3 ms·
This comment exemplifies my worst fear and reinforces my somewhat incomplete idea that IPv4 is perhaps overall safer for the world, and that "worse is better" d
by jrm4 6mo ago
This comment exemplifies my worst fear and reinforces my somewhat incomplete idea that IPv4 is perhaps overall safer for the world, and that "worse is better" depending on what you're optimizing for.
Roughly, it's my belief that an IPv6 world makes it easier for centralizing forces and harder for local p2p or p2p-esque ones; e.g. an IPv6 world would have likely made it easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home."
The decentralization of "routing power" is more a good thing than bad, what you pay for in complexity you get back in "power to the people."
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- MrDOS 6mo ago> easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home." This idea comes up in every HN conversation about IPv6, and so I suppose this time it's my turn to point out RFC 8981[0]. tl;dr: typically, machines which receive IPv6 address assignment via SLAAC (functional equivalent of DHCP) periodically cycle their addresses. Supposed to offer pretty effective protection against host-counting. 0: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8981 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8981