Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The fact that this comments section indicates such a yawning chasm of gaps in knowledge (much less, understanding) - in a forum whose users are generally known to be more technically savvy than most - is exactly why IPv6 is still not widely adopted. There is confusion about the less obvious benefits, confusion about how it works, confusion about the dangers (how do I adjust my well honed IPv4 spidey senses?), and confusion about how I transition my current private network. An epic failure of change management.

Here’s a prediction. Linux on the desktop will have >50% penetration well before IPv6 does.




It's so funny to see predictions that aged worse than milk. Ipv6 adoption isn't up to individuals, it's up to ISPs. We consumers aren't supposed to know about ipv6. The change will be silent and continuous.


“Given addresses” != adoption. Hell, I had to disable it in osx because it breaks the damn hotspot connection functionality. Wasn’t using it, it’s just there, breaking shit and being useless.


Google's stats are tracking the percentage of people that reach Google over IPv6. That means they've not just been given addresses, but they configured them and are actively using them. How can that possibly not count as "adoption"?


That’s Apple’s fault. Why are you blaming it on IPv6? Oh, because Apple can do no wrong.


Measly 30 years after it was approved. We will likely get AGI before we finish the transition.


> The fact that this comments section indicates such a yawning chasm of gaps in knowledge (much less, understanding) - in a forum whose users are generally known to be more technically savvy than most - is exactly why IPv6 is still not widely adopted.

No, it isn't. Everyone here has the causality backwards. We don't know it because we've never needed to know it, and we've never needed to know it because it's not really required for anything (i.e. the cost of adopting/learning it > benefit).

This has been a frustrating HN discussion to read, to be honest, because the consensus view strikes me as so off base. It's not that IPv6 has been miscommunicated, or that it hasn't been taught enough to undergrads. It's that it has been designed with virtually no incentives to encourage people to actually adopt it, with the entirely predictable consequence that no one adopted it. Therefore, none of us need to know it, schools don't need to teach it, etc.

Folk are internalising the wrong lesson here. Incentives matter. No amount of mandated IPv6 instruction or well-intentioned blog posts explaining IPv6 are going to change anyone's incentive structure. And then when those things fail, there's a predictable and tiresome tendency to blame the users for not switching.

If you want people to adopt new tech, make it actually do something new. Give people some reason to want to switch. "It mostly does the same thing as the old tech did, but it also takes effort and money to learn it / switch to it" is a terrible pitch, with entirely predictable consequences, and it's far too common in technical circles.


> with the entirely predictable consequence that no one adopted it

As the sibling comment pointed out: it's very close to 50% adoption, you just don't see it https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html


> There is confusion about the less obvious benefits, confusion about how it works, confusion about the dangers (how do I adjust my well honed IPv4 spidey senses?), and confusion about how I transition my current private network

Could you be specific about what the misconceptions are?


I had Copilot produce this for you based on the comments in this discussion (as at just before the timestamp of this comment).

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/656dEMHWyFye5cCeicgGv


Interesting that this is getting downvoted. I truly wonder why. One of the things LLMs are good at is summarising and extracting key points. Or should I have gone to the trouble to do this myself - read the entire comment thread and manually summarise - when the person I was replying to hadn’t done that? My comment was meant in good faith: “here’s the info you wanted and how you can easily get them yourself next time”.


1. People come here for discussions with real people. The other night I was at a party and we had a great time playing chess and board games. It would be weird if someone started using stockfish, even if it is a better player. Everything stockfish does, it already knows. It doesn't learn or explore the game-space.

2. The response is still too wordy, generic, and boring. So LLMs are not really better players, at least for now.

3. With LLMs, you can produce a ton of text much faster than it can be read. Whereas the dynamic is reversed for ordinary writing. By writing this by hand, I am doing you a favor by spending more time on this comment than you will. But by reading your LLM output I am doing you a favor by spending more time reading than you did generating.

You could probably get away with using an LLM here by copying the response and then cutting down 90% of it. But at that point it would be better to just restate the points yourself in your own words.


So cheap questions where the answers could be readily had are not downvoted even though the answers to their question are right here in the discussion. Whereas because I did not do the legwork that my correspondent would not do, I am penalised. That’s what I’m hearing.

EDITED TO ADD:

> by reading your LLM output I am doing you a favor by spending more time reading than you did generating

How could my respondent (presumably on whose behalf you are making the argument) possibly be doing me a favour when they asked the question? Is it each of our responsibility to go to some lengths to spoon feed one another when others don’t deign to feed themselves?


And yet the llm did a better work of disparaging everyone comments as uniformed, which they are btw.


You're not offering anything of value. We all can ask some LLM about stuff we want to know. It's like in the past, when someone would post a link to search results as a reply.


One would think that in 30 years there will be some sort of best practises established. Some articles to refer people to. Or at least some people to share their experience and answer practical questions.

And yet there is still only "you doing it wrong, and I won't tell you how to do it right"


IPv6 existence is questioned not because people fail to configure it. It’s because they do not understand the problems it solves. Those problems are so large they’re invisible at the individual human scale. You either know them (which is not a secret) or invent superficial charges against the design.


No. People fail to configure it. Then start to question why this piece of garbage exist.

It doesn't matter what problems it supposed to solve if it doesn't work.


Here's a counter: people don't need to configure it. They just need to connect to the network and the network is smart enough that it's essentially plug and play.


Maybe your magic ipv6 configures everything.

My have certain shortcomings: it doesn't assign dns names to hosts and doesn't configure firewall rules


> less obvious benefits

if they are so unobvious that nobody knows about them, perhaps they are not benefits at all, but fringe minutiae?


Perhaps. Who knows? <<< that’s the point I’m making.


> such a yawning chasm of gaps in knowledge ... in a forum whose users are generally known to be more technically savvy

There is a heck of a Dunning–Kruger joke to be made here.


No. It's not adopted everywhere because it's awful. At least on the data center side.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: