@p@sjw@admin@parker@graf@john_rando@verita84@mint@Moon i get you prefer ipv4, i think given the right amount of technical rigor ipv6 is worth it, banning ip fragmentation, mandating link scope multicast (hopeful for site org scope eventually) and consolidating how you compute l3 and l4 checksums make it worth it. software broken by ipv6 is a software bug, imo someone needs to make an LD_PRELOAD hack to auto promote v4 to the v6 translation layer. the required pointershit workarounds would fuckin suck tho
> i think given the right amount of technical rigor ipv6 is worth it,
The deal is that there's nothing really compelling. It doesn't do anything that I want to do except provide more addresses, and it fucks that up with way too many addresses. What's the payoff for the effort? The internet isn't going to stop being a complete mess, and I don't think IPv6 meaningfully changes anything for anyone besides people that hack routers and BGP advertisements, aside from obliging people to cope with a horrible notation. (And one that makes previously easy things into things that most people cannot do. I can remember 32 bits for long enough to look at it in one place and type it in another. How many people can do this with 128 bits?)
> software broken by ipv6 is a software bug,
I don't think anything is broken by IPv6, unless you mean software that does not support IPv6.
> someone needs to make an LD_PRELOAD hack to auto promote v4 to the v6 translation layer.
This is not only a bad idea, it's the worst way to do it. You do it with the LAN's router. Good luck LD_PRELOAD'ing firmware on a machine that's welded shut. Sure, they should have gone with an open solution, but they didn't, and no amount of "but the checksum calculations!" is going to be worth shutting down operations.
The sheer amount of unpatchable, deployed hardware that does not understand IPv6 is more massive than all of the industrial systems that still use DOS, which is also never going away. You can say it's a bug, but a thing that was working as designed and that still works as designed is not buggy. In this case, you don't like the spec it was designed for. That's fine, but trying to force the new protocol, even if it were a better protocol, never works.
> It doesn't do anything that I want to do except provide more addresses, it doesnt do anything except fix the problem with ipv4 yea. it also gets rid of a lot of other vile shit like ip frag and mandates multicast at link scope. like bro.... come on it does everything it was designed too.
>I don't think anything is broken by IPv6, unless you mean software that does not support IPv6. tell that to software devs, they think it's the same thing. the software broke with ipv6? that's ipv6's fault bro!
>DOS those systems should never be on IP networks. you can hide those away forever with a firewall middlebox that translates all that to nat64 ranges.
all of those are embarssingly low iq takes come tf on dude.
> the absolute removal of allowing ip fragmentation.
Failure to name a single way in which it will improve anything I am doing.
> yes.
That's retarded and it makes you end up with emacs.
> get your industrial devices the FUCK off the public internet you filthy filthy stinking cretin
I don't run any DOS machines (last I checked) but I will figure out how to post to FSE from DOSbox on an ARM system and then, to twist the knife, I will put that on Github.
> it doesnt do anything except fix the problem with ipv4 yea. it also gets rid of a lot of other vile shit like ip frag and mandates multicast at link scope.
Name a single way in which it will improve anything I am doing.
I hate Linux and Plan 9 is a much better system that fixes most of the problems of stupid POSIX systems and all the vile shit that comes with them. Have you uninstalled Linux yet? No? You say you can deal with the problems because Linux is fit for your purposes? How strange that "fixes problems that don't bother you" isn't more of a motivating factor.
> come on it does everything it was designed too.
So does Plan 9.
> the software broke with ipv6? that's ipv6's fault bro!
If your editor doesn't support EBCDIC, then it is not because your editor is designed for ASCII/UTF-8, it's because your editor is buggy.
> those systems should never be on IP networks bro.
"Shouldn't" means nothing. "Is" means something, because there is an effect when it stops.
But I wasn't talking about DOS machines connected to the network. I said DOS isn't going away and is still used in industrial machines: likewise, several real-world systems work with IPv4 and not IPv6 and you are not going to replace those systems. Far more systems like that are mission-critical for people and businesses than crusty DOS boxes. As I said, 'no amount of "but the checksum calculations!" is going to be worth shutting down operations.'
Also IPv6 sucks and the address notation is terrible.