3 ms·
> Instead they expected humans to parse hex, which no one does Of all aspects of IPv6 you took the only one that doesn't complicate implementations and can eas
by SkiFire13 6mo ago
> Instead they expected humans to parse hex, which no one does
Of all aspects of IPv6 you took the only one that doesn't complicate implementations and can easily be swapped if you wanted.
- rusk 6mo agoWait til you’ve got to copy & paste em, or see em comingled with hw addresses
- eqvinox 6mo agoWait till you find an application that accepts 1.65793 as an IPv4 address. Or 134744072. $ ping -c 1 1.65793 PING 1.65793 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=1.56 ms --- 1.65793 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.560/1.560/1.560/0.000 ms (by the way, this was way less of a dumb peculiarity back when IPv6 was designed)
- estimator7292 6mo agoI damn near have a stroke every time I try to reason about IPv4 addresses as an integer. But hey, I guess four bytes is four bytes no matter how you read them.
- SkiFire13 6mo agoI'm not disagreeing that's a bad aspect of IPv6, I'm just saying that it's not that big of a issue for its adoption.
- rusk 6mo agoI think it’s one of many that indicates the underlying issues for its adoption. It’s a 90s technology, not as much thought was given about how it would be used.