490
CGNAT version 2
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
490 points (99.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
25594 readers
1169 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, the Universe keep making bigger fools (of us all). But, we should still use IPv6 instead of clawing the tattered remains of IPv4. I just wish my ISP agreed.
without a doubt ipv6 is an improvement. only loss is that it's humanely possible to remember ipv4 addressed, but that ain't necessary.
my only "objection" is that an actual solution should accommodate unlimited growth, rather than what we consider a big enough number.
I think that's a bad objection. It's idealistic in the worst way, it's making "Perfect [...] the enemy of the good". Plus, there are significant practical advantages to a fixed-length addressing scheme, and any fixed-length going to have a maximum. So, under the constraint of fixed-length addressing "big enough" is all we have.
128 bits really is quite hard to fill up, we'll have to worry about a lot of very different things before the run out of addresses. Like speed-of-light latency vs. TCP (and possibly TLS session) timers for interplanetary connections.