←back to thread

The IPv6 Transition

(www.potaroo.net)
215 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 20 Oct 24 05:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
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 #
1. xnyan ◴[20 Oct 24 20:38 UTC] No.41898280{3}[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?