alt Hacker NewsIPv4 is absolutely fine. Consumers can be behind NAT. That's fine. Servers can be behind reverse proxies, routing by DNS hostname. That's also fine. IPv4 address might be a valuable resource, shared between multiple users. Nothing wrong with it.
Yes, it denies simple P2P connectivity. World doesn't need it. Consumers are behind firewalls either way. We need a way for consumers to connect to a server. That's all.
Replies
IPv4 usage in its current state would've been much more limited and annoying in a world without IPv6. Therefore, IPv4 exists as-is thanks to others adopting IPv6.
> IPv4 is absolutely fine. Consumers can be behind NAT.
I don't want our communications infrastructures to be just for consumers.
Yeah, if you ignore literally every use of the internet except "check Facebook" then it's perfect.
Unfortunately, the internet is used for a lot more than using one of the six gigantic centralized websites.
> Yes, it denies simple P2P connectivity. World doesn't need it.
Worth pointing out that this article was written by the now-CEO of Tailscale. I don't know if "The world doesn't need P2P connectivity" is a compelling take.
A lot of us don't like this "you will own nothing and you will be happy" kind of energy.
This comment exemplifies my worst fear and reinforces my somewhat incomplete idea that IPv4 is perhaps overall safer for the world, and that "worse is better" depending on what you're optimizing for.
Roughly, it's my belief that an IPv6 world makes it easier for centralizing forces and harder for local p2p or p2p-esque ones; e.g. an IPv6 world would have likely made it easier to do bad things like "charge for individual internet user in a home."
The decentralization of "routing power" is more a good thing than bad, what you pay for in complexity you get back in "power to the people."
You're the reason I have to call my ISP to host a minecraft server for a couple of my friends.