←back to thread

The IPv6 Transition

(www.potaroo.net)
215 points todsacerdoti | 6 comments | 20 Oct 24 05:54 UTC | HN request time: 1.111s | source | bottom
Show context
uobytx2 ◴[20 Oct 24 21:14 UTC] No.41898529[source]▶
People posting have mentioned that IPv4 is working for what they use the internet for. But of course it is. When NATs has been required for your whole life, how could the internet have built features that needed p2p routing? Just convince businesses to build something that requires special router configuration? And still wouldn’t work on phones or with ISPs that require CG NAT? You got what worked out of the box. You obviously couldn’t use what didn’t exist.
replies(2): >>41899158 #>>41899246 #
tptacek ◴[20 Oct 24 23:08 UTC] No.41899246[source]▶
I can do more with the Internet today than I could with a static /22 assigned over my ISDN BRI back in the mid-1990s. A lot of things I would do back then, I would do differently today; running a chat system by connecting directly out to 6667/tcp feels pretty silly now, for instance. It's rough to build protocols that work that way today, but you're not missing much. Things were not better before the advent of presumptive NAT.
replies(2): >>41901019 #>>41905779 #
1. beeflet ◴[21 Oct 24 05:49 UTC] No.41901019[source]▶
p2p was simpler. The NAT epidemic has totally suffocated P2P because no one can host anything anymore.

You can't trivially host your own blog, for example, without going to your ISP and requesting a static address, and then configuring port forwarding. This is why everyone got stuck on social media, because they need someone else to run their website essentially.

replies(1): >>41901043 #
2. tptacek ◴[21 Oct 24 05:54 UTC] No.41901043[source]▶
That's a retcon. People used Blogger because it was more convenient than setting up Apache and PHP on a webserver of their own. Linux nerds for whom doing that is no big deal are an infinitesimal fraction of everyone who blogged.
replies(1): >>41901129 #
3. beeflet ◴[21 Oct 24 06:09 UTC] No.41901129[source]▶
why does it have to be such a big ordeal? A blog is pretty much just a static site.

Is it unimaginable that someone uses a HTML editor like microsoft word or something to write a blog and then copies it into the folder of a static web server? I'm sure it would be way simpler if people had the time to figure out P2P and the associated UI, it's not fundamentally super complicated versus client-server.

replies(2): >>41901499 #>>41902695 #
4. tptacek ◴[21 Oct 24 07:12 UTC] No.41901499{3}[source]▶
Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog. IPv4 is not why people use hosted services.
replies(1): >>41902868 #
5. bluGill ◴[21 Oct 24 10:39 UTC] No.41902695{3}[source]▶
What is complex is ongoing work. You have to watch for and apply security patches forever.
6. tcfhgj ◴[21 Oct 24 11:07 UTC] No.41902868{4}[source]▶
> Just the idea of having an always-on computer anywhere in your home excludes probably more than 80% of everyone who has ever written a blog.

I have yet to meet someone who turns off the router at night, although I have heard of such people.

Then if you think about it, TVs, washing machines, etc. people are too lazy to turn them off, and OLED TVs even require being turned on while not being used.