Should probably fix that given we've been out of IPv4 for over a decade now and v6 is only becoming more widely deployed
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
353 points (96.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
19623 readers
2719 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. Though I wonder if ipv6 will ever displace ipv4 in things like virtual networks (docker, vpn, etc.) where there's no need for a bigger address space
I hope so. I don't want to manage two different address spaces in my head. I prefer if one standard is just the standard.
Yes, because Docker becomes significantly more powerful once every container has a different publicly addressable IP.
Altough IPv6 support in Docker is still lacking in some areas right now, so add that to the long list of IPv6 migration todos.
I'm using IPv6 on Kubernetes and it's amazing. Every Pod has its own global IP address. There is no NAT and no giant ARP routing table slowing down the other computers on my network. Each of my nodes announces a /112 for itself to my router, allowing it to give addresses to over 65k pods. There is no feasible limit to the amount of IP addresses I could assign to my containers and load balancers, and no routing overhead. I have no need for port forwarding on my router or worrying about dynamic IPs, since I just have a /80 block with no firewall that I assign to my public facing load balancers.
Of course, I only have around 300 pods on my cluster, and realistically, it's not really possible for there to be over 1 million containers in current kubernetes clusters, due to other limitations. But it is still a huge upgrade in reducing overhead and complexity, and increasing scale.
I wish everything would just default to a unix socket in /run, with only nginx managing http and stream reverse sockets.
Wait, but if you have, for example an HTTP API and you listen on a unix socket in for incoming requests, this is quite a lot of overhead in parsing HTTP headers. It is not much, but also cannot be the recommended solution on how to do network applications.
Replacing a TCP socket with a UNIX socket doesn't affect the amount of headers you have to parse.
Then why does it still break everything lol
Skill issue
It's not real.
we’ve been out of IPv4 for over a decade now
Really? Haven't had trouble allocating new VPSs with IPv4 as of late...
You're probably in a country that got a ton of allocations in the 90s. If you came from a country that was a little late to build out their infrastructure, or even tried to setup a new ISP in just about any country, you would have a much harder time.
It is incredible to me how some people think they make themselves look smart by wearing their willful ignorance like a crown.
Cisco as a client tried to force ipv6 for their managed service and after an entire quarter of attempting to resolve it, we actually disabled it for their virtual address per their request. IPv4 has issues and IPv6 promises solutions, but it's not a stable platform yet. This appears ignorant but is based on truth. IPv6 is also eventually going to hit exhaustion with the frequency we spin up virtual machines, it's okay to skip a bad generation.
IPv6 is also eventually going to hit exhaustion
Top-tier trolling right here.
I'm sorry but how? We have appliances with dockerfiles, micro containers for remote controls, extensive botnets of virtual machines, centuries in the future when we have expanded into the solar system and trillions of humans all having millions of unique applications with addresses, it's inevitable to hit a finite number. When every square meter of smart road has an routable address; we will likely be rewriting networking anyways. The only players pushing IPv6 transition are networking companies because a new standard requires new hardware.
IPv6 has a total of 3.4E+38 addresses, and the entire surface area of the earth is 5.1E+14m². If we divide those two, then we find that you can have 6.7E+23 addresses for every square meter of your Saharan desert or Pacific Ocean smart roads. If civilization doesn't collapse due to nuclear wars or climate catastrophes and we actually do make it to the stars, I doubt that we would still be using the centuries-old and deprecated internet protocol.
IPv4, in contrast, has 4.5 billion addresses, and there are currently 8 billion humans on Earth. While not every of them lives in the parts of the world with internet, that number will most likely soon shrink to nearly nothing. When everyone and their dog has a smartphone, laptop, desktop, console, smart TV et cetera, that 4.5 billion doesn't seem nearly as big as it first once seemed to be.
This isn't a Y2K-scale problem that will summon armageddon if we don't solve it immediately, but our current solutions to the overflowing IPv4 addresses are well-polished hacks at best. IPv6 will ensure end-to-end connectivity for many years to come.
So, yes a few pieces of land mass tech such as smart road or solar paneling and we hit the theoretical limit of IPv6. And we currently dont need the addresses. So glad that you agree
Why is your smart road using significantly more than a billion addresses (understatement) per square meter?
This thread is a dumpster fire, routing infrastructure, solar panel addresses, we are adding this to EVERYTHING WE ALREADY HAVE that is growing exponentially. I work on an L7 support team, regular users are clueless on how this stuff is setup and apparently have strong stupid opinions. Anyone still reading disable ipv4 in your home network and try to roll forward. You will fail, and finite numbers are finite.
Ipv4 is one of those things that works awesome, is simple, and is a victim of its own success. Ipv6 is just complicated bloat of a standard. Cool features, but nobody implements them, so useless.
In 30 years, probably useful. Until then, I'm not giving up Ipv4.
idk man ipv4 NAT sounds like the "complicated bloat" to me.
Wait this is real?
No, it's an edit. I linked the original in the post text. If you can't access it for some reason, here's a transcript:
Government of the Netherlands
Home > Topics > Coronavirus COVID-19 > Travelling to the Netherlands from abroad
Checklist for travel to the Netherlands
Do not travel to the Netherlands.