DefederateLemmyMl

  • Gen𝕏
  • Engineer ⚙
  • Techie 💻
  • Linux user 🐧
  • Ukraine supporter 🇺🇦
  • Pro science 💉
  • Dutch speaker
  • 0 Posts
  • 48 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle

  • We are talking about addresses, not counters. An inherently hierarchical one at that. If you don’t use the bits you are actually wasting them.

    Bullshit.

    I have a 64-bit computer, it can address up to 18.4 exabytes, but my computer only has 32GB, so I will never use the vast majority that address space. Am I “wasting” it?

    All the 128 bits are used in IPv6. ;)

    Yes they are all “used” but you don’t need them. We are not using 2^128 ip addresses in the world. In your own terminology: you are using 4 registers for a 2 register problem. That is much more wasteful in terms of hardware than using 40 bits to represent an ip address and wasting 24 bits.


  • you are wasting 24 bits of a 64-bit register

    You’re not “wasting” them if you just don’t need the extra bits, Are you wasting a 32-bit integer if your program only ever counts up to 1000000?

    Even so when you do start to need them, you can gradually make the other bits available in the form of more octets. Like you can just define it as a.b.c.d.e = 0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.a.b.c.d.e = 0.0.0.a.b.c.d.e

    Recall that IPv6 came out just a year before the Nintendo 64

    If you’re worried about wasting registers it makes even less sense to switch from a 32-bit addressing space to a 128-bit one in one go.

    Anyway, your explanation is a perfect example of “second system effect” at work. You get all caught up in the mistakes of the first system, in casu the lack of addressing bits, and then you go all out to correct those mistakes for your second system, giving it all the bits humanity could ever need before the heat death of the universe, while ignoring the real world implications of your choices. And now you are surprised that nobody wants to use your 128-bit abomination.




  • You don’t even have to NAT the fuck out of your network. NAT is usually only needed in one place: where your internal network meets the outside world, and it provides a clean separation between the two as well, which I like.

    For most internal networks there really are no advantages to moving to IPv6 other than bragging rights.

    The more I think about it, the more I find IPv6 a huge overly complicated mistake. For the issue they wanted to solve, worldwide public IP shortage, they could have just added an octet to IPv4 to multiply the number of available addresses with 256 and called it a day. Not every square cm of the planet needs a public IP.


  • It’s when you have to set static routes and such.

    For example I have a couple of locations tied together with a Wireguard site-to-site VPN, each with several subnets. I had to write wg config files and set static routes with hardcoded subnets and IP addresses. Writing the wg config files and getting it working was already a bit daunting with IPv4, because I was also wrapping my head around wireguard concepts at the same time. It would have been so much worse to debug with IPv6 unreadable subnet names.

    Network ACLs and firewall rules are another thing where you have to work with raw IPv6 addresses. For example: let’s say you have a Samba share or proxy server that you only want to be accessible from one specific subnet, you have to use IPv6 addresses. You can’t solve that with DNS names.

    Anyway my point is: the idea that you can simply avoid IPv6’s complexity by using DNS names is just wrong.











  • That’s committing the cardinal sin of cherrypicking your backup contents. You may end up forgetting to include things that you didn’t know you needed until restore time and you’re creating a backup that is cumbersome to restore. Always remember: you should really be creating a restore strategy rather than a backup strategy.

    As a general rule I always backup the filesystem wholesale, optionally exclude things of which I’m 100% sure that I don’t need it, and keep multiple copies (daylies and monthlies going some time back) so I always have a complete reference of what my system looked like at a particular point in time, and if push comes to shove I can always revert to a previous state by wiping the filesystem and copying one of the backups to it.



  • I’ve found that the silliest desktop problems are usually the hardest to solve, and the “serious” linux system errors are the easiest.

    System doesn’t boot? Look at error message, boot from a rescue disk, mount root filesystem and fix what you did wrong.

    Wrong mouse cursor theme in some Plasma applications, ignoring your settings? Some weird font rendering issue? Bang your head against a wall exploring various dotfiles and rc files in your home directory for two weeks, and eventually give up and nuke your profile and reconfigure your whole desktop from scratch.