keiyakins

7 ms·

1.
by keiyakins 4y ago
There's only a very few places where typing IP addresses actually makes sense. Configuring DNS is the main one. Trying to isolate problems is another - if you can ping 8.8.8.8 but not google.com you can reasonably infer that the proble
2.
by keiyakins 4y ago
How would changes not have been required in the ISPs? An IPv4 router wouldn't know what to do with a 4.4 packet. At best, it'd route it to the wrong place - 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8 and 5.6.7.8 are totally different hosts that may well not
3.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Yeah, it's not always, but for most home networks it probably is. Ideally they'd give you a /56 or even a /48, but giving those on request and a /60 by default is fine.
4.
by keiyakins 4y ago
It probably was, seeing as Plan 9 was named after a movie.
5.
by keiyakins 4y ago
This article is kinda garbage, it gets simple facts wrong in the first sentence of the abstract (and again in the second sentence of the article): Plan 9 is not Unix. At all. It shares some ideas with it sure, but if that's enough to m
6.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Not if you want SLAAC to work, no.
7.
by keiyakins 4y ago
How are they blocking? You're just behind a NAT64, which is no worse than NAT44, with the bonus of having actual connectivity on the IPv6 side.
8.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Even? /60 should be the minimum , even home users usually have a couple subnets (guest networks for example, sometimes one for the router's WAN link) and you want the boundary to be on a nybble boundary
9.
by keiyakins 4y ago
IPv6 was designed in the late 80s/early 90s, before home users had internet access. At the time there was serious debate over switching to the OSI stack instead. You're showing your lack of history knowledge more than anything.
10.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Why are you using IP addresses directly? That's what DNS is for. There's even mDNS for in simple home networks. (The DHCP thing is valid but that's one single android dev being an ass who can't read deciding that it impo
11.
by keiyakins 4y ago
NAT is neither a privacy nor security feature, what are you talking about? Have you actually tested what your CPE does when it gets packets addressed to internal IPs from the WAN port? Almost every time, the answer is just pass it on to the
12.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Because on the wire it's encoded as four bytes. If you can make eight binary digits count up to 999, you can do a lot more than just make IPv4 last longer.
13.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Indeed, your system would require NAT4.44 as a transition mechanism, just like NAT64 is needed now. It gets no benefit over IPv6, and none of the other benefits like SLAAC. So, what's the point? It's no easier to migrate to, and o
14.
by keiyakins 4y ago
it's ::ffff:1.2.3.4, so that loopback can be ::1. But yeah same idea.
15.
by keiyakins 4y ago
so somehow 0.0.0.0.8.8.8.8 is an extension of the legacy address 8.8.8.8, and ::ffff:8.8.8.8 isn't?
16.
by keiyakins 4y ago
I suspect it's to make business plans artificially more appealing. After all, why offer a better service when instead you can just make your cheaper one worse?
17.
by keiyakins 4y ago
Why do you care how long the addresses are? That's what DNS is for. Within a link - most home networks are only one, and those are the ones that need to be simplest - there's even mDNS.
18.
by keiyakins 8y ago
Can we at least require you not to call yourself 'whatever news' if you're not at least trying to present factual information?
19.
by keiyakins 8y ago
On what grounds? Caveat emptor was the rule for a long, long time. It was only later when regulation and standards started coming into play that it was a thing. The courts can't just declare a legal thing to be bad.
20.
by keiyakins 8y ago
Or it's checking the monotonic time, not using the synchronized time (which is probably recorded as an offset anyway)
21.
by keiyakins 8y ago
I'm comparing the lowest models that meet my needs. Why should I have to pretend there's not cheaper, less powerful handsets that can fulfill my needs just to make Apple look better? (Granted, my strict needs could be met with one
22.
by keiyakins 8y ago
So? The entire promise of computers is programability. If you can't make it do what you want it to do, you might as well just get an old nokia.
23.
by keiyakins 8y ago
Apple is awful at providing a reasonable spread of devices though. There's no $50 iphone that does everything I need, I'd have to spend at least ten times that. Then I'd have to pay MORE to be able to develop and run my own
24.
by keiyakins 8y ago
So, you want to put that much power into Apple's hands? How do you expect them to remain on your side in that case?
25.
by keiyakins 8y ago
That's why we never had to do anything to address rampant fraud, cutting food with dangerous materials, straight up lying about what you're selling, con artists, snake oil salesmen, or irresponsible management of hazardous waste,
26.
by keiyakins 8y ago
> This comment was document of its time, several decades ago. Software has history. Everything humans do has history. So, should we never change documentation once it's written? When the technical details change, should the documen
27.
by keiyakins 8y ago
Fuck 'em. I'm not going to bend over backwards to coddle people who hate me for daring to exist. As for laws, I think the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: "I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One
28.
by keiyakins 8y ago
If he was dead serious, he's an idiot. There was never any proposal to ban all usage of the word 'abort' in the sense of 'bring to a premature end because of a problem or fault' or as a noun meaning 'an act of
29.
by keiyakins 8y ago
It's never helped anyone understand the technical material and it's caused at least one instance of confusion ( https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48445031/why-would-it-be... ), that's reason enough.
30.
by keiyakins 8y ago
I think you're looking at the wrong axis. This isn't an order-vs-chaos question, it's one of constructive vs destructive. This particular joke makes the manual worse, not better, at being a manual. Cut it and move on, and alw

More ›