New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@jsg no one wants to adopt IPv6, IPv6 sucks
@jsg oh, apple wants to adopt IPv6, now apple sucks
Does this suppose to be a serious argument in tech thread? Because it sounds rather religious to me.
So, people were actually correct. It's not a problem in IPv6, but you ... as usually with people without tech skills but heavy opinion about them.
If I misinterpreted your post I apologize. Your language did not really reflect your standpoint as you explained it in your second point.
I've been involved in previous threads, believe me. You can probably without effort find several hundreds posts where I question jsg's fanatical anti-ipv6 rants.
I love discussions but even I admit that some discussions are not worth having. However, jsg mostly keeps his rants relatively civil and he argues his points, albeit some of them have been refuted several times others are actually valid even if not as dealbreaking as he implies them to be. On a forum that still thinks posts about ipv9, the nigh sect and internal jokes about mjj's and push-ups are relevant I would not say that jsg is even in the bottom half of irrelevant posters.
TL;DR I interpreted your post as jsg not being allowed to have an opinion because he was not qualified. If you simply meant that it is a waste of time to discuss it with him, I can see your point.
So did a lot of things. Do you really think refusing to use something because it came after something else is a good argument? That pretty much kills any chances of improving...anything really.
64-bit software came after 32-bit software, are you still refusing to use 64-bit software? Or are you even refusing to use 32-bit since it came after 16-bit?
The whole "it has to be backwards compatible" argument kind of falls short if you compare software to ip, 64-bit software runs about as well on a 32-bit os as ipv6 talks to ip4. Still, the world managed to move to 64-bit eventually, so why shouldn't we be able to move to ipv6?
The only problems Matt Duggan faced was due to other people still not having adopted ipv6 and that is a problem that is going away, although way to slowly. To quote Matt Duggan: it's a shame.
Normal users perspective is "I don't care".
We here, techies or nerds or geeks or whatever you chose to call us, are the ones that make the decisions. If we refuse to move on and adopt ipv6, then it will never happen and we will be stuck with ip4, increasing prices, CGNAT, a fragmented routing table etc. If we chose to adopt ipv6 and solve every problem ip4 is currently facing, I promise you that the normal users would not even have an opinion on it because they would not even notice it. As long as they get to youtube, tiktok or whatever it is they want to see, it can be delivered via ipv9000 for all they care. They do not know, they do not want to know, they simply do not give a shit. It is up to us techies to chose how we chose to deliver it, since that is our job, not theirs.
If you by normal users mean people like Matt Duggan their perspective is that it sucks, it's a shame we have not fixed this already and the people who are still refusing should fix their shit. Not in those exact words, but you get the point.
Nope, apple sucks (for me anyway). Since decades. Now the IPv6 element just adds, but then, it doesn't surprise me.
You interpreted it perfectly fine - exactly as was intended. But of course [self-censored] who wobble when it risks to get a bit hot are a dime a dozen.
No, that's not what I think. But I think that people expect the "new" to be at a very minimum as good as the "old" and typically clearly better.
While the "new" ideally indeed should be backwards compatible, it at least must be good enough to be fully accepted as a good replacement for the "old".
Take your own example: When 64-bit processors came up they were "backward compatible"; one could continue (in the worst case for quite many years) one's 32-bit software. Also 64-bit OSs allowed (and mostly still allow) to run 32-bit software without any problems (or, in the worst case needing to click "run in 32-bit mode").
Your comparison is not adequate and, if at all, works against you.
That may be your interpretation. Mine was that he basically said "I'd love to use IPv6 so much, but hell it's a pile of crap" (in actual practical use) at least).
... as long as it works right away, "with no or very little effort", and reliably.
It seems that some mobile providers have got it right - and indeed I do not care if and as long as my smartphone "just works", which it does (I'm not at all sure though that with my provider IPv6 is used).
The people's "I do not care" needs to gained/earned, e.g. by Google and providers somehow "magically" (i.e. by quietly taking care of any mess in the background).
Finally, another practical point: It's not enough that my provider gets it right. Reason: if I'm working at a client's side my laptop must fully and without any extra steps or efforts also work right away.
With an IP4 stack, that is the case (unless, extremely rare case I never experienced so far, my client happens to be a total idiot and has IPv6 connectivity only - in which case I'd simply turn around and leave anyway). With a dual stack that (usually) works too, it seems.
But not the other way around because quite many clients have IP4 only. Now, of course I could have a dual stack on my laptop - but also could have Ubuntu or even worse Windows on my laptop, but I don't and I won't any time soon.
At the end it's simple: Do not make lots of noise about replacing IP4 very soon(TM), but rather create an acceptable and accepted IP4 successor - instead of (I try hard to be polite and constructive) something that only fans like and accept. Simply give us along the lines of what the racknerd (or was it rackspace?) network guru laid out.
Give us a reasonable space size and a properly working approach without changing anything but the absolutely necessary!
I find it funny when I'm called stubborn because look at the IPv6 crowd! They tried to actually basically force their crap upon us and they utterly failed to gain > 90% acceptance in over 20 years - yet they don't say "hmmm, let's come up with something more reasonable" but rather [self-censored because I want to be friendly to you].
Let me tell you about the highly probable upcoming nightmare (for the IPv6 fans): There will be a way found to see IP4 not suffocate yet not forcing IPv6 upon us. Probably a mixture of packing NAT more densely and asking a small extra fee (say $1 or $2/mo) for an extra set of ports, somehow shelling out cheap user premise plastic boxen with IP4 to IPv6, etc. And major regions of the server side internet will stay IP4 and it'll even get cheaper again (although highly likely not free).
Simple reason: people, especially businesses always find a way plus there is a vast pool if IP4s (hundreds of millions) where they have control (e.g. by providing new plastic boxen).
And unlike fervent techies the business types have a rather cold perspective. They'll sooner or later simply say "You (IPv6 guys) had your chance, a good, even fat chance ... and you f#cked up and didn't find the required acceptance. So, try again - and this time you better come up with something that will be accepted ... or else ...".
That's heavy emotional, childish response.
At first, you're all about how IPv6 isn't well adopted, how no one wants to adopt it and so on and so on ... and when you hear that Apple actually support and require it, you're not happy again.
Imho. you're not fit for this discussion. You contradict yourself just for the sake of your religious beliefs.
@jsg just admit it you dont want to type ipv6 addresses in your chrome tab so you hate it
or you hate improvements
or you hate yourself and have nothing to do
or you are stubborn and you dont like getting disproved
this thread is already going to hell
stop being childish
grow up
accept the change
Ad hominems are what people without real arguments, and often excited or angry, come up with.
Have a nice weekend, everyone
That is because you turned it backwards. I never talked about 64-bit processors, I said 64-bit software.
When 32-bit software was introduced a lot of people was "It does not run on my 16-bit os, I refuse to use it!" When 64-bit software was introduced, it was the same thing. But somehow, we moved on.
This has been the exact same thing whenever technology makes progress. My father cursed hell and brimstone when they shut down NMT in favor of GSM and promised that he would never again own a cellphone. A year later he was happily using his GSM phone and had completely forgotten NMT ever existed. Same thing when they shut down analogue TV broadcasts and forced everyone to switch to digital receivers. Big crowds of people vowed that they would never accept the switch, and now most people cant even remember a time when TV was not digital.
Are we reading the same article? He had no problem at all getting ipv6 to work, every single problem he experienced was due to other people not yet supporting ipv6!
There is a really big difference between saying "ipv6 is a pile of crap" and saying "ipv6 is not useable due to slow adoption". In the first statement the problem is the protocol. In the second statement the problem is the people that haven't been able to adopt in 20 years. I will question the hell out of the first statement but I will gladly agree with the second.
Exactly! This has been my point all along! We, the techies or whatever we call ourselves, should make the switch in the background, seamlessly for the users. They do not need to notice, they do not want and do not need to know.
Google and Facebook announced full ipv6 support in 2016 and 2017, they run dualstack and work perfectly fine with ipv6 only. Google statistic shows that 45% of its users are ipv6 native and it is steadily increasing.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption
For some reason others like Github still have not managed to do it despite promises for many many years. I find it very unlikely that Github faces more advanced technical challenges than Facebook or Google, so I have no idea what's holding them back.
If you have Ubuntu or Windows you have dualstack, it has been the default for many many years. And dualstack does not "usually" work, it simply works. I've been running dualstacks for over a decade and has never experienced any problem due to it. It's not even difficult or advanced, it's been the default in most os'es for many years.
But the basic problem is still the same, the only problem with ipv6 is that some people have not adopted it yet. Everything you try to point out as a problem is due to slow adoption. Refusing to adopt something due to slow adoption is making you part of the problem, not the solution.
Your argument that it works if both sides run only ip4 can be used as an argument for ipv6 as well, it works if both sides run ipv6. That is simply a statement, not an argument.
And what was that? I must have missed the RFC with a 100% backwards compatible protocol that solves the lack of addresses without altering the adress space. Just tell me where to get it and I will start using it immediately.
What is the problem with a big space size? Why does it matter if we go from 32-bit to 64-bit or 128-bit, you would still have to update every piece of software to accommodate the new size.
And why, in the almost 30 years of ipv6 existence, have nobody come up with such a solution? I mean if that's what people actually wants, why has it not happened?
If ipv6 is so utterly broken and useless, why has it not been replaced or fixed?
Nobody has forced anything. Ipv6 was presented as a RFC and then people started using it and companies adopted it. If it was forced people would be forced to use it, and clearly, they are not.
Highly probable? Not likely, ip4 is already suffocating in spite of heavy usage of NAT, both domestic and CGNAT. The routing is fragmented beyond salvation and the prices of ip's are steadily increasing. Major corporations are already hoarding ip's because they know that they will just keep increasing in price and will soon be the bottleneck to future development.
We must have a very different experience of business types. Every business type I have come in contact with the last 5 years have demanded that whatever I'm selling must support ipv6 or he walks away.
The business types that run Cisco, Juniper, HPE, Huawei and all the other networking giants are basically not talking about anything besides IoT and ipv6, I can not tell you how sick and tired I am of seeing their powerpoints show that everything they do support ipv6.
My guess is that once ipv6 reaches enough adoption people will sooner or later simply say "you ip4 zealots had your chance, we gave you 30 years to adopt and you f#cked up" and simply drop the dualstacks and move on. Granted, it is many years away, but there is no doubt in my mind that ip4 is not part of the future.
IPv4 setting is easier. It's "integrates" better in my DNS (at least I trust that); it has more credence to people. That's why it's much more popular for business and all-near
Yep, that is what I mean when I say it is "cool" and "vintage". People would think: how would I do business with this person when they can't even afford Ipv4? It must be a kind of a scam. Many people would even reconsider at the sight of a Xiaomi phone. Hey, they can't even afford an iPhone or at least a Samsung! How could I trust them?
OK, it seems I got you wrong - but that doesn't really change a lot. When 32-bit software came up and one had a 16-bit processor that was a very different situation because the point wasn't about "refusing" but rather that one simply could (often) not run that software. With IPv6 however one can choose.
Btw. one actually could do 32 (and even 64-bit) computations on a 16-bit processor; it just was bloody slow.
That may well be - but not this time with IPv6.
But that's not what they did.
I use neither, and you bent my metaphor to suit your needs.
OK, here seems to be the critical border line.
(a) you seem to consistently paint IPv6 as "perfectly fine and working troublefree". On the other hand you criticize the not fast and complete enough uptake of IPv6. Get it already! These people and companies might have good reasons to not accept and use IPv6.
(b) if slow adoption really were the only problem people could easily be lured into using it.
(c) if slow adoption really were the only problem there wouldn't be knowledgable people and even networking gurus of major DC players cursing IPv6.
(d) I take "slow adoption is IPv6's only flaw" to mean "Why the f#ck are you bloody refusers and IP4 fanatics not take what we've prepared for you?!" - aka "We did everything perfectly right. You refusers are the guilty party and evil!"
When I call the IPv6 weirdos (the ones in the mental asylum who came up with it) insane, you can admonish or even ad hominem attack me all you want, but I won't budge a millimeter. You need to convince me with solid facts and arguments.
Example: extending IP4 to 48 bits would solve the whole problem for quite a long time (although I still favour 64-bits because I like very solid reserves). But the idiot brigade insisted and insists on 128-bit - without any solid and reasonable argument but rather vaguely hand waiving and blathering about rice corns with an IP - while- the number of bits does have serious implications ranging from people being able or not to remember an IP to 128-bit processors/MCUs/ASICs being considerably more complex, expensive, etc, or simply not existing at all.
My perspective is that of an engineer. Unlike the IPv6 weirdos I actually know that the difference between an FPGA that can handle 128-bit addresses and one that can handle 48-bit addresses can be a killer (as in one costs $40 the other one costs $300). One you can get from China the other one leaving you with but 2 manufacturers in 1 country.
You (IPv6 proponents, not you as a person) went against rule #1 in a mass market: Keep it cheap, do not waste even 10 cents!
The day each and every senior network engineer in each and every significant DC fully accepts IPv6 will be the day when I begin to even consider to take IPv6 seriously. But that day still is far away (and please spare me the Google and other fans fanfare. Among other reasons because 99,9% of the worlds population is in a very different situation and e.g. can not sink a couple of mio $ into funny experiments).
Also kindly note that there (at least often) is a very significant difference between markets. With my smartphone, for instance, you can consider me like just any other ignorant idiot. If it works, if I can surf to every site in existence, I don't care whether IP4, IPv6, or racoon crap is inside.
With servers however the story is very different!
I can't easily short term memorize my IP? Big problem - for you. I'm not done with the default setup plus editing 2, max 3 lines in the config? Big problem - for you. I need to go dual stack? Big problem - for you. Plus a defty "f#ck you!" because my translation of dual stack is "IPv6 isn't mature and usable yet". You want to replace IP4 - then f#cking do it! Until then I stick with IP4, period. Plus: A "holy" rule of engineering: Keep it simple! Dual stack is the opposite, so thank No.
(Again, "you" doesn't mean you as a person)
See above. Short: Sorry, in real life going from 64 to 128 bits, needlessly at that, does not come for free.
Excellent question.
Because simply not adopting it does the trick.
A good example of the zealotry I typically encounter with IPv6 fans. The truth is different. It started innocent enough: media blasted about the oh so great new IP protocol. When it became clear though that IPv6 didn't find the "expected" uptake and its uptake was largely limited to a few large corporations it increasingly turned into propaganda and even big brother style. The media and "experts" increasingly bet on painting a grim picture for those not taking up IPv6 in a hurry. It wasn't "hey, jump on the wagon, it's great up here" anymore but rather "If you choose not to jump on the wagon, you'll end up dry in the desert", and it even turned into outright social pressure, just look at yourself: "IPv6 is great and could save mankind - but unfortunately some hardcore refuseniks stubbornly stand in the way towards happiness and block us!".
Which btw is also a, pardon me, stupid and impertinent attempt to bend the truth into the opposite. Because it was your, the IPv6 proponents, job to convince us of how great IPv6 is. It was not our job to push it. We simply didn't gulp your crap.
I'm not surprised to see an IPv6 proponent paint IP4 particularly dark and grim. It's what they increasingly do since about a decade - yet you failed to frighten us into submission. Your proposal simply is smelly and ugly.
We seem to indeed have very different experiences. But to keep it short: Not only did I not have even one single client demanding IPv6, but much worse for your campaign, neither did Rackspace according to their network guru.
OK, the explanation of the above: When you say "business types" you seem to refer to sales and marketing drones. I however refer to actual management and to those in charge of decisions and purchases.
Well, IP4 has served mankind more or less well and was and still is the IP protocol, while IPv6 still - after, your words, almost 3 decades - has to reach sufficient adoption.
I of course may be wrong, but my take is that IPv6 will end up as still born and IP4b, or IP7 or however the "basically IP4, just generously extended" IP will be called, will be the near and mid-term future (say, 100 years).
I have to ask, what OS are you using that doesn't, today, come dual stacked out of the box and with zero config going into a network attached to a modern router?
@jsg no offense but can you stop using personal insults? You keep saying basically ANY support for IPv6 is zealotry or that the people who invented IPv6 where someway mentally deficient or the other countless insults you have used, which just makes you sound incompetent as you have to rely on personal insults rather than using well reasoned arguments.
And the reason is that some people and companies have not deployed IPv6 yet.
What could make you drop the resistance and deploy IPv6? Nothing yet. When there would be no choice, you would, dropping out from the surface of the interwebs is not a "solution" in this day and age.
Yeah, I would curse too something that I would have to take responsibility for on top of my other problems without any extra reward in their place. In my shoes, no, because I like a challenge and if there is time left on my clock, I would gladly accept it, but many people come to their IT&C job just to put food on the table, not because they have fun there.
More or less. If there were no refuseniks we would have had no problems for the better part of two decades.
The argument: there are more refuseniks like me so the problem is elsewhere is like saying there are more people littering the street, the problem is with the city hall.
Well, that's how people react when an attempt is made to "shut up. Do as we say" force crap upon them.
As for the inventors/designers of IPv6 I'm seriously convinced that they have mental problems. No homo sapiens with a sane mind would come up with a "solution" based on "each and every grain of sand in the whole galaxy must be able to have its own min. million IP addresses!".
Your last sentence is wrong and nonsensical because I offer both. Btw. I don't fall for "be nice or we won't take you serious" traps; and indeed history shows that again and again rage was taken seriously.
Look, it's simple: 2^128 is treated as somehow holy - without any sensible reason. IF the IPv6 crowd were halfway serious people they would at the very least accept that their choice needs to be shown to be a sensible one.
Funny, btw, how from us who do not like IPv6, not only many compromises are expected but in fact what basically boils submission is expected - while - they make no compromises and often do not even provide sensible answers to questions.
Neither does NAT, but this is something people have already pointed out at you already. NAT is not a solution but rather an ugly patch to extend IPv4 lifetime.
You don’t have to be nice to be taken serious, you have to give formulated answers without resorting to personal insults. If you think these are the same thing then I’m sorry you shouldn’t be trying to debate anything.
Also if you so badly want a new IP standard that’s just v4 with more bits then how about you write an RFC and get large enough support for it to become an international standard for communications. Because you argument is basically just the age old meme of “We must make 1 standard to rule them all” after which there is just N+1 standards.
But it works for hundreds of millions of users/people and it's much less a pita than IPv6 for very many.
Emphasis mine (and I also changed the 2 asterisks to '#' to not disturb Vanilla's formatting)
Hmmm ...
Unfortunately you did not even understand me. It would be perfectly fine for me if e.g. IPv6 peacefully existed aside an "extended IP4". I even wouldn't mind at all if some people used it.
My point is not that IPv6 should be killed. My point is that (a) we need a sensible new but as far as possible IP4 compatible standard, and (b) I refuse to use, or to even take seriously, IPv6 because IMO it's insane and a pita.
(P.S. he meanwhile deleted the a##hole part)
I deleted the asshole part as I realized I was doing the same thing which wasn’t professional, and I wasn’t trying to use it as an insult I was trying to make a point but you are right I shouldn’t have done that as such I removed it.
Don't worry, I'm not particularly sensitive plus I'm used to insults and ad hominems. The reason I picked it up wasn't the insult issue but (a) the funny inconsistence, and (b) and more importantly, that it demonstrated how you think. Yes, usually, you/they clean up their comments before posting (or quickly thereafter) and such how they really think and feel; it looks nicer.
That's one of the reasons why I find it so funny how they (arrogate to) judge me and my alledged "bad behaviour" ... instead of contributing to the matter. And they are angry when I call them and/or treat them as what they (well, many of them) are: superficial morons who don't like it at all when someone doesn't care about their funny "rules".
Anyway, of course your indirect half-apology is accepted.
Can you say which carrier?
Yes, it is exactly what is happening with ipv6. People are kicking and screaming and just refusing to use it because they want things to be like it always has been. It is EXACTLY the same. Never has a new technology been introduced without some people just refusing to use it because that is just the sort of people they are.
Most of them actually did. You and Github did not, but that's pretty insignificant.
I bent nothing, I simply stated a fact.
So what os are you using that does not support dualstack? That is a serious question because it really makes me curious.
It is working perfectly fine, I've used it for 20 years and have had no problems at all with it.
I'm sure they have reasons. Could be lack of time or lack of skills or lack of money. In some cases I guess outdated hardware or software could be a reason, but then we are looking at systems at least 15 years old so they are due to be replaced anyway.
I have never heard of a single case where the reason have been a flaw in ipv6 itself, if you know of such a case please enlighten us.
Easily? Have you ever talked to yourself? Let me assure you, there is nothing easy in talking to you.
There is basically no reason for you to not adopt ipv6 and you are still blindly refusing to even consider it. There is nothing "easy" about getting zealots to approve of something, but as I've said earlier, this has been the same with every major technology change so nobody was expecting anything else this time either.
Sure there would, there are always people cursing everything. Rackspace has supported ipv6 since around 2010, so what one of their techies say is extremely insignificant.
I can find single individuals that curse ip4, computers in general, cars, or even electricity. That doesn't really make a valid point.
I would not phrase it like that, but wouldn't expect anything less from you.
Uhm, 45% of all traffic hitting Google is using a protocol invented by weirdos in a mental asylum? Good job, creds to them.
As I tried to explain before, statements like these does not make the inventors of ipv6 look like weirdos. It does make someone look like a weirdo, but it isn't them.
And in reality it is not even a problem. I just bought a tp-link for my sister for $25 that supports ipv6 perfectly so obviously the cheap stuff from Chine works just fine.
Maybe you as an engineer needs to leave the theoretical world for a while and visit the reality.
Over 70% of France use ipv6, Germany is only a few percent after, India is at 68%, the US of freaking A is over 50% and they are usually the hardest to get of their asses.
Where do you find that 99.9% of yours that is in a very different situation?
And in what why do you need a couple of million to run ipv6? For the vast majority of people it requires absolutely nothing, just do not disable it and it works. For providers it will probably require some work, but it's no different then ip4 and the addresses are actually cheaper.
If you need to replace hardware to run ipv6 your hardware is extremely old and should have been replaced long ago anyway, so you are not doing anything right anyway.
If you run anything bigger then a small home network, you do not memorize ip's. If you do run a small home network, you are actually insignificant.
Cant see why you shouldn't be, setting up ipv6 is no more work then setting up ip4 and you manage to do that, right?
Not really, every modern os today is dualstack per default, so if you want to NOT go dualstack, the fuck you is actually on you, you have to disable it.
That's your translation. Most other peoples translation is "there are still people left on ip4 so we have to take measures until they grow up".
Dualstack is as simple as it gets. Please enlighten me how you would replace a worldwide communication protocol as simple as possible. You can use 48 or 64-bit or whatever you want, but please explain how to make it simpler then dualstack.
And since I know you are going to just say "it has to be compatible", then please show me a protocol that is 100% compatible with ip4 but still expands the adress space.
See above. In reality, it does come for free. Nobody is experiencing the problems you claim exists. Theoretically I would concede that you have a point, in reality it is so insignificant it is non-existing.
Could it be that such a solution does not exist? That ipv6 is actually the best solution?
No it doesn't. Not adopting it solves absolutely nothing.
I don't get this "push it" argumentation and calling me a "fan" and what not.
I do not love ipv6, I'm not a "fan" of it. But it is the protocol the world have agreed on, me as a network engineer would have to be a complete moron if I just refused to use it. I've used ip4 for 40 years, it does not mean I'm a "ip4 fan".
It is nobodys "job" to convince anyone to follow standards. That's like driving on the left side of the road and claiming it's somebody elses job to convince me of how great it is to drive on the right side (assuming you live in a country where you drive on the right side).
If you feel a social pressure it could actually mean that you are the odd one, you are the one not getting it. I cant say that I can relate to even a tiny bit of your rant about propaganda and media since I have never seen anything like what you are talking about, but if you feel singled out it could be because you are doing the opposite of what everyone else is doing.
As opposed to what you try to do with ipv6?
And according to Rackspace's documentation they fully support ipv6 and has done so for at least 10 years, and they default to dualstack.
And I know for a fact that they do have clients that demand ipv6, as I have multiple customers that host with them and run ipv6 on everything.
Same thing, if I tried to sell one of my customers a network today that does not support ipv6 I would be asked to leave the room and without a doubt never hear from them again.
And to be honest, anyone spending millions on network equipment today and does not demand it to support ipv6 should be fired immediately.
I would say ip4 has served mankind tremendously well, it was designed during a time when there was no way that they could anticipate what the world looks like today and still it has managed to last as long as it did.
Still, if you could talk to people 40 years ago I guarantee you that there would be a bunch of zealots cursing hell and fire over the 32-bit adress space. "It is way to big, nobody need that much, our cpu's doesn't support it" etc etc. Sounds familiar?
You are wrong. You still think it is a question of if it will happen?
Over 50% of the world already supports ipv6 and it increases every day, we are just waiting for the rest to catch up.
While I'm certain we will run ipv6 10 years from now, I seriously doubt we run ipv6 a 100 years from now. Basically no technology in the history of human kind have survived a 100 years without major change and with the rapid evolvement of computers and networks I am certain that ipv6 will not be the first.
1000%.
Plot twist: IPv8 comes out with 256 bit addresses and one of the people on the RFC says, "there's enough addresses for every star in every universe (as well as parallel)" and then jsg becomes an IPv6 zealot.
@rcy026
This is your first post I did not even read completely, actually not even half of it. For a simple reason: Its TLDR basically boils down to 2 points, (a) attacking me, and (b) "Ipv6 is great, almost perfect", one of which is not even the topic of this thread, and both of which are, pardon me, boring.
Should you at some point in time demonstrate some ability to discuss the topic, I'll consider to try a discussion with you again. Until then I'll try my best to keep some respect for you.
Hint: "Whatever he says is worthless and wrong and gets belittled, declared to be wrong or irrelevant or is simply ignored" as an attitude and modus operandi is not a sensible way to have a discussion.
If you dislike/detest/hate/[whatever] me, no problem, just say it and be done. After all you are just some faceless entity on the internet for me - you could however, on top of that, also be someone whom I regard as a professional, a kind of remote peer, whom I treat as such, but alas, you seem to have decided to not act like that.
And IPv6 still is an insane protocol, and I did provide evidence for that, while you did not provide a solid technical argument against it.
The solution for "dwellings for 4 billion families on earth will sooner or later not be sufficient" is NOT "Ok, let's build 4 billion times 4 billion times 4 billion times as many dwellings!" - unless, of course, one is an imbecile.
Have a good time but kindly refrain from offering mere ad hominems and yet more repetitions of your "IPv6 is great!" mantras to me. Give me a reasonable chance to keep some respect for you alive.
O ffs... it was NOTHING like that.
You're really really delusional. And I don't mean this as a personal attack, but in the most basic sense and it's not even IPv6 related.
It's just impossible to have with you some mature discussion as you can't cope with other people's argumenta and you feel every well-argumented objection as a personal attack.
This can't be real...
You man, you're the one who's incapable to discuss the topic and you don't even realize it. Just look at all the effort and time @rcy026 spend to explain you some thing or two and all what you could so was to serve him some random shitposting in return.
I am not saying this as a personal attack regarding his nationality, but this is a type of person, regardless of nationality (okay, it is way more frequent in Russia because that's the education and "re-education" over there, but I digress).
So, if you are convinced nobody ever tells the truth and everyone disagreeing with you has an ulterior agenda, then you tend to react like that. Not only that your opinion is the right one, but discussing it is somehow dangerous and illogical because in your universe having a different opinion IS dangerous AND discussing it is pointless because (a) nothing would change anyway and (b) it is dangerous.
Say, you are a Trumpistani. First, being a Trumpistani means you believe in the "deep state" and that the "deep state" is after Trump and implicitly you. Discussing this "fact" is pointless, because nothing would change and it would draw the attention of the "deep state". You would take the propaganda at face value even when contradictory (i.e. the "deep state" is represented by the people you appointed yourself and are now leading the "witch hunt" even as your successor had every right to appoint someone else and left your choice in place, that is still not enough and nothing would ever be to change your opinion).
That is, when you are a bona fide believer and not one of the profiteers and cronies.
don't yall already think this thread is like talking to a wall?
It is always fun to dispel propaganda, regardless of what kind it is. Fossil fuel propaganda, Russian Imperial Propaganda, IPv4 propaganda, anti-vaxxer propaganda, Trumpistani Propaganda, Q-Annon and the like, Anti-Semitic propaganda, Anti-Islam, various kinds of economic propaganda (like in the Chinese case, but also many other cases).
Some of these ideas are discussed in the press where illiterate (in technology, medicine or economics, because in the Russian Imperial politics everything is clear even for the bona fide idiots, only those pretending to be idiots are still parroting the Russian Propaganda talking points even when they contradict themselves within the same phrase) people are pressing on with easily debunkable things.
I have fun debunking the lies even when repeated ad nauseum, always finding a new fun angle to attack the lies with the facts.
I don't even have to agree with the other side, exposing the lies in all contexts is fun for me.