Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Aside from occasional snark, I don't understand most of your comment, and certainly don't see any good points that support IPv6 over IPv4.

> This is 99.6% wrong. I guess v4 isn't _that_ simple, huh?

Apologies for not being concise enough, I thought my point would have stuck regardless... 192.168.x.x

You are correct though. Mistakes also happen with v4 and it's not simple to a laymen, but it is certainly simpler than v6.



I think v6 is simpler in practice, due to not needing NAT. If the first part of my post is difficult to understand then that serves as a good demonstration of how hard v4 is once address exhaustion and NAT enter the picture.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: