@threat @Data

> but it's been nothing but a pain.

Second-system syndrome. You look at the shit in the RFCs in the 1990s and it's overly ambitious, full of shit that no one's gonna implement correctly, but they keep plodding along and yelling that their utopia is the the inevitable future and that everyone else had better get with the program, and I will give you all of my money if anyone has ever spent 30 years yelling "My utopia is the inevitable future, you cannot resist progress, we have to jump now and worry about the world not being ready after we've converted!" and their utopia actually happened and it even vaguely resembled the brochure. I think it'll end up spreading through the space where it currently lives, it'll be the freight elevator of the internet. We'll move to Tor or something before that ever happens.

> my guess is isps will continue to nat+cgnat tf out of customers. this is fine by me.

I hate NAT but I think I hate IPv6 more. But I go look at the Go mailing list and here's a CVE for that stupid "IPv4 address represented in IPv6" and I have been saying for years that no one was going to parse it correctly. Look at RFC5964: if they can't even get the BNF right on the first try, what's supposed to happen?

:chuckmoore: Chuck Moore pointed out, completely accurately, that people are shitty at writing parsers and that this is one of the biggest sources of bugs. (I can't say I agree with his conclusion that we should abandon parsers altogether.)

> in retrospect, i should have bought many /24's back in the 00's. i could be a rich man with multiple datacenters sitting back playing with servers and counting cash :franciscointensifies:

:franciscointensifies: