809

Roses are red, violets are blue, everyone is using IPv6, why aren't you? (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by carrylex@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

232 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Context:

People have been asking for IPv6 Support on GitHub since years (probably a decade by now)

... and someone even got so annoyed that they decided to setup a dedicated website for checking this: https://isgithubipv6.live/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ngn@lemy.lol 3 points 5 months ago

whats the problem with IPv4?

[-] chris@l.roofo.cc 11 points 5 months ago

IPv6 changed some things. First and foremost it has a huge address space:

IPv4: 4294967296 (2^32)
IPv6: 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 (2^128)

Then they simplyfied some things:

Removed Broadcast in favor of Multicast and Anycast
Added autoconfiguration without a DHCP server
Better subnetting support

And much more

[-] ngn@lemy.lol 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

            we already have enough IPv4 addresses thanks to stuff such as NAT and CG-NAT, these devices also protect the end-user by not directly exposing their IP to the internet
what's the problem with broadcast? also afaik IPv4 also supports multicast
what's the problem with IPv4 subnetting?

[-] chris@l.roofo.cc 1 points 4 months ago

In my opinion NAT is a hack that makes lot of things harder than they should be. STUN and TURN are services that are created because there is no easy way to connect two hosts between different NATs. UPnP for port forwarding is another. CG-NAT is even worse. I have heard of so many people having problems with it.

Breadcast is messy. It is like screaming into a room and waiting for an answer. Multicast lets the computer decide if it wants and needs to listen to a specific group message.

IPv4 didn't have cidr from the beginning. They only had classes. IPv6 was designed with complex routing and sub routing in mind.