←back to thread

The IPv6 Transition

(www.potaroo.net)
226 points todsacerdoti | 8 comments | 20 Oct 24 05:54 UTC | HN request time: 1.325s | source | bottom
Show context
Kelteseth ◴[20 Oct 24 06:45 UTC] No.41893424[source]▶
I've mentioned this previously. Without government-mandated standards, implementation could take years. We apply this approach to numerous areas; why should IP be an exception?
replies(5): >>41893675 #>>41893820 #>>41896592 #>>41899628 #>>41900310 #
robocat ◴[20 Oct 24 07:42 UTC] No.41893675[source]▶
A world of being told what to do was not the "dream" of freedom for the internet.

If you want the government to mandate standards, vote with your feet and move to China where it has been mandated.

I thought the point of the article is that perhaps IPv6 is ultimately unnecessary: worse is better?

Why are we engineers so attracted to authoritarianism? The idea of just telling everyone to use the new version seems attractive to me too. Then again I often deeply admire practical engineering compromises. (edited: clarified)

replies(3): >>41893792 #>>41898795 #>>41899311 #
Kelteseth ◴[20 Oct 24 08:12 UTC] No.41893792[source]▶
Agreeing on a common standard is not authoritarianism.
replies(3): >>41893819 #>>41893872 #>>41897977 #
1. kortilla ◴[20 Oct 24 19:46 UTC] No.41897977[source]▶
We have agreed on a common standard. It’s IPv6.

Forcing people to use it is authoritarianism.

replies(2): >>41898137 #>>41898280 #
2. Kelteseth ◴[20 Oct 24 20:08 UTC] No.41898137[source]▶
You are also forced to use a seat belt. Calling it authoritarianism when we want to enforce a standard is absurd.
replies(2): >>41898225 #>>41899647 #
3. kortilla ◴[20 Oct 24 20:26 UTC] No.41898225[source]▶
Seat belts have a reason. If I want to communicate with some computers using IPv4 or IPX, that’s my choice. Putting laws on what I can put inside of Ethernet is absolute stupidity
replies(1): >>41899081 #
4. xnyan ◴[20 Oct 24 20:38 UTC] No.41898280[source]▶
This seems like an extremely broad statement. You probably don't think all use of force is authoritarian, or not allowing any and all protocols to be used on the internet is force. Maybe, but not necessarily. Why specifically would retiring IPv4 be authoritarianism?
5. agubelu ◴[20 Oct 24 22:40 UTC] No.41899081{3}[source]▶
I fail to see how mandating ISPs to implement and use IPv6 is equivalent to "putting laws on what you can put inside of Ethernet"
replies(1): >>41912256 #
6. pessimizer ◴[21 Oct 24 00:25 UTC] No.41899647[source]▶
Being forced to use a seat belt isn't a standard, it's actually authoritarianism. And largely used as a pretense to pull people over without probable cause, rather than for any other purpose. Mandating that manufacturers have seatbelts in cars is the regulation of commerce. Mandating that ISPs provide ip6 is also the regulation of commerce. Ip6 itself is a standard.

A standard is something that people have to adhere to in order to measure things in a portable way, or for general interop. It's not anything that one is told to do by a government.

7. kortilla ◴[22 Oct 24 08:12 UTC] No.41912256{4}[source]▶
Maybe don’t talk about stuff you don’t have any experience with then. Many ISP products are carrying Ethernet frames (metro Ethernet, the fabric at an exchange) or are even just leasing fiber.

In order to force IPv6 and ensure nobody is using IPv4, you absolutely are putting laws on what goes over those Ethernet frames.

replies(1): >>42023521 #
8. immibis ◴[02 Nov 24 02:05 UTC] No.42023521{5}[source]▶
Presumably the proposed law is about normal Internet service. If you have Internet then you have IP6. If you don't then what you have isn't Internet. If your company cannot provide IP6 then you are not an internet service provider because you do not provide Internet service.

Why do people immediately assume that any possible regulation will be the stupidest possible regulation? Corporate brainwashing?