Not just the edge router.
Not just the edge router. Every router between the ISP edge and the destination edge. And since the goal is “backwards-compatability”, you’d always need to poll, because a “legacy” IPv4 client would also be unable to send packets to the IPv4+ destination. Or receive packets with an IPv4+ source address. And it would be an absolute nightmare to maintain. CGNAT + a quasi backwards-compatible protocol where the backwards-compatability wouldn’t work in practice. So you would have exactly the same problem as IPv6. I can say the same about v4 and v6 today. You could just turn off IPv4 on the internet, and we’d only need to do translation on the edge for the legacy clients that would still use IPv4. You can even put IPv4 addresses in IPv6 packets!
Posted by sgjohnson on Jan 2, 2026, 10:09 PM
Tags
Related issues
- (1) Because it doesn't actually solve the problem.
- Every time fossil comes up, I hear this same issue - "why is there no rebase?" And honestly, I've never been able to get this argument.
- My biggest problem with running local LLMs on my M4 Max/128GB RAM is the prefill latency.
- Biggest problem with httpx I see is authors sanity https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3784 .
- There aren't many situations today that make one think: Why doesn't this business have a website?
- > IAM can stay MS That's leaving the most critical component still with a US company.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Network)
(1) Because it doesn't actually solve the problem.
NewEvery time fossil comes up, I hear this same issue - "why is there no rebase?" And honestly, I've never been able to get this argument.
My biggest problem with running local LLMs on my M4 Max/128GB RAM is the prefill latency.
Biggest problem with httpx I see is authors sanity https://github.com/encode/httpx/discussions/3784 .
There aren't many situations today that make one think: Why doesn't this business have a website?
> IAM can stay MS That's leaving the most critical component still with a US company.
I am very petty about this one bug and have a very old axe to grind that this reminded me of!
Not just the edge router.
Not just the edge router.
Not just the edge router. Every router between the ISP edge and the destination edge. And since the goal is “backwards-compatability”, you’d always need to poll, because a “legacy” IPv4 client would also be unable to send packets to the IPv4+ destination. Or receive packets with an IPv4+ source address. And it would be an absolute nightmare to maintain. CGNAT + a quasi backwards-compatible protocol where the backwards-compatability wouldn’t work in practice. So you would have exactly the same problem as IPv6. I can say the same about v4 and v6 today. You could just turn off IPv4 on the internet, and we’d only need to do translation on the edge for the legacy clients that would still use IPv4. You can even put IPv4 addresses in IPv6 packets!
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.