5 ms·

Criticism truly is the currency of HN.

• p1mrx 12y ago
  The only way we'll ever move beyond IPv4 is to criticize every new thing that requires it. I don't know whether that's the case for this network (for all I know, it might not be IP-based at all), but the inability to dual-stack one's public-facing website, nearly two years after World IPv6 Launch, is a failure that more people should acknowledge.
  • gress 12y ago
    Do you know who hosts their website?
    • p1mrx 12y ago
      195.154.183.147 -> AS12876 -> http://www.online.net/ http://www.online.net/ I use IPvFoo to get the IP address, then copy-paste it into http://bgp.he.net/ http://bgp.he.net/ . Note that the www.online.net does at least have working AAAAs.
      • gress 12y ago
        That implies that the lack of ipv6 support on their website has nothing at all to do with their technology.
• wyager 12y ago
  Criticism is how you figure out what to improve. And, for what it's worth, I agree: If we're going to have lots of little devices, we're going to need IPv6's larger address space.
  • joshu 12y ago
    Given: - how many Unintended Consequences happen in protocol interactions - how easy it would be to DDOS a tiny, low bandwidth device - how bad nanufacturers are at writing security oriented software Is a fully end-to-end internet actually a good idea? It was a dream, and now a nightmare. All those little devices at your house are going to be BLE connected to some device behind a NAT firewall.
    • p1mrx 12y ago
      Globally-unique does not imply globally-reachable. Any security feature you dream up for IPv4 can be applied to IPv6 as well. The fundamental issue is not public vs. private, it's whether you want to design new technology around an address space that's far too small. Here's the spec for IPv6 over BLE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-btle-01