And the issues with IP (and by extension, TCP, ignoring the fundamental results from the Delta-T research at Lawrence Livermore keeps biting us all in the ass) whether IPv4 or IPv6 go even deeper, far deeper, than what that blog post already tells us, so here, have this—flawed in some minor aspects, which makes CCIEs burry their head in the sand of denial about the deeper point of it—polemic for dessert: https://web.archive.org/web/20210415054027if_/http://rina.ts...
> Please avoid acting like IPv6 makes for a good design, because it doesn't.
Where did I give that impression? I tried my hardest in that post to not make a judgement call one way or the other as to whether it was a good design, only that dual stack fucking sucks.
Their router needs to know what devices are behind it so it can route to them. But if by "their router" you meant "your router"... your ISP doesn't need to know at all. They send all traffic for your prefix to your router, and your router figures it out from there. Your ISP has no idea what devices are involved.
The existence of privacy addresses suggests that some thought was put into this.
There are no more "your routers" for about 10 years. The router is given to you by the ISP, and you don't have the root password for it, you can only reboot it over an APP on your phone.
The prefix is also not delegated to that router, the router does npd proxying, and the ISP only routes the ips which have the corresponding NAs recorded into its database.
That's... not how things work in general. It would be possible for an ISP to do that, and I'm sure somebody somewhere does, but they could do the exact same thing on v4 so you don't get to blame v6 for it.
If your ISP runs the default router for your own LAN, they'll have full visibility into it on both v4 and v6. That's just how IP works.
Most ISP I have seen implement it like this. A large chunk of those "most" also require you to bind a phone number to each separate hwaddr appearing in the network via SMS. (Not all though.)
Those few that implement it differently, do the following:
They serve ULAs to the customers over slaac, and nat6 all the ULAs to a single ipv6 assigned to the router (actually a wifi hotspot).
I totally believe that where you live things are done differently, but this is exactly why ipv6 critics call it defective. It allows too large a variety in implementations.
That's the adaptation layer between Ethernet and IP.
Broadcast was renamed to "all nodes multicast". ARP was renamed to Neighbor Discovery.
Slight improvements: ND isn't broadcast, but multicast based on several bits of the IP address. This allows NICs to filter most of the irrelevant ones based on multicast MAC address. And subnet broadcast addresses were removed. There's only local broadcast to your own subnet and not to someone else's subnet, since IPv4 routers found that to be a bad idea and mostly started blocking it anyway.
that's not what this article says. I dug through it, and the main point seems to be 'It would have been beautiful. Except for one problem: it never happened.'
there is nothing really wrong with the design of ipv6 relative to ipv4
>It is tempting to attach a “dialup” modem to both sides, this would probably create the greatest modern day waste of a 100 GHz optical channel, given that it gives a final output bandwidth of ~40 kbit/s, and I assume this would probably confuse an intelligence agency if they were tapping the line.
Regardless of the fact that 48 kbps seems more likely, I'd really like to know the noise floor & SNR of that link
Good thing Computability Beyond Church-Turing via Choice Sequences[1] exists.
[1] Mark Bickford, Liron Cohen, Robert L. Constable, and Vincent Rahli. 2018. Computability Beyond Church-Turing via Choice Sequences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209108.3209200
<Memetic Components of Languages, probably, if they had drunk too much mean juice> Nice implicit metrics y'all got there, would be a shame if anything happened to 'em.
(yes I duped my comment into the dupe submission, so?)
<Memetic Components of Languages, probably, if they had drunk too much mean juice> Nice implicit metrics y'all got there, would be a shame if anything happened to 'em
You mostly had me at "Transclusion" (an unfortunate terminology in retrospect come to think of it, I wish Ted Nelson would offer a substitute term. Hyperthogonal transaction? idk)
Regardless of the social changes in recent decades, I think it is silly to decide to reserve the root "trans-" for a certain group when it has historically had multiple meanings. Correct me if you had some other reason.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/127365