Thread

1. nicoburns · 1790875496 · focus · HN ↗

   From what I'd read, SHA256 in git is showing every sign of being another IPv6. In particular:

   - It's implemented in a non-backwards-compatible way

   - The benefits over the older model are a bit nebulous

   - There's a large amount of tooling that needs to catch up, and little sign that there is movement there

   1. gspr · 1790875741 · focus · HN ↗

      > - The benefits over the older model are a bit nebulous

      This is far from the case with IPv6!

      1. post-it · 1790875886 · focus · HN ↗

         Is it? There are many benefits in principle to IPv6, but if my ISP continues to assign me a single dynamic IP, those benefits are entirely moot for me.

         1. bityard · 1790876202 · focus · HN ↗

            If your ISP is assigning you a single IPv6 address, they are doing IPv6 wrong. You should be getting your own /56.

            1. ghusto · 1790879738 · focus · HN ↗

               Every time you use the word "should" you're fighting reality.

               1. bigstrat2003 · 1790901391 · focus · HN ↗

                  If an ISP chooses to deploy a technology in a bad way, that is not the technology's fault. Even if most ISPs were just giving users a /128 address (which to be clear, is very much not the case), that would not be some kind of failure of IPv6.

                  1. ghusto · 1791044314 · focus · HN ↗

                     IBM and to a larger extent Microsoft's business tactics in the 80s and 90s were not a failure of Amiga, Linux, or Apple (technology and capability-wise).

                     The fact that porn was allowed on VHS wasn't a failure of the Betamax technology.

                     Preventing key-jamming on typewriters is not a failure of Dvorak.

                     The technology does not matter, the real world decides. Right now, there is no reason for people to care about IPv6, other than when it's the cause of issues.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.