this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
909 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

25548 readers
489 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

fun fact, the RFC introducing NAT calls it a "short-term solution"

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1631

[–] Tiger_Man_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 1 week ago (21 children)

I hope nat burns in hell when ipv6 will become standard

[–] Opisek@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

It's the year of the ipv6 server

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 26 points 6 days ago (15 children)

Ipv6 is broken for those that want control over their home networks thanks to Google and terribly written RFCs.

All that was needed was an extra byte or two of address space, but no, some high and mighty evangelicals in their ivory towers built something that few people understand 30 years later. Their die hard fans are sure that this will be the year of ipv6. The Year of Linux on the Desktop will come 10 years before the year of ipv6.

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ipv6 is broken for those that want control over their home networks

I don't see how? Works great for my home network.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I want per device firewall and DNS rules for myself, the wife and the kids. With opnsense or pfsense I don't believe this is possible with SLAAC, which is what android only supports.

Shove all devices on a flat network with no special firewall rules and you are probably golden. But trying to control your own network, last few times I've tried, is impossible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] electricyarn@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

And 10 years before fusion power?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

bro just add another octet to the end of ipv4. That goes from 4 billion to a trillion and will most definitely outlast modern electronics and capitalism

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I think they must have thought: 'Well we thought four and a quarter billion was going to be enough. We don't want to repeat the mistake, so let's create an unimaginably large address space.'

Which, with the benefit of hindsight, now looks daft itself.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 5 points 5 days ago

It looks daft now with a little hindsight, but we're kind of still in the foresight stage for the overall life of IPv6.

[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Also for home network I don’t won’t my IOT to have a real IP to the Internet. Using IPv4 NAT you can have a bit of safety by obscurity

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 8 points 5 days ago

NAT is not much different to a firewall though… just because the address space is publicly routable does not mean that the router has to provide a route to it, or a consistent route

NAT works by assigning a public port for the outgoing stream different to the internal port, and it does that by inspecting packets as they go over the wire: a private machine initiates a connection, assign an arbitrary free port, and sends that packet off to the router, who then reassigns a new port, and when packets come in on that port it looks up the IP and remapped port and substitutes them

that same process can easily be true in IPv6 but you don’t need to do any remapping: the private machine initiates a connection, and the router simply marks that IP and port combination as “routable” rather than having to do mappings as well

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Its unlikely someone with guess your ipv6 of your iot.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, but it’s far easier to explain how to configure your home network such that 182.168.1.* is for your regular devices like laptops, etc. and 192.168.2.* is for your IoT devices. Then block all access from 192.168.2.* to the internet so your IoT devices can’t “phone home”, can’t auto-update without your knowledge, can’t end up as part of a botnet, etc.

[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's the thing, you are still thinking in ipv4 terms, and that's ok. It's a different way to think of things using ipv6 and the proper way to configure them. No worries tho. Not like you are being forced to ipv6 for internal home networks.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok, so what would the equivalent be?

[–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 days ago

Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›