Today in our newest take on “older technology is better”: why NAT rules!

  • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    IPv6 = second system effect. It’s way too complicated for what was needed and this complexity hinders its adoption. We don’t need 100 ip addresses for every atom on the earth’s surface and we never will.

    They should have just added an octet to IPv4 and be done with it.

    • eyeon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      it’s not about using all 100 IP addresses for every atom

      it’s about having large enough ranges to allocate them in ways that make sense instead of arbitrarily allocating them by availability

    • orangeboats@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Every time there’s a “just add an extra octet” argument, I feel some people are completely clueless about how hardware works.

      Most hardware comes with 32-bit or 64-bit registers. (Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64.) By adding only an extra octet, thus having 40 bits for addressing, you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register. Or wasting 24 bits of a 32-bit register pair. Either way, this is inefficient.

      And there’s also the fact that the modern internet is actually reaching the upper limits of a hypothetical 64-bit IPv5: https://lemmy.world/comment/10727792. Do we want to spend yet another two decades just to transition to a newer protocol?