News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Protocol Wars by zekica on Thursday May 11, 2023 @05:54AM (#35899967)
The main issue with IPv6 adoption is people who didn't learn IPv4 before NAT, and want to use the hammer (IPv4 NAT) for everything.
Re:Protocol Wars by pif on Thursday May 11, 2023 @06:10AM (#35900098)
A hammer working fine today, that you own, is better than a machine tool tomorrow, that you'll have to pay.
Re:Protocol Wars by fknorangesite on Thursday May 11, 2023 @11:34AM (#35903673)
I wish we had an idiom for this. Maybe something bird-related.
Re:Protocol Wars by talideon on Thursday May 11, 2023 @06:06AM (#35900071)
Also, developers who don't know how to get their daemons to listen on multiple interfaces at once.
Re:Protocol Wars by cesarb on Thursday May 11, 2023 @09:02AM (#35901429)
That's not necessary; listening on the wildcard IPv6 address without the "IPv6 only" flag enabled on the socket is enough. A IPv4 connection arriving at it is mapped to a special IPv6 address, so the code doesn't have to care about IPv4.

Unless you were using Windows, where IIRC the IPv4 and IPv6 stacks were separate, and a single socket couldn't be used to listen to both at the same time. (This might already have been fixed in more recent Windows releases.)