• ikoz@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    There was a cool project that converted hexadecimal numbers (or IPs) to pronouceable words. I think it was also more dense, and of course faster to say / easier to remember.

  • Dumhuvud@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    4 hours ago

    /64

    That’s not an address, that’s a whole fucking subnet consisting of 2^64 different addresses. ☝️🤓

    • LaggyKar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      It is a single address with an associated subnet mask, indicating what subnet the address is in.

      The subnet would be 3fff:a1:1ab:bc67::/64, for the top one.

  • kungen@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Does IPv6 scare you so much that you start craving the monstrosity known as NAT44?

    • slate@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it. And it’s pretty cozy with its firewall features. And somewhat human readable ipv4 addresses are nice.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        25 minutes ago

        Idk man, NAT makes a lot of sense once you get used to it.

        That’s a lie, NAT is bullshit, sometimes necessary, but it will never “make sense”.

        • slate@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 minutes ago

          I like that none of my local devices are externally addressable unless an outgoing connection has been established. You can (and should) achieve the same thing with ipv6, but then it’s essentially just maintaining a NAT table without the translation piece. I think that makes sense in both protocols.

      • Dumhuvud@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        ISPs putting you behind NAT is not cozy.

        They charge extra for a feature called “static IP”. But the IP address not being static is not the issue, for me at least. You could host stuff with a dynamic IP back in 2000s/2010s. But no, now you get to share the same IPv4 address with a bunch of other households, unless you pay extra.

        • slate@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 minute ago

          Ha, yeah that sucks and I’d absolutely hate it if I were behind a CGNAT. But I believe most ISPs don’t do that. None of mine ever have. Just like how most ISPs provide you with an ipv6 address range, but not all. Fact is that crappy ISPs can screw up you’re network no matter what ip spec your using.

          And I’ve never heard of a business network being behind an ISP controlled CGNAT. A NAT you control can be nice.