IPv6: Fuck you, you’re only allowed one, now. Yeah, yeah, I know there are about 340 undecillion addresses in the space, but I know better than you, no one in history has ever needed to bind different services to the same port on the loopback interface, and if they did they were doing it wrong. Oh you made an RFC draft? Well I let the one from 2015 2012 expire, so good luck with your current proposal, pleb.
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
Cake day: August 5th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
lawks@aussie.zoneto
Open Source@lemmy.ml•France’s Weird Per-Gigabyte Data Tax Could Cost VLC Over €1 Million a Year!
15·3 days agoCaps? I’m betting they’d just block entirely, like Imgur did to the UK.
So it’s fair that you are neutral about them for your own use, clearly you know what you’re doing. It doesn’t make sense to be neutral about them, generally. On usability alone they are not good. There are so many people who don’t have a clue how they work, or their consequences, and just click okay when continually harassed into using them. Some will even go ahead and save one on a shared computers, or someone else’s, ‘because the website says so’.


So the onus is on every individual user, to pick a random ULA prefix, bind specific addresses from it to the loopback interface, which is a different procedure for different OSes, probably requires root or elevated privileges, can have hard limits on, document it, etc. Greeeeaaaaaaat design. IPv6 gives out
/64like they’re about to turn bad, but can’t spare a/104? Gimme a break.I can dig a hole with a spoon, too, but if someone made it so that no one was allowed to dig holes with shovels unless they build their own (and have permission to build the shovel), when previously everyone was allowed to dig with shovels, I would not think highly of that person’s wisdom.
Maybe you think G. Huston of APNIC and W. Kumari of Google don’t really know what they’re talking about?