7 ms·
Just about every thread on HN has a debate between the optimal and why can't people just get it and the practical and why they can't get it to be optimal. If y
by garbagecoder 3y ago
Just about every thread on HN has a debate between the optimal and why can't people just get it and the practical and why they can't get it to be optimal.
If you can't implement it easy enough for it to be optimal once in place, it's not optimal. Whatever the advantages of ipv6 are, it wasn't enough to suck everyone in. You have to consider your environment. And re-training sysadmins is part of it and just telling them "lol it's easy" isn't going to do much to get them there.
By the time we get fully switched over, I wonder if we won't be pining for whatever comes next.
- WorldMaker 3y agoA lot of the trade-offs that people like to complain about IPv6 were specifically made to "rip the (backwards compatibility hack) band-aid off" and help make sure that we won't be pining for "whatever comes next" anytime soon. IPv6 could have been a lot more pragmatically backwards compatible, absolutely. It would have been much more doomed as a temporary solution in that case. The IPv6 we got was designed to be a more permanent solution, which makes it feel much less pragmatic. That's somewhat how trade-offs work.