this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
908 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

25512 readers
2283 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

fun fact, the RFC introducing NAT calls it a "short-term solution"

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1631

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 221 points 5 days ago (23 children)

I know it's a joke, but the idea that NAT has any business existing makes me angry. It's a hack that causes real headaches for network admins and protocol design. The effects are mostly hidden from end users because those two groups have twisted things in knots to make sure end users don't notice too much. The Internet is more centralized and controlled because of it.

No, it is not a security feature. That's a laughable claim that shows you shouldn't be allowed near a firewall.

Fortunately, Google reports that IPv6 adoption is close to cracking 50%.

[–] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 103 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I think NAT is one reason why the internet is so centralized. If everyone had a static IP you could do all sorts of decentralized cool stuff.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 74 points 5 days ago

Right, not the only reason, but it's a sticking point.

You shouldn't need to connect to your smart thermostat by using the company's servers as an intermediary. That makes the whole thing slower, less reliable, and a point for the company to sell your personal data (that last one being the ultimate reason why it's done this way).

[–] Creat@discuss.tchncs.de 41 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Everyone having a static IP is a privacy nightmare.

There's a reason the recommendation in the standard for ipv6 had to be amended (it whatever the mechanic was) so that generated local suffixes aren't static. Before that, we were essentially globally identifiable because just the second half of your v6 address was static.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 26 points 4 days ago (15 children)

Ipv6 is broken for those that want control over their home networks thanks to Google and terribly written RFCs.

All that was needed was an extra byte or two of address space, but no, some high and mighty evangelicals in their ivory towers built something that few people understand 30 years later. Their die hard fans are sure that this will be the year of ipv6. The Year of Linux on the Desktop will come 10 years before the year of ipv6.

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Ipv6 is broken for those that want control over their home networks

I don't see how? Works great for my home network.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] electricyarn@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

And 10 years before fusion power?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Tiger_Man_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 5 days ago (22 children)

I hope nat burns in hell when ipv6 will become standard

[–] Opisek@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

It's the year of the ipv6 server

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

bro just add another octet to the end of ipv4. That goes from 4 billion to a trillion and will most definitely outlast modern electronics and capitalism

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think they must have thought: 'Well we thought four and a quarter billion was going to be enough. We don't want to repeat the mistake, so let's create an unimaginably large address space.'

Which, with the benefit of hindsight, now looks daft itself.

[–] TWeaK 5 points 3 days ago

It looks daft now with a little hindsight, but we're kind of still in the foresight stage for the overall life of IPv6.

[–] domi@lemmy.secnd.me 61 points 5 days ago (8 children)

My favorite thing to use IPv6 for is to use the privacy extension to get around IP blocks on YouTube when using alternative front ends. Blocked by Google on my laptop? No problem, let me just get another one of my 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 IP addresses.

I have a separate subnet which is IPv6 only and rotates through IP addresses every hour or so just for Indivious, Freetube and PipePipe.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (3 children)

This is exactly why ipv6 was never widely adopted. There's too much power in a limited IP pool.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 46 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Surely we can do better. Why not IPv10? That's 4 higher than 6!

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

not sure if you're aware thats a real thing https://www.ipv10.net/

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 25 points 5 days ago

Guess we have to crank it up to 11, then.

[–] OozingPositron@feddit.cl 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

>Forbidden

>You don't have permission to access this resource.

Awesome.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago

Obviously. You can only access it in IPv10.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 49 points 5 days ago (5 children)

The reason IPv6 was originally added to the DOCSIS specs, over 20 years ago, is because Comcast literally exhausted all RFC1918 addresses on their modem management networks.

My favourite feature of IPv6 is networks, and hosts therein, can have multiple prefixes and addresses as a core function. I use it to expose local functions on only ULA addresses, but provide locked down public access when and where needed. Access separation is handled at the IP stack, with IPv4 it’s expected to be handled by a firewall or equivalent.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 31 points 5 days ago (3 children)

My favorite feature of IPv6 is that there are so many addresses available. Every single IPv4 address right now could have its own entire IPv4 range of addresses in IPv6. It's mind-boggling huge.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 58 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Skill issue

IPv6 is easy to do.

2000::/3 is the internet range

fc00::/7 is the private network range (for non routing v6)

fe80::/64 is link local (like apipa but it never changes)

::1/128 is loopback

/64 is the smallest network allocation, and you still have 64 bits left for devices.

You don't need NAT when you can just do firewalling - default drop new connections on inbound wan and allow established, related on outbound wan like any IPv4 firewall does.

Use DHCPv6 and Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) to get your subnets and addresses (ask for a /60 on the wan to get 16 subnets).

Hook up to your printer using ipv6 link local address - that address never changes on its own, and now you don't have to play the static ip game to connect to it after changing your router or net config.

The real holdup is ISPs getting ultra cheap routers that use stupid network allocation systems (AT&T) that are incompat with the elegant simplicity of prefix delegation and dhcp.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 53 points 5 days ago (16 children)

In my personal life I will probably "never" intentionally use ipv6.

But it is a DAMNED good sniff test to figure out if an IT/NT team is too dumb to live BEFORE they break your entire infrastructure. If they insist that the single most important thing is to turn it off on every machine? They better have a real good reason other than "it's hard"

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] eah@programming.dev 30 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 37 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Meh, the idea of having every address be globally routable makes a lot of sense. NAT is a great bandaid but it's still a bandaid. It still limits how peer to peer and multicast applications function, especially on larger networks.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thejml@sh.itjust.works 44 points 5 days ago (6 children)

I use IPv6 every day and everywhere I can. It solves so many issues in large corporate and ISP network setups. And yes 10. Wasn’t big enough, and NATing is a PitA.

Honestly we just keep pushing it off when it’s not that bad. Workaround after workaround just because people are lazy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Also for home network I don’t won’t my IOT to have a real IP to the Internet. Using IPv4 NAT you can have a bit of safety by obscurity

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 8 points 3 days ago

NAT is not much different to a firewall though… just because the address space is publicly routable does not mean that the router has to provide a route to it, or a consistent route

NAT works by assigning a public port for the outgoing stream different to the internal port, and it does that by inspecting packets as they go over the wire: a private machine initiates a connection, assign an arbitrary free port, and sends that packet off to the router, who then reassigns a new port, and when packets come in on that port it looks up the IP and remapped port and substitutes them

that same process can easily be true in IPv6 but you don’t need to do any remapping: the private machine initiates a connection, and the router simply marks that IP and port combination as “routable” rather than having to do mappings as well

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 33 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (12 children)

Just my perspective as a controls (SCADA engineer):

I work for a large power company. We have close to 100 sites, each with hundreds of IP devices, and have never had a problem with ipv4. Especially when im out in the field I love being able to check IPs, calculate gateways, etc at a glance. Ipv6 is just completely freaking unreadable.

I see the value of outward-facing ipv6 devices (i.e. devices on the internet), considering we are out of ipv4s. But I don't see why we have to convert private networks to ipv6. Put more bluntly: at least industry, it just isn't gonna happen for decades (if it ever does). Unless you need more IPs it's just worse to work with. And there's a huge amount of inertia- got one singular device that doesn't talk ipv6 at a given generation site? What are you supposed to do?

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] SteveTech@programming.dev 22 points 5 days ago

Fun fact: IP version 5 is actually reserved for the Internet Streaming Protocol.

[–] MissingGhost@lemmy.ml 28 points 5 days ago (5 children)

I'm surprised by the comments here. I use 90% IPv6. For me v4 is only present for retro compatibility. The transition was hard however.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›