Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrb | Hacker News Reader

The author suggests using deadbeef.1 instead of dead:beef::1. But his scheme cannot work. If you see deadbeef.ad there is no way to tell if it refers to his IPv6 notation, or to a domain under the .ad TLD (many other ccTLDs are valid hexadecimal numbers). And you can't replace the dot with a colon (because many of his other complaints were caused by colons). You can't use a character other than dot or colon (because so much network software is written assuming IPs/hostnames can only contains alphanumeric, dash, period, or colon chars that it would be too painful to introduce a new character).

So get over it. IPv6 is not meant to be usually exposed to endusers. Use hosnames. Use DNS, or mDNS or LLMNR on small networks without a resolver. Etc.

View on HN

It helps little to say it wasn't designed to be exposed, because it will. We have DNS now, and still many times we deal with raw ipv4s, end users too. It's not like we have a choice most of the times...

Most of the reasons why you have to type v4 addresses are irrelevant in a v6 network. In a small to medium network you just plug in the router and you're done. No picking a suitable private network, no configuring a DHCP server, no typing in manual router addresses. SLAAC is very nice like that.

If you need to connect from machine to machine in the lan, use mdns and host names. This already works out of the box even in v4.

Developers deal with raw ipv4s, but end users? Unless you're setting up a wireless router, when does that actually happen?

Not all, but many end users frequently need to input IP addresses when any type of connection is being made on a private network that isn't using DNS.

And that's when having a : every X letters will help you catch where you are when you'll be typing that long string.

Exactly. There wouldn't be any need for the colons if the addresses weren't intended to be looked at or typed by humans.

The article has an edit at the end suggesting double-dot to avoid the confusion.

> IPv6 is not meant to be usually exposed to endusers.

"You're holding it wrong". This is a crap argument against the article. Network admins have to manipulate this stuff all the time, and the article is written from the point of view of a netadmin, not an enduser. It's trying to describe both a problem (lack of client uptake despite support; struggles with human comprehension) and a potential solution. The idea that humans would never have to look at an ip6 address has proven to be a fantasy.

Agreed this why ipv6 is textbook case in how not to define a standard.

I admit I look at ipv6 and cringe at the thoughts of implementing it.

The double dot suggestion is a knee jerk reaction without any thinking put into it. And this is a non starter as ipv6 is an established and widely deployed standard for 10+ years, ranting about it could have been done differently will achieve nothing apart impacting the author reputation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com