(no title)
no_identd | 1 year ago
See apenwarr's by now nearly a decade old blog post "The world in which IPv6 was a good design": https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810, previous discussions of it here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=The%20world%20in%20which%20IPv..., as well as the follow up blog post here: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20200708, previous discussions here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
And the issues with IP (and by extension, TCP, ignoring the fundamental results from the Delta-T research at Lawrence Livermore keeps biting us all in the ass) whether IPv4 or IPv6 go even deeper, far deeper, than what that blog post already tells us, so here, have this—flawed in some minor aspects, which makes CCIEs burry their head in the sand of denial about the deeper point of it—polemic for dessert: https://web.archive.org/web/20210415054027if_/http://rina.ts...
ninkendo|1 year ago
Where did I give that impression? I tried my hardest in that post to not make a judgement call one way or the other as to whether it was a good design, only that dual stack fucking sucks.
My followup post in fact, totally agrees with you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43070286
immibis|1 year ago
aboardRat4|1 year ago
No it's not. Slaac and NA make it a totally different beast.
If ipv6 only had dhcp6-pd, it would have been "just like ipv4 with longer addresses".
growse|1 year ago
convolvatron|1 year ago
there is nothing really wrong with the design of ipv6 relative to ipv4