4 ms·

Why are we, in 2026, still talking about ipv6? It is time to give it up and start over. Yes, it is unlikely we can agree on an ipv4 successor. But at this poin

by bborud 5mo ago

Why are we, in 2026, still talking about ipv6? It is time to give it up and start over. Yes, it is unlikely we can agree on an ipv4 successor. But at this point we should be able to agree ipv6 is not going to be it.

msla 5mo ago
For the same reason we, in 2026, are still talking about Java.
- zadikian 5mo ago
  Java bent a lot to accommodate. There are lambdas and records which violate the old OOP rules, and now virtual threads which were sorely missing for things like web backends.
tardedmeme 5mo ago
What do you think should be done instead? If ipv4 but with longer addresses (which is called ipv6) is not to your satisfaction, what would be? You want to completely overhaul the internet like in ipv8 and you think ipv8 doesn't have the exact same problems and thousands more just because it's never been deployed and nobody's encountered them yet?
- bborud 5mo ago
  You appear to not understand my argument. IPv6 is over 30 years old. The world has not embraced it. It isn’t going to. It is time to call it and try to figure out something that will work. You do understand that one need not have a better idea to make that observation? The observation is self-evident and can exist in the world regardless of what we think about IPv6 or the feasibility of figuring out something people will want to use. Getting defensive and playing “then you come up with something better”-games is not getting us anywhere. It is just part of the problem. It is unproductive. 30 years. Let’s not waste more time.
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    So now please get to step 2 of the argument: why do you think a world that did not embrace IPv6 (a false premise by the way, as 50% of internet traffic is IPv6) would embrace IPvBBORUD?
    - bborud 5mo ago
      Again, you are not getting the argument. IPv6 is dead. It is better go give up and see what else can be done. Stop and think about what I'm saying before you react. Are you suggesting we spend another 30 years beating a dead horse?
      - icedchai 5mo ago
        Google is seeing almost 50% IPv6 adoption: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6... Yes, it started out slow. But from 2016 to 2026 we've gone from 10% to almost 50%. In some countries, it is much higher. It would be a waste of time to deploy yet another standard.
      - tardedmeme 5mo ago
        If you call 50% of internet traffic "dead" then I guess IPv4 is dead too. Again, you have refused to answer what would make IPvBBORUD better?
  - t43562 5mo ago
    That would indeed be a disaster because there is a lot of IPv6 usage and a lot more support from operating systems and hardware that has to exist first and now we should start again with something else would introduce a 3rd unsuccessful attempt with ....what benefits?
AndrewDucker 5mo ago
IPv6 is over 50% of Google requests. It's made it. It's the future. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

by bborud 5mo ago

msla 5mo ago

For the same reason we, in 2026, are still talking about Java.

zadikian 5mo ago
Java bent a lot to accommodate. There are lambdas and records which violate the old OOP rules, and now virtual threads which were sorely missing for things like web backends.

tardedmeme 5mo ago

What do you think should be done instead? If ipv4 but with longer addresses (which is called ipv6) is not to your satisfaction, what would be? You want to completely overhaul the internet like in ipv8 and you think ipv8 doesn't have the exact same problems and thousands more just because it's never been deployed and nobody's encountered them yet?

bborud 5mo ago
You appear to not understand my argument. IPv6 is over 30 years old. The world has not embraced it. It isn’t going to. It is time to call it and try to figure out something that will work. You do understand that one need not have a better idea to make that observation? The observation is self-evident and can exist in the world regardless of what we think about IPv6 or the feasibility of figuring out something people will want to use. Getting defensive and playing “then you come up with something better”-games is not getting us anywhere. It is just part of the problem. It is unproductive. 30 years. Let’s not waste more time.
- tardedmeme 5mo ago
  So now please get to step 2 of the argument: why do you think a world that did not embrace IPv6 (a false premise by the way, as 50% of internet traffic is IPv6) would embrace IPvBBORUD?
  - bborud 5mo ago
    Again, you are not getting the argument. IPv6 is dead. It is better go give up and see what else can be done. Stop and think about what I'm saying before you react. Are you suggesting we spend another 30 years beating a dead horse?
    - icedchai 5mo ago
      Google is seeing almost 50% IPv6 adoption: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6... Yes, it started out slow. But from 2016 to 2026 we've gone from 10% to almost 50%. In some countries, it is much higher. It would be a waste of time to deploy yet another standard.
    - tardedmeme 5mo ago
      If you call 50% of internet traffic "dead" then I guess IPv4 is dead too. Again, you have refused to answer what would make IPvBBORUD better?
- t43562 5mo ago
  That would indeed be a disaster because there is a lot of IPv6 usage and a lot more support from operating systems and hardware that has to exist first and now we should start again with something else would introduce a 3rd unsuccessful attempt with ....what benefits?

AndrewDucker 5mo ago

IPv6 is over 50% of Google requests. It's made it. It's the future. https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html