A shorthand version would be better.
Ideally if the router ip address is 1, Subnet would be 1.0/24, Client 1.2
Client IP: 1.1
Router: 1
Subnet: 1.0/24
Gateway: 1
I'm too lazy for ipv6. Nothing to celebrate about ipv6 except for a bigger pool and some other minor +.
Either way if those users want routable IPs going forward and not be stuck behind CGNAT then they'll have to use their brains and learn something new.
The truly lazy people like yourself and remain in some sort of segmented Internet I suppose.
> The truly lazy people like yourself and remain in some sort of segmented Internet I suppose.
That last sentence doesn't add anything to the conversation. Your comment wouldn't lose anything by removing that.
Also, this one:
> they'll have to use their brains and learn something new
could have been simply written as follows, again without losing anything:
> they'll have to learn something new
> I'm too lazy for ipv6. Nothing to celebrate about ipv6 except for a bigger pool and some other minor +.
Symmetrical construction is nice. :)
Additionally, it's pretty appropriate to say:
> Either way if [advanced users who are setting up static, globally routable IPs for machines] want routable IPs going forward and not be stuck behind CGNAT then they'll have to use their brains and learn something new.
Any sysadmin who is configuring a server that requires a globally routeable IP is expected to use his brain. Moreover, he will be expected to have to use that brain to learn new things from time to time, lest his systems become crusty and unmaintained.
There are many things that can go wrong when you configure a machine as an Internet peer. Some amount of savvy and smarts is required.
Good point. But I found the OP's statement inappropriate, either.
> Any sysadmin who is configuring a server that requires a globally routeable IP is expected to use his brain
Everyone is expected to use their brain. Implying that somebody doesn't use their brain is dehumanizing.
That kind of isults should have no place on HN.
OP (workworksleep) was calling himself lazy. You consider it inappropriate to call oneself lazy?
> Everyone is expected to use their brain.
If you work in a technical field, and have not had the inhuman good fortune of never working with C or D players, you will know that some sorts of people will -not infrequently- fail to meet expectations by failing to engage their brain. This isn't an insult, it's a statement of fact.
A Comp Sci student who requests that others write his 1xx or 2xx level homework for him would be quite rightly accused of not using his brain.
Hell, on my worst days, I've failed to use my brain and spent 8+ hours writing code that was -at best- hilariously roundabout and overly complex or -at worst- didn't even solve the problem I had intended to solve. When reviewing days like that, I openly admit to not using my brain and accept the shame and wasted effort that came from my failure.
What would you call a network administrator who knew IPX/SPX inside and out but refused to learn IP networking, declaring -like workworksleep did in his OP- that he was "too lazy" to do so and that there wasn't enough benefit to overcome his laziness?
Indeed, "use your brain" is not an insult if you say that to people you know pretty well, especially if they just did something extremely stupid that was easily avoidable.
However, I still find it inappropriate to say that to strangers on the internet which you don't know. Of course you can try to extract a lot of character information out of a single sentence that somebody said, but the error rate is quite high.