It's already the major protocol in many countries. A decade ago people were laughing, saying IPv6 will never break 10% adoption. Now it's 50% and somehow people are still making the same joke. Are we insidiously shifting the goalpost somehow?

I don't know 'bout you but ots of services are confident enough in the technology to allow IPv6-only as an option, see eg. Hertzner.

At this point one has to be borderline delusional to think IPv6 is only viable in another 25 years.

"Making everything optional" is for the embedded space.

As for general purpose processors, RISC-V has always had the idea of profiles (mandatory set of extensions). Just look at the G extension, which mandated floating point, multiply/division, atomics, ... things that you expect to see on user-facing general-purpose processors.

> the belated admission that maybe we shouldn't have everything as optional extras

That's why I disagree with the above claim.

(1) The optionality is a feature of RISC-V and it allows RISC-V to shine on different ecosystems. The desktop isn't everything.

(2) RISC-V has always addressed the fear of fragmentation on the desktop by using profiles.

>which seems still debatable

In what way are RISC-V profiles debatable? Canonical is spearheading the RVA23-as-a-default movement and so far, it seems that there are no heavy objections towards that effort (beyond the usual "Canonical sucks" shtick that you see in every discussion involving Canonical)

>What kind or ancient arm hardware are they using here?

I think that's the point being made here. ARM in the 2000s was not known to be fast, now it is.

RISC-V being slow isn't an inherent characteristic of the ISA, it only tells you about the quality of its implementations. And said implementations will only improve if corporations are throwing capitals at it (see: Apple, Qualcomm, etc.)

I think standard Arm cores are already plenty fast, the issue is the SoC vendors are still using cortex-A57 from 2015 instead of the new designs.

I am not talking about modern ARM though.

Go is pretty minimalistic as a language though. At least I don't feel that it has the same expressiveness as either Zig or Rust.

>Support for IPv6 is notoriously bad in residential modems.

No? Over here at (South) East Asia we have been deploying IPv6 for nearly a decade now. The users are getting their IPv6 connectivity. Before someone jumps out and shouts SeCuRiTy: the firewall is enabled by default.

I am not saying the support is perfect. I know some people moan about lackluster IPv6 configuration in many routers. But for 90% of residential internet users (who care about pretty much nothing but the ability to watch YouTube and browsing social media), it damn sure is.

I am tired of people claiming that you can make a "new Internet protocol that is compatible with IPv4".

No, backwards compatibility is not the problem here: IPv6-only hosts can easily connect to IPv4 hosts. Just append "64:ff9b::" to an existing IPv4 address, like so: 64:ff9b::8.8.8.8. Even prior to NAT64, we have plenty of schemes like 6to4 to bridge IPv4 and IPv6.

But no IPv4 hosts can ever connect to IPv6 hosts, or IPv7, or IPvInfinite for that matter. I will refer to my previous comment on why that is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46469336

I think the people complaining about compatibility are more talking about the concepts in IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 could have been "everything is the same except the IP address is 16 bytes instead of 4". Instead there are new ways to do everything.

Addressing works differently (no broadcast, multicast everywhere, link-local is mandatory). Configuration works differently (SLAAC, RA, DHCPv6 is not a drop-in replacement for regular DHCP). Neighbor discovery replaces ARP and depends on ICMPv6 working. Fragmentation behavior changed. NAT is “not a thing” by design, which breaks a bunch of assumptions people built entire networks around.

Reading comprehension! The GP was clearly referring to the current AI boom, which is the root cause of DRAM price surging.

Very apt username for the occasion.

When something happens over IPv4 people treat it like "the Internet has malicious actors, water is wet", but when it happens over IPv6 it must be IPv6's fault.

Sigh...

Most network vulnerabilities apply equally to both, but of the ones that don’t, most are IPv6 only. This bothers me. I don’t like adding unnecessary attack surface to my infrastructure.