is no excuse not to support it. Once you understand it, it is actually simpler than IPv4 + NAT.