| ▲ | traderj0e 2 days ago | |||||||
Another way to do ipv6 without government intervention is to make it 1. actually what people want, just v4 with more bits 2. have a reasonable migration path from v4. They made something overcomplicated that disregards all existing users, and now they act like this was the only possible way to avoid address exhaustion and it's everyone's obligation to switch. Even if the govt successfully forced v6, it'd be a downgrade. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Dagger2 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
v6 mostly is just v4 with more bits, and it has a reasonable migration path from v4 too. I don't think a more reasonable migration path is even possible given the constraints of v4. About the only thing new in v6 that's not already in v4 is SLAAC, which isn't very complicated. Routing works the same, the addresses work the same, DNS, TCP, firewalling etc all work the same. If anything they removed complexity by dropping broadcast and making NAT unnecessary. People just have some very weird misconceptions about v6, and will frequently argue that e.g. it was badly designed for not doing a thing that it does actually do, or for not doing something impossible. | ||||||||
| ||||||||