this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
104 points (94.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43893 readers
792 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Now currently I'm not in the workforce, but in the past from my work experience, apprenticeship and temp roles, I've always seen ipv4 and not ipv6!

Hell, my ISP seems to exclusively use ipv4 (unless behind nats they're using ipv6)

Do you think a lot of people stick with the earlier iteration because they have been so familiar with it for a long time?

When you look at a ipv6, it looks menacing with a long string of letters and numbers compared to the more simpler often.

I am aware the IP bucket has gone dry and they gotta bring in a new IP cow with a even bigger bucket, but what do you think? Do you yourself or your firm use ipv4 or 6?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

When I was first looking into IPv6, people were talking about how you can self-assign an address by simply wrapping an IPv6 address around your MAC address. But that practice seems to have fallen out of favour, and I'm guessing the reason is, as you say, the whole privacy thing? There's a lot of pushback these days against any tech that makes it easier to fingerprint your connection.

[โ€“] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That was so insane - "we need a unique number, let's just use the MAC" - it was like people didn't even think through any of the implications when making ipv6 address schemes.

Similar with the address proposals that ignored the need to minimise the size of core internet routing tables.

[โ€“] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]